User talk:Tmckeage

Welcome
G'day Tmckeage - I'm not overly into the official adoption thing anymore but am happy to answer questions etc. so ask away. I'm pretty good on helping with Good and Featured Article content and can help out in improving an article if you want - what you keen on writing about? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay - a good place to ask for help on articles is Peer Review, as well as the relevant wikiprojects - medicine and earthquakes come to mind.

Plan of attack - (1) comprehensiveness - get everything you think the article should have in it (2) reference it with reliable sources (3) copyedit. Once last done, nominate at WP:GAN. I think the Projectional radiography is more doable first up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: Have you done inline referencing yet? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean on the ALARA, ALARP and protection pages - believe me this is quite common when you find an off-set page you want to bluelink to and maybe expand is a mess. Still, it is only one segment. I left some notes on the talk page to look at. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that can sit on the backburner for a while. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Projectional radiography
Hi Tmc. I would be happy to help with this although a little tied up on a few things at work over the next week. Radiology/Imaging is a little different in the UK to the USA, espcially the number of projections taken and the types there of. In simple terms, the UK is a lot more conservative regarding types of projection taken and the number of projections then many other countries. Plus, in the UK Radiographers have more control as to what projections are taken and what is most suitable (it is very easy for a UK Radiographer to refuse to conduct an examination then anywhere else). Much of this is related to IRMER regulations

Then there are NICE guidelines of course. There are of course, also differences between hospitals and Trusts based on each hospitals local IRMER file (local protocols) as defined by (trying to use USA terms?) the Clinical Director of Radiology. But all of these of course are based on latest research and generally are pretty much the same across hospitals for the "standard" projections. But there are still variations. Thus you might go to one large trauma centre where the standard projections in the suspected C-Spine fracture work-up might be AP, Lat and Peg (with swimmers when the C7/T1 junction has not been visualized). go to another where the initial imaging pathway is AP, Lat, peg, Ob and swimmers and yet another where it is AP, Lat, Peg and Obs only where C7/T1 has not been visualized (there was some research on this a year or two ago in the UK, I shall try and find it and send you a link/copy if you are interested) Access to equipment will make a difference also of course and this can be highly variable given NHS funding. Thus a hospital with limited access to CT is far more likely toi conduct IVUs, BEs or even skull Xrays then a hospital with good access to enough scanners (and the radiographers to operate them and radiologists/Radiographers to report them (I am unsure about the USA but but reporting Radiographers are very common in the UK across modalities but frequently in Trauma and Fluro (BE, Gastro, etc) reporting. Also, the number of Consultant Radiographers is growing too)

As for standard references, as regard to positioning for none fluoroscopic/none/none interventional imaging (but including paediatric and orthopedic imaging) this would be  CLARK'S POSITIONING RADIOGRAPHY (12th ed is the latest) I think. The following website produced by a clinical lecturer and Radiographer is frequently visited by Radiographers, SHOs, SPRs and the odd consultant :-).

I hope this helps, but given a week or so would be happy to help with the UK section.  Tucker talk 05:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

References/Links

Radiologic technologist
If the term Radiographer is commonly used in the USA, as other parts of the world, then I do not see why not. WIKI tends to be very USA centric though, so you might want to keep this in mind. It might be worth talking to some of your colleagues perhaps? Do you have a professional body? Alas, I might not be of great help with this as I am not a Radiographer, although I work in a slightly related field.  Tucker talk 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Greetings , I see you're up for adoption. I'll extend an adoption offer formally, but really it's just a good way to get personally in touch with an experienced editor. Casliber (above) is great and I'm alright too. Remove all the templates if you ever come to dislike the adoption idea, but I'm still here. If ever you need advice or answers, feel free to ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2010 earthquakes looks solid. Being nothing of a seismologist, I would imagine that all quakes over a certain magnitude should be included. A line must be drawn - we can't describe every .00001-magnitude blip that the monitoring stations pick up. So what is that magical number? I dunno - maybe check with WikiProject Earthquakes. Maybe there's a certain threshold defined for a "true earthquake" though I don't see one mentioned in the earthquake article. - Draeco (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As for inclusionism, I generally think most of the arguments at Inclusionism have merit. I'd be happy to discuss any given point. I want to get the word out too, especially to recruit people to the trenches at AfD, but I'm stymied. I used to think that Wikiproject Inclusion was the place to do this, but I'm afraid that would be Canvassing, specifically Votestacking, and so it would get smacked down before it ever really took off. Please enlighten me if you think of a solution. - Draeco (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just be what you believe, whatever the labels applied. Having said that, what you mention is called Mergism. There is certainly no policy like what you mentioned, because that would nullify AfD, but it touches on the Eventualist spirit. I'm sure there have been several Wikipedia essays written to that effect, but they have no bureaucratic power. - Draeco (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Punjabi Wikipedia
Thank you for your comments at Articles for deletion/Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia. You may be interested in Articles for deletion/Western Punjabi Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to 2010 earthquakes has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ''See here. USGS confirms a magnitude 4.1 earthquake 185 km (115 miles) W of Puerto Angel, Oaxaca.'' Alan (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

List of songs by Taylor Swift
Hello, I created the page List of songs by Taylor Swift without aware/known that the page List of Taylor Swift songs previously nominated for deletion.

The page created by mine has new layout and I really hope that it will be kept, as I will make further improvement to it. Have your say here, thank you. I will notice other users joined above AfD, too. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 08:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)