User talk:Stevenfruitsmaak/Archive 3

FA nomination for Bacteria
Hi there, just in case you're passing through. I've nominated this page for FA. Your comments or corrections on its nomination page would be very welcome. TimVickers 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Week
NCurs e work 13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction page length
Hi. Thanks for all the help on the myocardial infarction article. It's been going great so far. However, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't remove entire paragraphs just because the article is "too long". A better approach is to break off sections into separate articles as needed and leave stubs (ie: an article on "Reperfusion strategies for treatment of an acute myocardial infarction" or something like that).

I feel that I can get the article length up to 80K quite easily. When I am done with the whole article (may take a couple months), I will go and start splitting things out a bit, with the goal of leaving a possible feature article that references other good articles. Ksheka 23:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I guess it is a bit frustrating for me when others edit what I write (which makes it unusual that I enjoy writing for wikipedia).  I really do enjoy collaborating with you on this article, but get a little defensive about people editing what I write.  I guess what I need to do is take frequent, small wikiholidays and not pay attention to anyone else's edits.  What set me off was the thing about the article size.  How about we forget about article size and just see where it takes us.  Segmenting the article at a later date is a peice of cake.  Ksheka 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS
I know you're a fan of MEDMOS, and I'd like to thank you again for your excellent work there, and also with the FACs, by the way. But maybe you should refer to MEDMOS a little more cautiously, since it's only a proposed guideline... When I'm back I'll try to resuscitate it, but for now I'm afraid it'll just lie there for a little while longer...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Steven: Requirement 2 of WP:WIAFA is, "It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects" (bolding mine).  Do you think my interpretation is incorrect? Sandy (Talk) 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

your edit to Fart lighting
Thanks for that. I couldn't help but wonder if the other passengers would have been alarmed had she not tried to hide the odor. --EarthPerson 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Thanks for the welcome, Steven! I'll do my best to contribute, though I'm not a native Belgian - Alison✍ 18:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks here as well. I'll do my best on taking your advice about "being bold." Never been to Belgium, but spent my very young childhood with my Grandmother in Holland. My dutch is appalling (especially trying to write it), mar dank je wel! MArcane 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Joining WP:med
Hey Steven, yes I'd love to join WP:med, let me know how I can help. Jack Daw 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit counter question
You can already get an edit count for Wikinews from it (You have to edit the URL though...), but I'll add it to the list of wikis in the interface :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gorki-albumcovers
Aloha Steven,

I looked into the new website of Gorki, found the forum again, searched it for the discussion & found the permission given. Here is a direct link. Regards, Lander (from nl.Wikipedia)

From MoodyGroove
Thanks for the welcome, Steven. It might take me a while to figure out the landscape and culture. The WikiProject Medicine looks interesting. MoodyGroove 16:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Hey Steven, could you please explain to me what the numbers are on my watchlist? For example: (diff) (hist) . . User:MoodyGroove‎; 16:47 . . (+40) . . MoodyGroove (Talk | contribs) (→Articles I've Contributed to:) What is the (+40)? MoodyGroove 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Thanks for the reply, Steven. Most helpful. How do you make a correction when the title of an article is misspelled? See transcutanous pacing. MoodyGroove 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Never mind! It's been corrected by Wouterstomp. Apparently you create a new article with the correct spelling, and then redirect the misspelled title to the new page! Now why didn't I think of that? :) MoodyGroove 02:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * You know, until you mentioned it, I never even noticed the move button! Thanks Steven. MoodyGroove 14:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Move Myocardial infarction -> Acute coronary syndrome
Just wanted to give you a heads-up on my proposal on the Myocardial infarction talk page that we move the entire article over to Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and then cut out the bits that belong in other articles. As you had mentioned earlier, this article is getting a bit large, and this is probably the correct way to go to separate the topic a bit. The final article over at ACS is still going to be very big, but it hopefully will remain more on topic. Other articles that some of the text will move to include Coronary artery disease (which will be merged with Ischaemic heart disease), Complications of coronary artery disease, and Chronic stable angina. Ksheka 17:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcomes
Why would you give a welcome to User talk:Shze who's only contributions have been the additions of spam links, who is acting as a sockpuppet and who has been indefinitely banned from editing? --Armadillo From Hell GateBridge 13:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I didn't know that he was blocked, and because I think those welcome templates give vandals at least the chance to go out there and get to know some of the basic rules around here. I believe it should be good practice to put welcomes on each talk page, especially for vandals.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Illustrations as requested
Dear Steven, a little earlier than expected and nearly in time for some kind of x-mas present I would like to drag your attention to these illustrations, hoping that this is what you were thinking about (drop me a note, if it isn't). Have a nice "rest-christmas" and all the best for 2007!

