User talk:AED/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 C-Tools 2.0 3 VfD 4 Medical Categorizations 5 Copyright issue 6 Complaints 6.1 etronic 7 Thanks! 8 Homeopathy 9 Thanks! 10 I feel your pain 11 Canada Health Act 12 Healthcare 13 Apology 14 List of famous pneumonia suffers 15 Ophthalmology subcats 16 Visual Snow/Astigmatism Connection? 17 Recurrent corneal erosion 18 Sydney J. Bush 19 Medical record on MCOTW 20 Referencing 21 Myopia 22 LASIK reversion 23 Chelation therapy 24 SSRI 25 Thanks 26 Heterochromia 27 Nursing care plans on VFD 28 Black fold on optomitrist glasses 29 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by year 30 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the American Civil War 31 Jewish lists 32 Better Off Dead Soundtrack 33 Jewish/Catholic lists for deletion= 34 Re: FYI 35 Obesity Article 36 Re: Chiropractic (disambiguation) 37 Ophthalmology 38 Natasha Demkina 39 Sources for Hypertensive retinopathy 40 Improving AVMA page 41 optometry terms 42 Edit summary request 43 Watchlist problem 44 Eye to eye 45 Username change 46 Eye-stub 47 Re: Font size help 48 Nice organization of your user page.

Welcome!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

C-Tools 2.0

Hi, I see you listed this article for deletion and then rethought when you saw that it had already been listed before. Because you're not the only person who thought that article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, I thought it might help my understanding of other editors' attitudes if I asked you a question. Why did you think this article should not be part of Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. Although it may be more convenient and practical for physicians to use, C-Tools is essentially a medical reference guide similar to many other university level textbooks. There are very few widely-known medical references that warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia... the PDR, Gray's Anatomy, or even Vitalogy. C-Tools may be handier and better suited for clinical work than DeVita's "Principles and Practice of Oncology" text, but that's not enough for me. -- AED 09:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We even have an article about the UNIX nohup command, so if you have some medical textbooks that are current and have been found useful, they would probably be encyclopedic enough for entry here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Hi, I see you added HL7 to VfD. I have no opinion on that, but I'd just like to let you know that when you added it to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 April 21 you simultaneously deleted the VfD I'd added Nathan Braun. Just be careful when you do that, okay? --Calton | Talk 13:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Calton. I'm sorry about that! Thanks for letting me know what to watch out for. AED 14:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Medical Categorizations

re Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations - Thank you Edwardian, as no one commented within a month on my suggestions, I've updated the page itself with both of our contributions David Ruben 2 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hello Edwardian. I had contributed to two articles on July 4th. The first article was on Eye and second on macular degeneration. Both additions were deleted because of copyright violation. I certify that I, Sandeep Jain, MD in the capacity of the editor of AgingEye Times grant permission to use the added materials to the two articles mentioned above. Any questions can be addressed to editor@agingeyetimes.net I will try to revert the articles.

Hello, Dr. Jain. Sounds good to me. AED 4 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Complaints

(This section is reserved for those who might wish to make complaints of a personal nature, and for my replies to those complaints. AED 06:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC))

etronic

1. I advised you not "to alter anyone's entries in the Talk pages but your own". I did not claim that you altered the text, however, you did in fact make a minor small to my entry: [[1]]. This is an entirely minor point, so you can relax; I apologize if I have insulted your integrity or your ego.
2. You claim that I am a "lier"; I claim that you should review your previous comments (i.e. "This is the last time that i am answering to your nonsense.") and look up the spelling of "liar" before you presume to call me one.
3. We've already discussed why I reverted your mass deletion of the current article. You claim that I am clueless as to why your edits were completely proper; I claim that you are clueless as to why they were not.
4. You claim that I am writing in "completely irrelevant topics" and that I have "no significant contributions"; I claim that your sense of self-importance is inflated and that you have revealed yourself to be a bit of a stalker.
5. You claim that crediting then quoting Wikipedia:Assume good faith is "plagiarising"; I claim that you need to buy a better dictionary and rethink what you claim to be your "expertise in journalism".
6. You imply that new members, such as yourself, are entitled to patience in learning to use Wikipedia, as though that would absolve you from any rude comments you may choose to post; I claim that it's a shame that you had to take something impersonal and make it personal. AED 06:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the title of this complaint

