User talk:Strombollii/Archive24

Welcome to Wikipedia

 * Let me be the first to welcome you and commend you on your enthusiasm and ability to follow instructions. The Wikipedia mantra is BE BOLD. For me at least, just making an account took a great deal of courage. The next logical step in your Wikipedia indoctrination is to energize your home page. It will serve as an excellent place to learn some of the basic wiki-codes without dorking up an article. Editing skills will require some experimentation and self teaching. The easiest way to start is to visit others and “steal” some ideas. By that - I mean click the edit tab and see their html codes which you can copy and paste into yours. CAREFUL --- don’t edit their page…. COPY not cut!!!!! You can then adjust it to reflect your own personal style. Feel free to be creative. Try to provide some insight into who you are while still maintaining your Anonymity. Personally I like the community’s use of user boxes to provide some insight into your way of thinking.  --JimmyButler (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)



User Page
User Page looks fine. You are off to a good start. --JimmyButler (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Genetic equilibrium
Aha! This may actually be quite a good move, yet with some possible problems. Human body was always going to be vast and unmanageable, maybe. Or rather, manageable, but a challenge. Genetic equilibrium might be a better choice, but it presents a different set of problems. In human body your task would have been to sort through a mass of material and make a coherent article out of it - none of the material is especially technical or hard to understand, but it would be quite tricky to make it all hang together as a coherent article. In genetic equilibrium the issue, as I see it, is quite different. It's a very technical subject. Rather than having too much material and having to decide what to leave out, you may have problems of (a) finding enough material and (b) understanding it and making it understandable to others. I'm no expert in the subject, but I hope I can help you find your way through it - even if largely as a guinea-pig reader who can point out what makes sense to the layman and what doesn't. It might be a good idea to run your subject choice past JimmyButler, if you haven't already done so. It strikes me that it's pretty techinical and mathematical. Can you cope with scientific modeling? Do you understand concepts like Evolutionarily stable strategy? Is the Hardy–Weinberg principle second nature to you? I'm not trying to put you off (honest!) - but it strikes me that you want to make sure you aren't biting off more than you can chew. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica
That, I am sure, will be a more graspable subject. Good solid medical condition. Lots of other wikipedia articles on similar topics (including many featured articles) to use as a model. Plenty of information in PubMed, and via PubMed in lots of other places... Are you familiar with PubMed? If not, I have a feeling you are about to become so! Good luck! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, I have been pre-occupied! :-P Any who, I believe you are looking for WP:MEDMOS. That should give you a detailed overview of the proper structure for most medical articles. If all else fails, you can use a similar layout as mine - it seems to be approved. Generally speaking though, the order of topics (pathophysiology, prognosis, treatment etc.) is determined by their relevance to classifying the disease. For example, if OFB (Osteitis fibr..) was classified primarily by the effects of the disease, than you may want to move "Pathophysiology" up - closer to your lead, or opening, section. If you have any more questions, feel free to drop me note or ask in bio sometime. FoodPuma 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. The link was helpful, and in a bit, when I can once again look at this article without immediately becoming bleary-eyed, I'll revise it.  =]Strombollii (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You want some suggestions? OK, let's have a go. I assume you have had a look at WP:MOSMED - and specifically at WP:MOSMED. If not, do - there's a handy checklist of subheadings/sections there. In the article, you could try and split the present section on causes into causes and pathophysiology, and that on treatment into prevention, treatment, and prognosis. If nothing else, this would help you to learn what all those fancy medical terms mean! To gather some material, try running a search on PubMed for (e.g.) "osteitis fibrosa prognosis" (without the quotes). You might also try and construct a section of External links (though I know that WP:MOSMED doesn't like this!). Finally (for now), look at the reference list. I understand that precise formatting of references isn't an essential part of the assignment, but it might be a good idea to try and make them look more "medical" - by which I mean Vancouver style - this is the reference style used by nearly all medical publications. WP:MOSMED contains an example, in the "citing medical sources" section. SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Snalwimba. I'll start breaking up the article and implementing some changes.  I'll get to work on the references list tomorrow. Strombollii (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Strombollii (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - and happy new year! I'm no expert in wikipedia "rules" concerning GA/FA status, etc, and I want to keep away from such bureaucracy - but I think the article now looks pretty good. I've fiddled with a few things (a few typos etc), as you will see. I think it should be put it forward as a GA nomination - and my very limited experience of such things tells me that this will bring a heap of comments and criticismas out of the woodwork. Some annoying, but also some useful. But if I were you I'd go for it. One other little thing you might like to attend to - don't you think the dismabiguation page at OFC really should include Osteitis fibrosa cystica - why don't you pay it a visit and add your article? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice -- just changed the disambiguation page and am submitting for GA now. Thanks for all the help =D Strombollii (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm... Looks like the GA review didn't exactly do what it was supposed to. I saw the reviewer's comments the other day, thought "that looks less than adequate", then was too busy to come back to it - and I have just now returned and found all the comments about the indadequacy of the review at Talk:Osteitis fibrosa cystica and elsewhere. I think it's actually a good thing that it has been delisted. As I said before, I know little about the formalities of GA status and so on (and I don't want to get sucked into wikibureaucracy, so it's going to stay that way!), but I guess a GA pass needs at least a more thorough review than your article got. The delisting clearly creates some problems for JimmyButler and you in grading the project, but maybe (no, definitely) that's a salutory lesson too! I reckon the answer is to use GA status etc as but one part of a grading system that the teacher is ultimately in control of. But I know nothing about the American school system either! Anyway - you now seem to have several qualified people (i.e. physicians) taking an interest in the article, and I am sure the end result will be greatly to the benefit of the article. I'm going to sit back and watch for a while. But I will chip in if and when I can. Keep up the good work! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. It's certainly...well, it's an interesting situation. JimmyButler has made a few comments in reference to the actual grading system on his talk page, as well as on Talk:Osteitis fibrosa cystica.  As for the actual review, it's a setback, but has succeeded in getting some incredibly qualified people over to review.  So, as you said, it's probably all for the best.  Thank you again! Strombollii (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikihelp!.. and some (possibly) usefull links
Hey, I was looking for some books to read over my extended break (seeing as I will have only one EOC test). Any good reads you might care to suggest?