Yours JHeuser 08:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas
Thanks. That was hilarious! Fvasconcellos 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I say to you that welcome back? :) NCurs e work 14:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy about that... Do you still work in Wikinews? NCurs e work 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of WP:DRUGS and WikiProject Pharmacology
Hi again Steven. I'd like to bring to your attention that a merge between WikiProject Drugs and the newly-created WikiProject Pharmacology has been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs. I would appreciate it if you could weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Snowman
Great idea! I left a message on his talk page too. Aren't you on Wikiholiday? :)) NCurs e  work 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dengue in Cuba
Hi Steve,

There have been two documented outbreaks of Dengue in Cuba. The first was from 1977-1978. It was a dengue type 1 bug and 30-40% of the population became infected. The second strike was in 1981 and was a dengue type 2 bug. This outbreak is decribed as a "seminal event" becuase it "marked the first large-scale appearance on DHF in the western hemisphere". This information came from multiple primary sources cited in a review article. Here are the sources:

The review article (from which I quoted): Innis, B.L. (1995). Dengue and Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever. Exotic Viral Infections. Edited by J.S. Porterfield. Chapman and Hall, London.

The primary sources: Bravo, J.R., Guzman, M.G., and Kouri, G.P. (1987). Why dengue haemorrhagic fever in Cuba? 1. Individualized risk factors for dengue haemorrhagic fever/dengue shock syndrome (DHF/DSS). Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 81, 816-20.

There are also 3 articles by Guzman, two in 1984 and one in 1990, but I am looking at a really bad photocopy of the Innis article's reference list and can't make out all the author names or the journal names. I think there might be a second article in the volume that the Bravo article is in.

I have the review article, but not the primary sources. Might the self-proclaimed wikaholic like to take this and run with it?--162.129.44.19 14:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction
Hi! Myocardial infarction, to which you contributed a lot, is now a featured article candidate! Cheers, WS 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Positive vs Negative rinne
About the Positive and Negative rinne tests (which indicates neurosensory vs conductive hearing loss) ive found examples that say both: http://books.google.com/books?id=aVMdx_eSxwYC&pg=RA1-PA244&lpg=RA1-PA244&dq=positive+rinne+test&source=web&ots=iyfXhvztLK&sig=Yx3IPIm-bIwumgJSqROOlLTUSdw#PRA1-PA247,M1

Seems to suggest that normal = negative, and "A positive Rinne indicate an air-bone gap and, therefore, presumed presence of a conductive hearing loss."

On the other hand: http://ivertigo.net/vertigo/verhearing.html Seems to indicate that conductive hearing loss yields a negative rinne.

http://books.google.com/books?id=whrU2XEvGFIC&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=positive+rinne+test&source=web&ots=UEKNoPA4tU&sig=TWcEWDQkM70QL6xmBVMiRun24Fg#PPA299,M1

Trys to explain this: however if what the above site says is true, this violates a MAJOR medical convention (as the document itself notes) and will likely be changed in the near future (assuming it hasnt already). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.159.38.244 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikinews Thanks
Thanks for removing the request; no hard feelings. My article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot just passed GA status - woo hoo! --David Shankbone 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review of Metabolism
Hi there, this article has been re-written and expanded. Any comments at Peer review/Metabolism/archive1 would be very welcome. TimVickers 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you adopt me
adopt me adopt me adopt me