stop changing it - it is my right not to have my real name on here. etronic 00:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I will have you know that it is you who is changing my edit on my Talk page. You have done so six times now without the courtesy of asking that it be changed. I believe it is my right that you be held accountable for your insulting behavior, and I will remind you that it was you who chose to sign your real name. Still, I am willing to change it (as I have been all along) if you were to request it of me. AED 05:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I may have to remind you that it may be your talk page but it is my name that you insist on putting on here and it is my right to decide where my real name appears. I may had chosen at the beginning to use my real name on here but as you can see the user name has been changed sometime ago. However, you keep insisting on putting all the time my real name on your talk page despite my disagreement. The real joke is your sentence above: 'i am still willing to change it (as i have been all along)'. Finally, you are accusing me for insulting behaviour because i simply pointed out that you keep writing crap on topics for which obviously you have no idea about (and erasing useful contributions from people who actually know something about it) but you don't see your insulting behaviour in this case. It is fairly evident who is the one with the insulting behaviour here. --etronic 04:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. Your peculiar idea of what it means to “simply point out” something [[2]] and your continuing arrogance in asserting what you think are your rights both warrant the label of “insulting behavior”. If you think my calling you to task on those things does, too, then so be it. My edits were in place long before you changed your user name in order to avoid accountability for your behavior, so the only think I am “insisting” is that the change be presented in the form of a request rather than a demand. The real joke is that you find that too much to ask. AED 00:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The right not to have my real name posted on here is common sense (to everyone, except perhaps you). And yes i simply pointed out what was wrong with that definition. And yes i was right about the fact that "someone's ego is hurt"; you have proved it when you kept erasing my post and reverting the page to the wrong definition despite the fact that you had (and still have) no idea about what i was talking about. Doesn't that show arrogance? Doesn't that reveal inflated sense of self-importance? Who told you to act as an "administrator" on here? What makes you so special to decide what is good to remain written? And how can you decide if what i wrote is right or wrong when you have absolutely no idea about it?? I didn't do any vandalism; i just wanted to contribute an article; that's all! Yes, your ego is hurt whether you admit it or not. You proved it and you keep proving it by posting my real name on here despite my explicit disagreement (see above). The fact that you are insisting in demanding from me to request explicity from you not to post my real name on YOUR talk page, clearly reveals whose ego is bruised, whose sense of self-importance is inflated and whose behaviour is arrogant. In fact for revenge you have been even submitting my name in the history of Wikipedia! I still believe 100% of everything that i have said so far and accountability for what i have said, remains even with my new user name. Why don't you post YOUR real name so you can then be held accountable personally for YOUR insulting behaviour? Instead you keep hiding behind the user name 'Edwardian'. If this is what you want yes i request you not to post my name on your talk page. Anyone who reads all the above can clearly see that your attitude is pathetic. I feel sorry for you. --etronic 03:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual. We've already discussed why I reverted your mass deletion of the article. It was not because my ego was hurt, but because "your previous edits included deleting appropriate links as well as adding non-working links (i.e health econcomic evaluation), inappropriate non-encyclopedic remarks (i.e. 'note the distinction!'), and your signature to the actual article" and because you deleted useful content per Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. Obviously, the possibility that you made an error was inconceivable to you (and evidently remains so) so you projected your hurt feelings and lashed out that it must be I with the bruised ego (i.e. what you term "simply pointing out" my errors). You are similarly oblivious to why the edit war exists on this page. You're lost on the fact that you've acted like a jerk to others yet expect them to be complicit in kowtowing to your wishes. Indeed, there is much irony to be found in that you duck behind "common sense" when and if it suits you. AED 07:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You could have deleted the non-working link (it was only one), the non-encyclopedic remark (again it was only one) and the signature, without erasing the entire contribution. You just kept erasing the entire article; it can be clearly seen from the history of the Health Economics page. I accepted responsibility of the fact that i made these mistakes (which can be seen here). You still however fail to answer my questions, and to explain why you kept erasing my entire contribution. Instead of providing convincing answers/arguments or apologizing for your insulting behaviour, you now pretend to be a psychologist too and try analyze my actions! You are a real joke! And finally, i was expecting you to act not according to my wishes but with common sense. But what am i asking now? You are a jerk and obviously an illiterate one, as you seem to have no idea what the meaning of the phrase common sense is. It is like asking from a bear to shit in a toilet or from a pig not to shit where it eats. As i have said in the past, people like you don't deserve other peoples' courtesy; only disregard. --etronic 16:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, let me state that I’m not concerned about charges of illiteracy from someone who calls me a “lier”. In my opinion, your indignant response to being a target of psychologizing was the more interesting way to reveal your hypocrisy: “How dare you analyze my actions and charge that it is I with the bruised ego!” That's rich. Secondly, I just finished explaining (again) why I reverted your mass deletion of the article, yet you won’t acknowledge the guidelines posed in Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes: "Deleting useful content. A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. If the material seems miscategorized or out of place, consider moving the wayward material to another page, or creating a new page for it. If all else fails, and you can't resist removing a good chunk of content, it's usually best to move it to the article's 'Talk page', which can be accessed using the 'discussion' button at the top of each page. The author of the text once thought it valuable, so it is polite to preserve it for later discussion." AED 05:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Man, indeed you are not only illiterate but also a complete moron. You obviously didn't notice the fact that English is not my first