Also, I took the liberty to send "messages" (write on people's talk pages) for the most active members of the "doctors mess" who helped me. At least two of them are doctors (both from Europe, one from the UK), with another being a medstudent - they should be able to help you. Oh, and if you are looking for pictures check this out:
 * http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/1607941148_9b5555352f.jpg?v=0 (Being from flickr, you only have to use the "flickr option" when uploading... it will verify its'self)
 * http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/abem/v50n5/32238f2.jpg found on the following page:
 * http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27302006000500021&nrm=iso&tlng=pt (Will have to send an email asking for permission to use, you can always feel free to modify the one I attached to the end of this post...)

feel free to use my login info if you want to get access to this page (a search for osteitis fibrosa cystica under medscape journals):
 * http://search.medscape.com/medscape-search?queryText=Osteitis%20fibrosa%20cystica

The email I used to Orthogate.org... should you use it, remember to remove the links and replace the Orthogate titles:

To those at Orthogate,

I am an editor of the Wikipedia, a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate open content encyclopedia. The English-language version may be viewed on the Web at http://en.wikipedia.org/. We gather information from many sources, and professional medical sites are often particularly useful. As a unique and highly visible project, we freely and publically release our work, that it may benefit mankind. To this end, we punctiliously respect copyright, and have studied the terms of your copyright.

We understand that we may not use your material in the intentions of "[transmitting] or [reproducing] in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing." Our question centers on the right to use two images published in your article "Knee Pain in Athelete" (http://www.orthogate.org/cases/sports-medicine/knee-pain-in-an-athlete.html) and the relation between a restricted or educational copyright and our own. We maintain copyright over the material we create, but license its use under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. You can find the license text at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.

The license stipulates that any copy of the material, even if modified, must carry the same license and be attributed to Orthogate. Consequently, we may not inherit any Orthogate copyright restrictions on free distribution of content. For example, although I might copy your image with the intentions of using it solely in the Wikipedia article Osteochondritis Dissecans, others may copy and redistribute the image freely for use in projects while maintaining its CC 3.0 status.