Graduation
Thanks - I suppose you're right! Your help was invaluable, and I hope someone else will be able to benefit from it much the same way I have. Good luck with whatever studies you have going on at the moment, also. Seegoon 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New Adoptee
Yes! For one thing, I cannot find the button that allows you to start a new article. Not that I have a article to post already, but I would like to know how it works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Texasjune (talk • contribs) 06:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Historical tag at MEDMOS
OK, I admit that I got distracted because of all of my travel; can we try to finish this up and poll for consensus? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS is receiving opinions on whether it is ready to become a guideline. Cheers, Colin°Talk 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews
Yes, it is me. EnviroGranny 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Q: Credit on image page only?
Hi Coolcat,

where does it say that credits for images need to be given on image description pages only? You removed one on Republic Protests.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is common practice to credit at image description page and not every instance of image usage. It isn't an absolute requirement but such linkage is ugly. -- Cat chi? 15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I realise it is very ugly, and I would never add it in such a way on my own cc-by images because I don't really care, but in this instance I begged a Flickr user to give up his beautiful images to illustrate the article, and it is an important incentive for people to see their name on Wikipedia. I know it's common practice, but I would appreciate it if you didn't remove it, however ugly.


 * It might not look good but if we don't do that we often wouldn't have gotten the images in the first place. Moreover, it doesn't limit those images to be free images. I say it's only fair to the image creators that they be attributed were people can see. But most importantly, we expect other reusers of the image to do the same, since most websites don't have image description pages.


 * I also reverted you on Commons, since the image policy there is different and it is standard practice there to credit images as much as possible.


 * --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a commons administrator and am unaware of this. Creative commons images are not required to be "credited" in articles. -- Cat chi? 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I ment Wikinews not Commons, I'm an admin on Wikinews and we have a different policy.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh thats fine. I am glad the confusion is over. On wikinews for credit I would recommend against linking to the flick page. Instead the image description page should be linked. If this isn't common practice I'd like to propose it. Where would be a better place to do this? -- Cat chi? 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello! Just a note to say I moved the credit into comment markers instead of having a link. Links are generally only used for fair use images by professional photographers, not images under cc attribution licenses. The credit is now viewable both on the image description page and in comment markers on the article itself; if people want to know more about the image they will likely click on the picture and see the credit anyway. Regards, — E ditor at  L arge  ( speak )  18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT input
Hello, Stevenfruitsmaak. The Adopt-a-User program is looking for new ideas and input on the program. If you are still interested please stop by the talk page and read some of the ideas being floated and give a comment. If you want to update or change your information on the adopter's list page, now would be a great time! Thanks!  V 6 0  干什么？ · VDemolitions 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Abdominal thrusts and choking
Hi there, as a member of the first aid project, i would value your opinion. I strongly believe that abdominal thrusts does not need it's own article, and should be redirected to choking, where we can have one coherent article on the subject. I think this should be the case because:
 * Abdominal thrusts are only used for choking, and therefore logically sit in that article
 * With how-tos removed from abdominal thrusts, the article is very short, verging on being a stub
 * It avoids people looking either term up having to flick between pages to find the information they require
 * It follows the logic of some other similar changes on the project such as the creation of Emergency bleeding control from the stubs of tourniquet, pressure point etc.
 * It provides a single place of reference on Wikipedia for the information, rather than two 'competing' pages who repeat a lot of the same information

I would very much appreciate any input you might have to support or oppose my view (hey, i'm not right all the time) on the talk page Talk:Abdominal thrusts

Thanks for your time, Owain.davies 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you again, and i know you commented, but i'm having a few issues with another user reverting the edit, without very much reasoned basis - if you are able to help, the talk page is still at Talk:Abdominal thrusts. Thanks Owain.davies 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MonsterPig.jpg
The source is the mother of the boy in the image. The picture is a publicity picture and is available all over the Internet. I certainly wouldn't want to break wiki copyright rules. As a work-around might I suggest we use


 * To illustrate the object in question AND Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information

PianoKeys 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated my article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot for FA status
From the nomination page: (self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Free images
If someone releases an image under the GDFL, can it then be uploaded to the Commons? Bbsrock 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

St. John's Wort extract is an SSRI?
care to weigh in? Doldrums 12:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:


 * Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.


 * The WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.


 * Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.


 * Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!


 * Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.


 * Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.


 * Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.


 * Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template talkheader may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.


 * There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 04:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:


 * The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.


 * The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.


 * Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.


 * Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.


 * Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.

Dr. Cash 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: A fellow Wikimedian needing help
Hi Steven,

I'd be glad to help you out with the interview on Reggie Bibbs. I would probably only be able to upload a DVD, since I don't have a DV interface on my computer.

--Uthbrian (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotavirus GA
Hey Steven—long time no see! :) Just dropping by to ask you something: I noticed you passed Rotavirus as a Good article yesterday, but you seem to have forgotten to add it to Good articles. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gestational diabetes
The article Gestational diabetes you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Gestational diabetes for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. If you have any questions or comments regarding my assessment, please notify me either on the article's or my talk page. --Gimme danger 03:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Birthday
Thank you for the kind words! :) I'm getting older... NCurse work 13:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Doctor's mess.jpg
That's a lot of brewskis on the table, Steven :) I hope the party was good... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Co-maintainer to medical portal
And just how do I become one? Or is it just a 'keep on supporting' sort of role? Cyclonenim (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If i'm honest, I don't even know what the automated update system is ;) I'll try my best to regularly contribute by suggesting ideas. Cyclonenim (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. So if I wanted to create a featured article for (I don't actually intend to use this date) 3rd March 2008, then which page would I create? Cyclonenim (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I understand now. If I did this I assume it would then be checked and removed if not to the appropriate standard of a featured article (I'm pretty sure I know what constitutes one though)? Cyclonenim (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Journal Allergy Clinical Immunology cover.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Journal Allergy Clinical Immunology cover.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikinews Importer Bot
What a fantastic idea! You guys are doing some great job at WikiNews! :) How are you, Steven? NCurse work 10:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

DR
Here is a deletion review that may interest you. I believe that you contributed to the Afd on that article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_23#Adult-child_sex

- Ed.

Category:Eponymous diseases
I apologize for the delay, I spent three weeks away, and then didn't look closely at my talk page until just now. I didn't close the discussion, that was User:Radiant!. All I did was carry out the decision that he made ... Any of us can implement whatever is in Categories for discussion/Working. As far as DRV, you can if you like, but in general, categorizing things based on their name is non-defining, see Overcategorization. -- Prove It (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steven!
Since I've found you in the recent AfD on Adult-child sex not too opposed to the general idea to strengthen our encyclopedia with reliable, comprehensive, substantial, and essential material also on unpopular topics, and since you obviously have a basic grasp of German, I've been meaning to ask about your support.

A thought I've been harboring lately is putting up an essay within my userspace on the main source for my draft (which is Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88) to one day maybe be moved to Wikipedia, WikiBooks, or WikiEssays. I'd once put this up on the German Wikipedia as an article and it held up for half a year, from May 2006 until January 2007, until someone on a personal revenge crusade removed it by means of an AfD (where votes were split 50:50 and of course most wanting to get it deleted did nothing more than point to their severe disgust, although that AfD actually lasted for 2 months before it was closed). This essay of mine was actually so influential that I found literal quotes lifted from it in a nation-wide newspaper endorsing them, that literal quotes were endorsed by a German General Medical Council, and just the same with an official brochure issued by an Austrian government department, I found my very own words in all those cases. Googling for it, I found that a number of people had saved personal backups of the article in various places on the web, and there also were several forums debating its content while linking to my article on Wikipedia.