language. Yet, instead of pointing out some other (grammatical) mistakes that non-native speakers inevitably do, from everything that i have said so far you just picked up a mistype to prove my illiteracy. Pathetic... With respect to the sentence you provided above to justify your arrogant etc behaviour (which after all the above cannot be justified anyway) i will have you know that it doesn't exist anywhere in my responses. You either have no idea what you are talking about but you say it anyway (because you have to say something - similar with the fact you had no idea about the Health Economics definition but you still judged whether it was right or wrong) or invented it yourself (you have invented things before, you are a liar {did i spell it right this time? hehe} - see here. And you still prefer playacting the psychologist (and a bad one i may add) instead of providing a convincing answer/counter-argument. You are a good actor i'll give you that, but a really bad psychologist - i suggest you to change profession! Finally, i see that you still love plagiarising the entire Wikipedia chapter on guidelines but you are still incapable of interpreting them. All your actions in my case contradict with what Wikipedia Guidelines state. I may have to remind you that you were the one who was mass deleting the page all the time, not me! It can be clearly seen from the history! Are you also blind or just stupid? Wikipedia guidelines state: "...it's usually best to move it to the article's 'Talk page', which can be accessed using the 'discussion' button at the top of each page. The author of the text once thought it valuable, so it is polite to preserve it for later discussion." You instead completely ignored the guidelines that you now claim, by deleting my contribution all the time without moving it to the discussion or talk page. You could also have just deleted the non-encyclopedic remarks (were only 3 and for which i have accepted several times responsibility) and not the entire article. Thats the real reason why this edit war exists. People like you, are an impedement to the Wikipedia project. They pretend to know everything where in fact know little or nothing. Complete morons like yourself. I don't know everything as you have accused me in the past but hell yes i certainly know a great deal about Health Economics - that's my specialism. And that's precisely why i only write about Health Economics. You, in sharp contrast, write in 100 different topics. The number of edits in different topics doesn't mean that you know about them. Your minor edits and spelling corrections prove this. --etronic 18:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It’s not my fault that you’re a stalker exhibiting delusions of grandeur over a repressed inferiority complex; I certainly did not “accuse” you of knowing everything. I’m not concerned about charges of illiteracy from someone who calls me a “lier” then admits that English is not his first language. Nor am I concerned about charges of plagarism from someone who doesn’t understand the difference between “plagiarising” and “quoting”. Take some time to look up “paraphrase” and “irony” while you’re at it; it may help you understand the sentence with which you are having difficulty (i.e. “How dare you analyze my actions and charge that it is I with the bruised ego!”). Suffice it to say, the history clearly shows who initially mass deleted the article [3]. It’s not my problem that you think it is everyone’s burden but yours to abide by Wiki guidelines. AED 22:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think my other responses clearly answer your accusations with facts, and not pseudo-psychologic evaluations like "...a stalker exhibiting delusions of grandeur over a repressed inferiority complex...". The intuitive reader can clearly see what is going on. A few clarifications though. First of all, i really find interesting the fact that you insist in doing this pseudo-psychologic evaluation from here (i.e. online) without knowing anything about me. Second, you are right about the fact that 'plagiarism' is not the appropriate term to use in this case, but the fact that i used the word 'plagiarising' instead of the correct term 'quoting' doesn't change anything. You always invoke the Wikipedia guidelines whenever it is convenient for you and you interpret them in a way that suits your needs. At least, i have been continuously accepting responsibility for what i have been saying. You never did and you still refuse to do so. Third, the above paragraph illustrates your ironic -among other- attitude. Yes that's what you had been doing all along, you admit it. You were being ironic and you had been paraphrasing everything that i have been saying. Your sentence (i.e. “How dare you analyze my actions and charge that it is I with the bruised ego!”) is another example. Fourth, yes the history clearly shows many things see here. I deleted the definition which was wrong. You were deleting the one that was correct. I then moved the wrong one to the 'Talk' page and i explained why it is wrong despite the fact that i was not aware at that time (immediately after i signed up on Wikipedia) of the Wikipedia guidelines. In contrast, you knew the guidelines but you chose to ignore them by completely erasing my entire contribution all the time and not moving it on the 'Talk' page to discuss it. Fifth, I also used my real name (being eager to accept responsibility for what i write) and i would continue to use it if you weren't abusing it. You even started submitting it in the history page (see here) for revenge, which is something that clearly shows your pathetic personality. You instead, prefer hiding behind your user name 'Edwardian'. Finally, i will have you know that although English is not my first language, even i know that the term 'illiteracy' can also refer to a broader -social- sense of education and not just mistypes (i.e lier). But hey i'm sure you knew this ;-). --etronic 00:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You accept responsibility that "your previous edits included deleting appropriate links as well as adding non-working links (i.e health econcomic evaluation), inappropriate non-encyclopedic remarks (i.e. 'note the distinction!'), and your signature to the actual article" and for being unaware of that you should have moved the deleted information to the Talk page per Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes; still you chose to pronounce a “pseudo-psychologic evaluation” by claiming that I reverted those changes because my ego was hurt. Now I understand why this hullabaloo is my fault. AED 17:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If from all the above this is what you have understood and you still can't get it straight, then evidently you are a complete moron. --etronic 22:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You've admitted to accepting responsibility for adding non-working links, inappropriate non-encyclopedic remarks, and your signature to the article. You've admitted that at the time of my reversion you were not aware that you should have moved the information you removed to the Talk page per Wiki guidelines; the history shows that you did so only after I instructed you to "[t]ake discussion to the Discussion page". I'm sorry that you took my reversion personally but there clearly would have been a more productive way to get your point across that the way you chose.