That said, the intended use of the following material is for the improvement of the Wikipedia article Osteochondritis Dissecans. This medical article is currently being improved and is in desperate need of quality images that visually support the information found in the text.

We wish to copy material from the Web sites of the American Academy of Family Physicians and re-license it under the CC-SA 3.0. We would be grateful if you could provide us, specifically, with permission to use the following images:

http://www.orthogate.org/images/stories/cases/osteochondral_defect/OCD_XR_AP.jpg

and

http://www.orthogate.org/images/stories/cases/osteochondral_defect/OCD_XR_Lat.jpg

These images are found in your article "Knee Pain in an Athlete" at (http://www.orthogate.org/cases/sports-medicine/knee-pain-in-an-athlete.html). Both of these radiographs would be instrumental in supporting our current factual evidence taken from credible medical journals and respected organizations/websites.

I can be contacted by e-mail at __(email here)__ and by telephone at __(telephone here)__ (I am in time zone UTC-5 – if you call, please let it be known that I may not answer at unreasonable hours due to school, work and/or sleep.) Also, should you agree to allow us permission, we require that you include the following statement in your email to make certain your understanding of the license stipulations:

"I ___(Name here)___ release these image documents for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. I understand that this allows anyone to use them for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works (subject to applicable laws)." Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by FoodPuma (talk • contribs) 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FNA
Having trouble finding the original article on FNA. Here are a couple others:

-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18702368
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15480872?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Re your note
Yup, no problem. As I mentioned, I dislike fact-bombing an article - some authors take a rather dim view of it - so I always check first. EyeSerene talk 17:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, I haven't forgotten about the tags - I'm waiting until you've done the bulk of the content editing first though. EyeSerene talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're doing a really good job so far ;) If you're running into difficulties, or think that some of the issues raised in the review are wrong or don't apply, please say so. A GA review is intended to be a collaborative look at the article with the GA criteria used as guidance, and as you'll have noticed different reviewers don't necessarily see things the same way (for example, given Axl's comments, maybe I'm expecting too much from the history section). Feel free to post comments and questions on the review, and don't feel everything is set in stone! EyeSerene talk 10:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be a distraction...
This is the only day you can talk about the hex codes of UNC-CH and not have me mock you. Consider this a warning!--Yohmom (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been watchlisted...--Yohmom (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Progress check
Just dropping in to see how you're feeling about the GA review, and if you'd like a hand or clarification with anything. If there's anything I can do, let me know ;) EyeSerene talk 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica
GA review page updated with the last few remaining points to be addressed. Thanks for your continued hard work ;) EyeSerene talk 13:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question
To be honest I'm a complete medical n00b :P You might be better asking Axl that one. EyeSerene talk 12:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Review for Osteitis fibrosa cystica
You're welcome. I'll post the review as soon as I have completed it, in a few days. Diderot&#39;s dreams (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what I resort to when FB doesn't work...
So I saw you confessed your love for literature (Change it to Biology! You still have time to suck up! lol) and it reminded me to ask you if I could borrow Bright Lights Big City. So. Can I borrow Bright Lights Big City?--Yohmom (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But of course! Now to find it...Strombollii (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll bet you ten euros that a certain person will see it, roll his eyes and proceed to mutter something to do with teenage angst/adolescence. Maybe if it's a really good day, it will go something like this, "I remember reading stuff like that, in my younger, angst-filled, adolescent days." --Yohmom (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about the certain English teacher who is failing me right now, he's the one who recommended it.Strombollii (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...HA! I knew he had read it. --Yohmom (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about a certain "father" who is very aware of the topic of this book and its focus on the misguided use of Bolivian Marching Powder and the associated drug induced states - then he may need to speak to a certain English teacher over his book selections!?--JimmyButler (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty certain that English teacher in question also highly recommends the sixth edition of Campbell/Reece's BIOLOGY, Tolstoy's War and Peace and several other mind-numbingly boring super fun reads. Plus, un-named father should also be ecstatic that his un-named child is reading instead of eating Doritos and watching Oprah MTV. --Yohmom (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So I finished that book at 2 am this morning...(and not because I had an English test on it the next day!) It was not at all what I expected, but crazy good. Thanks for letting me borrow it. COMA BABY LIVES! --Yohmom (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)