So, I've been meaning to ask you if you'd be willing to have a look at my German essay after I'll have put it up in my userspace here on the English Wikipedia and tell me whether you think it's a good idea for me to translate it to English and for the time being leaving it as the draft of an English Wikipedia article in my userspace to one day maybe be moved to Wikipedia, WikiBooks, or WikiEssays. The basic idea of this essay of mine is a Wikipedia article on an existing work (Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88), comparable to articles such as Civilization and Its Discontents and Dialectic of Enlightenment. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Medicine
Hi Steven, sorry about the title casing, just a bad habit! As for the dating on the DYK archives, I thought I did add the dates of when I added the latest DYK? If not, I apologise. Hope your studies are going well :) CycloneNimrod (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah good, i've tried getting some work experience with a GP and I can't say it is going particularly well (generally because it is such a popular choice!). However i've managed to grab some in respiratory :) So it's okay. Which medical school are you at? CycloneNimrod (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant! I'm hoping to apply to Newcastle in September (mainly because my GCSE results were poor, and newcastle doesnt place constraints really which is good) assuming I get 3 A's at A2. What's your course like? (I mean, is it lecture-based, PBL or intergrated?) CycloneNimrod (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, sorry to hear that, but on the plus side theory-based medicine has a fair few advantages (for example you'll have a very good all-round knowledge) but I could be wrong. Have you finished your 'official learning' years now and onto Clinical Skills? CycloneNimrod (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never thought i'd say it, but now i'm a huge fan of the NHS! (kidding, i'm quite a big supporter anyway) I'm surprised that anyone complains about it to be honest, it's free health care and that's pretty good. Would you ever consider going to work somewhere in the UK or do you intend to stay in Belgium? CycloneNimrod (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight
NCurse work 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcoming to the Medical Project
Just tell me what to do and I'll do it

Thank You --Juthani1 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in the Biomedical side I am interested with Cardiovascular stuff I am interested in diseases and other various medical conditions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juthani1 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Chromosomes
I have realized that some of the articles dealing the chromosome types( example- Chromosome 1,2,3...xy) have this on the discussions page. But not all of them do. Should I place these on all of them?

Also on the wiki ads thing, I noticed Grey's Anatomy was spelled with an a. This needs to be corrected--Juthani1 (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Council roll call
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Stroke
Sterling work there, good chap. I have not forgotten about our discussions in January... JFW | T@lk  21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Random DYKs
Hi, I'll remove the dates. Just so you know if another DYK is added to the archive, it also has to be added to the bottom section without 3 DYKs here:Portal:Medicine/Did you know. So the next one would go in scetion 17, Portal:Medicine/Did you know/17. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  16:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Familial hypercholesterolemia
I'm sure you'd noticed, but I've submitted familial hypercholesterolemia for good article candidacy. Delldot has done a further review and made some fixes himself. Thanks a lot for working all those papers into the article. It is now completely sourced (apart from a small section about ancient drugs for FH, such as probucol and L-thyroxine). JFW | T@lk  09:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * GA succeeded! Whoooeeee! JFW | T@lk  14:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)



Adminship on Wikinews
Just wondering, but what do you have to do to become an admin on that? Juthani1   tcs 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have only made one edit on wikinews so far and will continue to do so. Thanks for your help    Juthani1    tcs 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot further reading references
Hi there, nice edits to gene articles. Just a quick note. IMHO, no need to move the PBB "further reading" references to the talk pages. Once an article is pretty fully referenced with inline references, that list becomes obsolete. And if someone really wanted to get at them, they're one click away at the Entrez Gene page. Keep up the good work... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

what the?
it was not a test. who are you? leave my edits alone, that is, dont revert them as though i had just randomly typed them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.66.9 (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

IBS article
Thanks for the change, I didn't think of that. It is much more appropriate and reads better too. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Geriatric topics
Hi there, thanks for suggesting the pneumonia topic. I will try to get more references for it. I agree that health care associated pneumonia is a very important article. --Mudassar Zia (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: WikiProject Neurology
Aye, it's a shame that so many of the WikiProjects have dried up but I still think it's better to have them there for use when people need them. I started Neurology because i've found that most of my edits are starting to revolve around neurology articles and so I can maintain the WikiProject just by continuing my normal activities. Feel free to get involved, although I admit that WP:MED is a much more productive project ;) Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?  contribs? 13:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiBelgium
Bedankt...The reason I stopped at your page was to find out about WikiBelgium project. I asked in many places but can't seem to get a reply. I'm on Holiday from the Low Countries for a while (a long story) but would like to get involved when I "get back." ...clean-up, minor editing, anything. Take care...--Buster7 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