I imagine that we are both wanting to move on to other things, so let's try this if you're up to it: Please expand the article as you had originally planned to do. Hopefully you will include some of the information that you placed on the Talk page in that it may preserve some of the links contributed by earlier authors. AED 05:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to thank you for your help on List of ICD-9 codes. --Arcadian 23:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Arcadian. Is the goal of that article to reflect the entire list? If so, my plan was to complete the Eye and Adnexa section (which could take some time), then Wiki to appropriate links later. It would, however, make that section disproportionately large. AED 00:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Edwardian -- I just want to apologize if you felt like you wasted some time on List of ICD-9 codes adding and removing codes. Actually, it was your question above that got me thinking about the best way to keep the page at a maintainable size (currently its 91K), which is why I put that scope sentence in yesterday. In any case, I made another slight modification to that scope statement, so now it's like this: "but not codes at the "hundredths" level (xxx.xx), unless an article for that specific disease exists in Wikipedia." This is the best balance I can think of at this time, but if you've got any other opinions or ideas, feel free to edit. Thanks again for your help. --Arcadian 01:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Edwardian, thanks for keeping an eye on my contributions. Luke 19:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC).

Homeopathy

Since much of the debate surrounding Homeopathy boils down to the use of scientific method I do not see why my adding the link to logical fallicies is wrong. As I understand it many arguments are used to prove or disprove homeopathy, among which there is the use of semantics. Since much of the arguments are based upon incorrect premisses, interpretation and conclusion why not insert a reference to help all those using these logical fallacies? Please advise --Nomen Nescio 10:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

See reply in Talk:Homeopathy. AED 17:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your work on the first Wikipedia:Medicine Collaboration of the Week! I'm quite proud of how much the article improved, and I hope we remain an active force, improving medical articles on Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I feel your pain

Edwardian - I feel bad that you had to endure so much arguing back and forth today at the MCOTW. I don't think that your reaction was unjustified and appreciate your courage. Sometimes provoking discusssion about these things takes a pointed comment before anything happens. I think that the people signed up for the collaboration must have felt self-conscious about their very conspicous sudden arrival at the MCOTW, or your comment wouldn't have provoked such a strong reaction. Mr.Bip 06:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You were correct that I could have, and should have, worded my concerns more diplomatically. AED 04:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Canada Health Act

I think we are about to step on each other's toes. I see you are editing the Canada Health Act and so am I, or that is I will be. I have a rather large edit (essay really) coming. I have been working on it for the past couple of hours, so don't think I am reverting or taking your edits away. I hope we can collaborate on this article. maclean25 04:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll certainly defer to your edits since they are bound to be major compared to mine. Thanks for the warning! AED 04:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Healthcare

I agree with your rewording of the first sentence, except I have readded the link to allied health as not everyone will know what this is. I think that 'social' should be added to the definition (I have not done so, as yet) which is then consistent then with WHO definition of health. [4] What do you think? --Vincej 11:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Vincej. Thanks for the update. My reply is in Talk:Health care. AED 19:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I need to apologize for responding so derisively, particular in response to your attempt at compromise. It was counter-productive and, I'm afraid, motivated as much by external factors as anything else. siafu 05:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No need to as my initial comments should have been more tactful. Hope to see you on other articles. Cheers. AED 04:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

List of famous pneumonia suffers

Unfortunately mispelt 'sufferers' and so someone set up a Vote For Deletion (VfD) - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of famous pneumonia suffers . I have added a suitable response to allow us to continue discussing the general policy on such lists, but we can't rename/move whilst it has the VfD tag ! -David Ruben 01:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks for pointing it out. I'll comment there. AED 01:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ophthalmology subcats

Hi, I noticed your predeliction for medicine/ophthalmologyand was wondering if you could weigh in on a suggestion for possible subcategories for Category:Ophthalmology. I've put a note in the talk page. Thanks. --Hooperbloob 06:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. AED 16:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Visual Snow/Astigmatism Connection?

As the user who entered those elided sections, I agree I was being anecdotal. However, note that the 'visual snow' entry crossreferences no conventional structural conditions, only HPPD -- which this individual was convinced he was suffering from until a relative tipped him off to the possibility of astigmatism.

Someone with a perception of 'snow' and a seemingly correct prescription (correcting only myopia, say, as my previous was) is unlikely to consider the possibility of a 'simple' solution unless the [i]potential[/i] connection is made clear.

Since the whole concept of the condition is practically anecdotal, how about we compromise with some boilerplate about undergoing a thorough exam, considering all major possibilities for blurred (and thus potentially 'snowy,' depending on individual variance) vision before concluding the condition is, in fact, mysterious and hopeless?

In a similar vein, "There currently is no established treatment for visual snow" could be replaced by "There currently is no one established treatment for visual snow" or ""There currently is no established treatment for visual snow in absence of a diagnosed physical condition" and better represent the true nature of the issue.

(I'd never claim astigmatism is the only cause of snow, or even a common one, but I'd like to see the possibility mentioned for those few people it might help. In browsing 'snow' forums, it's clear some subset of sufferers are 'dumb kids' like myself who happen to have used drugs at the same time as their vision degraded, and are thus scared to raise the issue of their perceptions with their opthalmologist without knowing it could be something so basic.)

Obviously I'm not doing well with brevity, so I leave it to you to consider improving the language. Remember, a good chunk of readers will be visiting the visual snow article because they are experiencing visual snow, so may it err on the side of the exhaustive in offering these folks some insight.

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, there is not yet any "insight" correlating astigmatism to visual snow to offer those people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reflects what is known about a subject; not a place for original research or theories[5]. What you have to say is interesting, but it does not yet warrant inclusion in Wiki. AED 17:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Recurrent corneal erosion

Thanks for the edit, my ophthalologist told me overnight oxygenation a factor. Although I agree, on now researching, I see no mention made to this on the various website descriptions. I forgot to mention the reduced hydration (hence why pre-bed eye ointments recommended), I've edited the 'Prevention' section for this. David Ruben^talk 13:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. Ruben. Thanks for the comments. I don't think reduced O2 is the primary factor, but it may indeed be a factor: [6]. AED 05:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sydney J. Bush

You expressed an interest in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Sydney J. Bush. It is now up. --IByte 18:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! AED 19:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Medical record on MCOTW

Hi! You showed support for Medical record, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! AED 07:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi Edwardian, firstly my compliments for your ophthalmological additions - a field that had been lying fallow until you'd arrived.