uptodate cost
I though it was not necessary to include the cost because it is not encyclopaediac material (it lacks notability). Uptodate is like any other software i've checked adobe premiere,microsoft office, and sony vegas don't mention prices although they too are quiteexpensive. Tbe Vista article mentions the price but in the context that the users thought the price was too expensive and the article provides citations for this. Unless, there are issues related to the price backed which are mentioned in secondary sources than I believe there is no need to put the price.Ziphon (ALLears) 08:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What would be great to add about uptodate is the cost for different people / groups. My institution looked into getting it a few years back. We never did as the rumor was that it would be 50,000$ USD per year. Jmh649 (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi, Steven. Thank you for suggesting that I may be suitable for administratorship. However I'm not sure that there are actually any administrator-level tasks that I would be helpful for. If you can point me to specific recommendations, I would certainly consider it. Regards. Axl (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
I am astonished to see that you only have one barnstar. Axl (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

IBS Definition and the IBS Treatment Center
Two separate issues: 1. You have nominated the page on the IBS Treatment Center for deletion. The IBS Treatment Center page simply provides factual information about the existence of the facility. Do you think such pages in general should be removed? If so, what about the page about the Mayo Clinic? How famous does an entity need to be before a simple factual page on Wikipedia is OK?

2. You reverted my change on the IBS page regarding the clarification of what it means to be a syndrome defined by symptoms. Please explain how calling something a 'functional' entity is different than simply recognizing that symptoms exist but the cause is unknown. You mention that IBS is a 'real entity'. Please clarify what this means. It would appear that the term 'functional bowel disorder' just means disorder of unknown cause. The ROME III paper (GASTROENTEROLOGY 2006;130:1480–1491) specifically states:"The functional bowel disorders (Table 1) are identified only by symptoms." and "Moreover, IBS, functional bloating, functional constipation and functional diarrhea may have multiple etiologies."

I feel this issue is actually the crux of the problem with proper diagnosis and treatment of patients who have IBS symptoms. Conceptualizing this symptom group as a discrete condition ignores the vast array of published research showing that patients who exhibit these symptoms often have conditions that are both identifiable through testing and treatable. You can find a collection of some of that research on the Innate Health Foundation website at www.innatehealthfoundation.org/5_c.htm.

One way to interpret this array of research is that IBS symptoms have many different causes which may co-exist in the same patient. Standard testing (CBC, colonoscopy, etc.) does not offer the opportunity to detect many of the most common causes of IBS symptoms. Unfortunately the ROME III paper recommends against additional testing. For example, in studies of IgE and IgG mediated food allergies and IBS, many patients who eliminate foods to which ELISA-based testing indicates elevated immune response dramatically reduce or eliminate their IBS symptoms. Few of these studies test for a wide range of foods, and none have also tested for celiac disease, non-obvious infections, bacterial imbalances, or parasites and thus are unable to determine if the failure to achieve better outcomes is due to undetected food allergies or other co-existing conditions.

Your comment on celiac is also interesting. Studies like the Canadian Celiac Health Survey have shown that patients with IBS are very likely to be diagnosed with IBS and to go more than a decade before properly being identified as having celiac. "The mean delay in diagnosis was 11.7 years. Diagnoses made prior to celiac disease included anemia (40%),stress (31%), and irritable bowel syndrome (29%)." (Full text of the study linked on the Innate Health Foundation research page.) The  interesting thing to me is that if you follow the ROME III diagnostic criteria this is exactly the outcome that one would expect. The patient presents with IBS symptoms. Following the guidelines they are only provided limited testing and perhaps a colonoscopy to rule out colon cancer. After many years additional symptoms may prompt a celiac test. But in the meantime, the patient was (absolutely correctly according to the definition and recommendations) diagnosed with IBS. I think the evidence (all these studies) indicate that IBS, because it is defined by symptoms and those symptoms have been shown to be caused by a wide variety of conditions for which testing is not usually done, is not a 'real entity' but rather a collection of un-identified conditions. It is many, many real entities that may affect any individual patient and sometimes co-exist. People who satisfy the diagnostic criteria for IBS may (and often do) have testable, treatable conditions. I think that the primary challenge in understanding IBS is conceptualizing it as a single entity with a single cause and looking for a single treatment regiment. Especially for those that are looking for a single drug (or herbal or psychological) solution.