I saw that you linked some articles in the diabetes article to reference the increased incidence of xerophalmia. Would you awfully mind citing the full reference of the most important paper (e.g. a systematic review). I have found that this strengthens the medical articles - an external link could be to any sort of site, while a full reference indicates a peer-reviewed published piece of work. JFW | T@lk 15:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. Jfdwolff. I referenced the links, however, I doubt that they are in the correct order with the others in the article. If you have time, please check my work and let me know what I should do differently in the future. Cheers! AED 18:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Myopia

Edwardian:

I see that on September 14 you did a mass delete of my addition to the Theories section of Myopia on the grounds that "nearly all the text was copied or changed only slightly from" http:aarcolin4.net.

How can you assert that it was copied or changed only slightly from the page on the external link?

1. The page on the external link has a word count of 2,970; my addition to the Theories section has 1,129, ergo you are wrong to claim that it was copied.

2. As to the charge that it was "changed only slightly", again, you are wrong: the difference between the two is 1,841 words. Would any fair-minded person claim that there is only a slight difference between the two?

What’s wrong with moving this to AFD? Researich2 19:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• RE: "How can you assert that it was copied or changed only slightly from the page on the external link?" Direct observation of your additions and what is on the external link. Would you like examples? The word count statistics you have provided only show that you did not copy and paste the entire article. AED 23:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

LASIK reversion

Reversions are meant for the correction of vandalism or the removal of factually incorrect contributions. If you disagree with a TYPE of content added to page, reverting the article is not an acceptable method of handling it. There are procedures for dealing with content conflicts and you did not follow them. Kathy Griffin is a world-known celebrity whose personal experience with LASIk has caused her to speak out against it publicly, including on The Oprah Winfrey Show. There is no dispute in the validity of her claim, and it is more appropriate to add a section about vocal supporters or detractors of the surgery than to incorperate it into the body of the text. Hers is not merely an "opinion," it is a first-hand account of the potential negative effects of LASIK, complete with a detailed history and photographs. If you revert this change again we are going to get into an edit war, so if you continue to disagree, please follow procedure. Pacian 05:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, not all "factually correct" information belongs in any particular article. Whether I use the procedure to remove it manually or revert it achieves the same result. I am happy to use the former method if that is what you prefer. AED 20:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Chelation therapy

My reply to Intersofia's comments Talk:Chelation therapy in bold:

If in fact the Thiemann study is truly unbiased, then there should be no problem in stating the fact that they sponsored it. [Studies are typically referred to by the name of the university or the names of the researchers doing the study, not by the name of the “sponsor” or entity funding the study. This is “the University of Calgary study” or “the PATCH study”, not “the Thiemann study”. If one believes the study to be unbiased, then there should be no reason to mention who funds the study. If one believes the study to be biased, then there should be much more than a mealy-mouthed suggestion that it is. And that is what you are suggesting we put here.] I personally do believe that when a party with a financial stake in one result oven another sponsors a study, it will create a slant in some fashion, how exactly, I don't know for certain. [You admit that you “don’t know for certain” how “a party with a financial stake” in a study “create[s] a slant in some fashion”, so how do you know that they “create a slant in some fashion” in the first place? You don’t.] What I have read points to the EDTA dose received as being too low (in comparison with the dosage recommended by protocol), that the best respondents to EDTA were somehow factored out of the final report, that Thiemann reserved the right to edit the published report (not to alter the data, but to redact what was reported or not). [These are all unsubstantiated assertions from PRO-chelation therapy advocates.] If the study was done in a truly scientific and objective and neutral fashion, they should be proud to have their name associated with this study. [Perhaps they are, but the purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to toss out kudos.] It strike me as naive to think that humans conducting a study would truly be 100% objective and neutral in the design and execution of such study, when they know full well that their paychecks and funding for the study is coming from an entity that clearly wishes and prefers one result over the other. [It strikes me as naïve to believe the enormous conspiracy theory that Thiemann convinced numerous researchers at or affiliated with the University of Calgary to stake their academic and professional careers by taking money to falsify their reports, and that JAMA was similarly convinced to stake its world-renown reputation by turning a blind eye to these falsified reports.] I do believe that it is germane to mention that a party with a conflict of interest sponsored the study. [It is germane in the publication of a study (see JAMA’s rules for authors [7]), but not warranted here – particularly since the Univesity of Calgary researchers certainly disclosed to JAMA any potential conflicts of interest and that this was a “double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial” that was peer reviewed. The only reason to mention who funded the study at this point is to allude to bias where the preponderance of evidence shows none exists.] Will you admit that a financial stake in one result versus another actually constitutes a conflict of interest? [Will you admit that it is not in the best interest of the numerous researchers at or affiliated with the University of Calgary to stake their academic and professional careers by taking money to falsify their reports? Will you admit that it is not in the best of JAMA to stake its world-renown reputation by turning a blind eye to these falsified reports?] Also, once again, that study absolutely said nothing in regards to autism spectrum disorders. [I never said it did. What I did say was that it is not accurate for the article to state that mainstream medicine only disputes the efficacy of chelation thearpy in the treatment of atherosclerosis.] The link between these type of disorders and mercury from thimerosal or other sources has never been dis-proven. [Martian toxins delivered by UFO probes also haven’t been ruled-out, but the burden of proof is on those making the claim.] As far as 100% scientifically airtight proof goes, I'm not going to recommend that any more children receive mercury, whether in elemental form, nor in molecules of one, two or more carbon atoms (methylmercury, ethylmercury etc.) We have to fall on what you are calling a "preponderance of evidence". The rise of autism spectrum disorders, co-incident in the 90's with the 2 and 3 fold increase in the number of mercury containing vaccines administered to children, coupled with the fact (once again :-) that mercury IS a powerful neurotoxin is enough to convince me, called me biased if you will. I am conviced. Why is Eli Lily excercising all the political muscle it can muster to get liability protection from thimerosal lawsuits if there is no chance that the mercury it foisted on infants caused their autism ? But I am digressing.... this article is on chelation therapy. [Indeed. I haven't got all day so let’s handle one assertion before moving on to the next.] 1) Chelation therapy is used by so called "alternative" medicine to treat atherosclerosis and also to treat autism spectrum disorders. (BTW, when Galileo maintained that the earth revolved around the sun, in opposition to prevalent or "mainstream" scientific thought at the time... ¿was he an "alternative" scientist? ) 2) The Thiemann study, flawed or not, biased or not, addressed atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease, et al, it did not address autism spectrum disorders (ASD's). Geni's removal of the explicit mention of this casts aspersions on chelation therapy in regards to treating ASD when in fact the Thiemann study says nothing about this. [So, you want clarification in the article as to why mainstream medicine rejects chelation therapy as treatment for autism? That can be arranged.] The preponderance of the evidence points to a strong causal link between mercury and ASD. [It categorically does not.] Deleting the link to the nerve-sheath formation disruption U Calgary study is wrong. That study exposes one mechanism whereby mercury severely affects the CNS. It stands to simple reason that if there is a way to get this mercury out of the body, the mercury will no longer affect nerve sheath formation, the neurons will no longer die without their sheaths and cognitive funcitioning will cease to be impaired for that reason. [That particular study implicates “(mercury) as a potential etiological factor in neurodegeneration”, not neurodegeneration as a cause of autism. To make that leap is “simplistic reasoning” not simple reasoning.] Note that I have not been trying to suppress the Thiemann study, merely to clarify exactly what it pertains to. It is useful information. [It’s already clear that the PATCH study pertains to ischemic heart disease and not to autism. If you want clarification in the article as to why mainstream medicine rejects chelation therapy as treatment for autism, that can be arranged, too.] Likewise, the U Calgary study on tubulin and nerve sheaths is pertinent information. [Again, that particular study implicates “(mercury) as a potential etiological factor in neurodegeneration”, not neurodegeneration as a cause of autism. Incidentally, why do you refer to one as the “Thiemann study” and the other as “the U Calgary study”? Is “sponsorship” only important to you when the study refutes your POV? AED 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)]

Hey Edwardian, I am not suggesting that any researcher actually took money to falsify results. Merely that having a coroporate sponsor that would be pleased with one result over another might in some way - perhaps subconsciously even - slant the methdology of the study. I've called it the "Thiemann study" simply to distinguish it, but I concede it's best to refer to them in a NPOV way - how about the PATCH study and the tubulin study, or any other such suitable names. Using U Calgary merely confuses the issue because there are two different studies being mentioned. You are also correct the tubulin study implicates mercury as a potential etiological factor in neurodegeneration”, not neurodegeneration as a cause of autism. All well and good. I orginally three months ago, merely inserted a link to point to this study. Geni not only deleted it, he substituted a reference to the PATCH study that was ambiguously implicating that chelation therapy is ineffective in mercury poisoning in minute amounts, the kind of which is in fact, sorry to contradict you, are strongly implicated in the rise of autism in the 1990's. Claiming that "it's an article on chelation therapy and not on the effects of mercury on the CNS" as a reason to suppress this info is disingenious at best. Alternative medicine uses chelation therapy to treat autism. True, a definite causal link has not been proven, but neither has it been disproven. Chelation therapy removes heavy metals from the body. The tubulin study provides important information to back up why alternative medicine's use of chelation therapy to treat autism might no be so off the wall. Regards, Intersofia 22:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Alternative medicine does use chelation therapy to treat autism. Sure it claims to but it has never managed to produce and decent evidence that it does. Incerdently what passed for scientific thought during Galileo's time was on the side of the copernican modle (which was still incorrect but no matter).Geni 22:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The link to the Tubulin study should remain. Mercury does no good to neurons. (Whether the damage it does causes autism is almost irrelevant. I certainly believe it is likely a causal factor.) Chelation therapy removes heavy metals, including mercury. Therefore the link is pertinent and apropos to the article.Intersofia 23:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. If I frezze Hg solid and project at someone's skull with enough force it will damage the CNS. I fail to see why that should be included in the article.Geni 23:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Intersofia, it is not “suppressing information” to exclude non-relevant information from the article. I agree with Geni that there is little reason to reference “the tubulin study” in Chelation therapy. You said yourself that the study showed that mercury may cause neurodegeneration, not that neurodegeneration causes autism. If it doesn’t show that neurodegeneration causes autism or that chelation therapy prevents autism or any other disease, what point does it serve in Chelation therapy? The article already suggests that mercury and other substances pose health risks, but you’re welcome to put a link to “the tubulin study” at the beginning of the article to emphasize the point. In my opinion, people can simply reference mercury if they wish to know what effects it may have. AED 04:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think the tubulin study link fits better at the beggining of the article that is fine. Regards, Intersofia 12:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. AED 04:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