Your bio indicates that you are in medical school. I assume that you have studied the history of stomach ulcers and H. Pylori. Imagine if there were 3 very different bacteria that all were capable of causing identical ulcers but were only susceptible to completely different treatment interventions. How many more decades would have been required before one of the causes of stomach ulcers was finally accepted?

I look forward to your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renovator (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's come up with a solution for the IBS Page
So we sort of understand each other and perhaps at least partially agree. This should enable us to find a way to update the IBS page in a way that we can agree on.

We agree that many cases that are correctly diagnosed as IBS are actually testable, treatable conditions that unfortunately are seldom tested or treated.

Where we seem to depart is in two areas: 1. The extent to which a wikipedia article should tell people how much testing in appropriate in their care. and 2. That there is consensus that 'real' IBS is a 'brain-gut' abnormalities that can't be detected with standard testing.

To address #1: I have spoken with many patients who have been told by their doctor that there was nothing more that could be done for them and that they just had to learn to live with their problem. Some have had to stop work, or had other significant disruption to their lives. I don't think it is acceptable to present an IBS page on wikipedia that denies the fact that there is additional testing and treatment that can be done that often finds and resolves the underlying cause of IBS. The fact that 'standard testing' does not include adequate testing for parasites, microbiological issues, food allergies and celiac disease is a political and economic problem, not a scientific one. We know, from the published research, that testing for and treating these conditions allows a very significant percentage of IBS patients to end or significantly reduce their IBS symptoms. I think this fact is very important, especially to those who have IBS and dont' want to have it anymore. If you had spoken with some of the patients I have talked to and heard the levels of desperation, thoughts of suicide, etc. I think you might see this differently.

To address #2: There does seem to be some consensus about a brain-gut condition present in some patients with IBS. However, outside of the few researchers in the US that seem to be focussed on this idea there seems to be a lot of support for the idea that the brain-gut abnormalities are the result of other conditions (infection, allergies, etc.) that disturb the immune system, which then causes changes to the nervous system. Again, I would point you to the research, particularly articles like Barbara, et. al. (Gastroenterology Volume 132, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 26-37 - full text available through the Innate Health Foundation research page. Globally, researchers seem to be studying the testable, treatable causes of IBS and finding them.

I propose that we add text to the IBS site that points out that there are many conditions that can cause IBS symptoms, that testing for them is not currently standard practice or recommended by major physicians groups, but is supported by published, peer-reviewed research.

Unfortunately while I can point you to some patient testimonials, resources have not been available to put together a research project that can use all the data collected from the many patients successfully treated after years and sometimes decades of suffering with IBS and being told repeatedly that they just had to live with IBS. I look forward to eventually seeing this data assembled and published. It would go a long way towards ending the myth that IBS patients need to be diagnosed solely on symptoms and then left to learn to live with it or try treatments that don't directly address the root cause of their symptoms. 64.38.185.91 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes
Hi Steven,

Thank you for your notes, I will follow them one by one. Korazim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korazim (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Will add the pubmed links. Just starting out with wikipedia and getting used to the formatting. Jmh649 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks!
I didn't know about google scholar search site, seems to be in Beta. Medicellis (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration
JFW | T@lk  06:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"New method of tension free open inguinal hernia repair without mesh, based on the physiological principle"
Mesh is a foreign body. Therefore, its use in hernia repairs is known to cause complications like pain, recurrence, infection etc. An innovative new technique of inguinal hernia repair without mesh has been published in the international journals. It uses your own body muscle for repair. The trials conducted by many surgeons from different countries have shown virtually zero% recurrence rate. ,, , , , , , , , , , , , This inguinal hernia surgery is without mesh or any foreign body. Even sutures used are absorbable, a thing which was never imagined till today. An undetached strip of the external oblique aponeurosis goes behind the cord to form a new posterior wall between the inguinal ligament and the muscle arch. This newly formed posterior wall is kept physiologically dynamic by the additional muscle strength given by the external oblique muscle. There are almost no recurrences, no pain, patient can go home in a day after surgery and drive car and go to office in 3-4 days time.Desarda (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)