SSRI

I've dealt with my share of people pushing views on medical articles. They are fairly easy to spot and usually go away after some bickering. Your response on the inadequacy of the animal studies was appreciated.

It can be difficult to explain to pushy editors the importance of "no original research". Some people are just so convinced of the truth of their assertions that they feel scientific rigor somehow should not be applied to their theories. It is my firmly held view that Wikipedia does need to apply these rules strictly.

I have never objected against coverage of alternative views or treatments, as long as they are notable. This is another contentious point (see talk:myocardial infarction). Again, some people feel that their theory or treatment should be covered even though it is unknown even amongst experts and hence likely to be unnotable.

The joys of defending medical science on an open forum. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 04:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I've noticed that you've been adding a lot of content on the muscle pages, and I wanted to thank you for that. One of my longer term goals is to get at least a stub up for each muscle at List_of_muscles_of_the_human_body. I'm planning on using the names and organization I found at that page, but reading through the talk page there, it seemed that the organization and naming standards were rather ad-hoc, so if you had any suggestions, or more standard names to use for the muscles that don't have articles yet, I'd be indebted. --Arcadian 12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll keep this in mind and forward any suggestions to you. Cheers! AED 19:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Heterochromia

Regarding Heterochromia, thank you for taking the initiative to move the page, but please don't do copy/paste moves. It loses the page history. I have fixed the problem, but please be more careful in the future. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually re-wrote the entire article rather than copy/paste a move... and the re-write is now gone. AED 22:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, but a large part of the article is still derived from edits made to Heterochromia irdis, and the edit history needs to be preserved so we can comply with the GFDL. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I was unable to move the article as I had originally planned, as someone created Heterochromia recently (simply to redirect to Heterochromia iridis) and the "move" function wouldn't allow me to do it. Everything (article and Talk page) seems to be in place now. Thanks! AED 22:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nursing care plans on VFD

They are all on VFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursing care plans. I appreciate your help in this matter. JFW | T@lk 18:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Black fold on optomitrist glasses

Take a look at this and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black fold on optomitrist glasses. Obviously this is not much of an article, but I'd like to figure out exactly what this user is describing and, if possible, at least let him know what they are called—if, in fact, they have a name. Comment in the deletion discussion.Dpbsmith (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Done! Thanks! AED 00:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by year

In an effort to have this vote go as swimmingly as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by name, I'm pointing it out to all the people who voted on the previous one, as it's basically the same information, differently arranged. Had I known it existed at the time, I would have included it in the AfD. Too late now. Thanks. -R. fiend 01:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention! AED 05:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the American Civil War

Could you please revisit the discussion, read my comments there and consider changing your vote?

I think two reasons used to delete this are faulty:

1. This list includes information which would be lost if categorized. Categories cannot list the date and manner of death in a organized manner as lists do. Categorizing would lose the info.
2. Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't apply as that rule is for people who do not deserve an article. These people played major roles in the American Civil War and therefore do not fall under the memorial clause of WP:NOT. They already have articles, and lists listing closely related people should not be deleted because they happen to be dead.

Thanks for your attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your reasoning and have changed my vote to Keep. Cheers! AED 22:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish lists

Hi, Jewish people are a diaspora and ethnicity just like African Americans. If you do not think that African American lists should be deleted then please change your vote on these lists. Arniep 18:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall voting on any African American lists. Stop spamming. AED 19:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Better Off Dead Soundtrack

It looks good, I'm willing to change my vote to a merge. ♠PMC♠ 04:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish/Catholic lists for deletion=

Is there anyway you can help me recruit voters for some of these lists - since they are being overrun by hysterical "keep!!!" voters. 65.8.28.249 19:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC) (leave responses on this talk page - wiki not logging me in)

Re: FYI

I don't think you're overstepping your bounds at all, and in any case, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine and its subpages long predate me. I think you've done a great job helping out WP:MED and I really want to thank you for embracing the project the way you have. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Obesity Article

Hi there, thanks for your interest in the RfC. I'd just like to know why you've simply reverted my latest attempt at mentioning the criticism? This is about my third attempt at trying to compromise, and you should note that this version makes no mention of the Sorensen research, it's actually talking about completely different findings. It's a lot better if you can rewrite - rather than simply reverting - in order to reach a compromise, so I'm reverting back to my version and encourage you to contribute / improve on what I've said. I'll make the point again, I just want mention of the controversy, which has been well covered in a number of newspapers (largely through Campos' extracts) and New Scientist, and so is well known to the public. --Brendanfox 04:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. Mention of Sorensen or not, it is certainly not clear that recent research warrants prominent mention in the introduction. I think JFW and alteripse have outlined the reasoning sufficiently. The vote on this issue is current 3 to 1 against your version; at least two of whom are voting in opposition are physicians. Also, please be forewarned about Wikipedia:Three-revert rule should you continue to revert. AED 04:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Chiropractic (disambiguation)

Thanks for asking, Edwardian. I agree with its deletion and have voted accordingly. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ophthalmology

Hi, just dropped in to say that it was a great work on the above article - moving the early history from eye. --Gurubrahma 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That was very nice of you to say! AED 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina

I got your message on my talk page. If you see a way I can be of assistance, either in my capacity as an administrator or as the original author of the page (though I never imagined this much passion would come out of my stub) just let me know. But for now it seems like you're handling the process perfectly, and I wouldn't want to step in and undermine your authority. Your patience and equanimity are appreciated. FYI, I wasn't an administrator at the time I left my comment of 12 Apr, if that makes a difference (it probably doesn't matter though.) Per your other recent message to me about Template:Retina -- sorry I haven't responded to that yet. I'll take a look at it and see if I come up with any ideas.) --Arcadian 22:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Edwardian, I'm not sure how to reply to your comments on my User talk page. I added a reply there, if you would like to read it. Many thanks. Askolnick 01:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm extremely disappointed in your unexplained abandonment of the problems here. I also do not know why the best link you could give to back up your retreat was Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, but not to any mention of the specific guideline you are hiding behind. The closest actualy policy I could find, Wikipedia:No_original_research, does not anywhere say that primary sources cannot contribute to an article. Since no one who holds this belief has ever pointed me to an actual established policy (as opposed to a proposed policy) against it, I'm continually convinced that it is a myth. Regardless, if you're going to run away from a difficult issue, then just admit it, don't hide behind a policy you can't actually reference. But even if "no involved contributors" was in fact an established policy, the best answer would be to get action against the participants involvement of the article, and move their contributions to Talk -- not throw up your hands and cry foul. I'd hoped you were going to help the matter. That is, after all, the whole point of WP:RFC. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of mistaken premises and loaded words in your rebuke(i.e. “abandonment”, “retreat”, “hiding behind”, “run away”, “hide behind a policy”, “throw up your hands and cry foul”, etc.) and your comments about me on others' Talk pages, but I’ll suppress my initial comments and attempt a polite reply anyway.

In short, I am happy to offer my opinion to help resolve a content dispute between two editors, but not when each editor spends more time attempting to convince me that the other is liar rather than addressing the specific content of the article. That is a waste of my time, and I believe I said as much to Askolnick on his Talk page.

Had I know it was my responsibility to offer a detailed explanation for my withdrawal from the issue, perhaps I would have posted differently or not at all. For your information, I did draw attention to specific Wiki policies and guidelines that I thought were applicable to the debate in my very first post [8]. Your clarification of Wikipedia:No_original_research is appreciated, but misdirected. As I explained to Askolnick, writing about subjects in which one is closely involved is not currently a violation of Wikipedia policy, but Wikipedia:Autobiography is a guideline that discourages it. AED 04:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Then ignore the interpersonal bickering and focus on the article. That is, after all, the point of WP. It does the article no good to give up on the disputes surrounding it. I thought it was pretty clear from my RFC post that this was a conflict of considerable interest. That shouldn't have been a surprise.

As for WP:AUTO, to be fair, the article remained a stub for two months. The only significant contributions to the article since then were by these two people. For what it's worth, their involvement has provided the material for what is hopefully now a more fleshed out article. So I'll have to excuse myself for not giving WP:AUTO much credence. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Don’t presume to lecture me on what is good for WP when you act as though it is your right or obligation to go out of your way to reprimand other editors with antagonistic words and false premises. It’s pretty clear to me that when interpersonal bickering gets in the way of the disputants’ ability to provide relevant information to a moderator, it should come as no surprise if the moderator chooses to leave them to their devices.

As for WP:AUTO, obviously we disagree as to whether or not primary sources of information should be allowed to directly edit an article. If you’re happy with the status of the article, then take your complaints elsewhere because 1) the problem is solved and 2) my Talk page is not the appropriate forum to debate Wiki policies and guidelines. AED 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Hypertensive retinopathy

Hello, some time ago you added a fair bit of content to Hypertensive retinopathy. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's verifiability and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to create them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other sources you used to add content to Hypertensive retinopathy? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? See WP:CITET for some quick templates to use for citing sources. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! AED 07:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Improving AVMA page

Hello, Edwardian: I've left a message for you on the AVMA talk page. Thought it made more sense for us to discuss the page there than here, but let me know if you prefer that I post it here. I'll keep an eye on both places. Thank you! - AVMA OME 208.23.133.2 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I responded there. AED 05:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

optometry terms

Edwardian,

Thanks for the help with the VT and related pages. I'm quite new at this and appreciate the assistance with formating and simplifying.

I've discovered that a great deal of Optometry info is absent on WP and intend to correct that.

I am correct in thinking you are an OMD? If so, perhaps we can discuss categorizations of OMD/OD related topics that is fair an appropriate. Before I add/alter categories of any sort, I want to read up on consensus for doing so.

Natebw 14:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If "ophthalmology" is viewed as the study of the eye and things related to the eye, I'm not sure creation of an optometry category is necessary. I would like to see more sub-categories (i.e. ocular anatomy, ocular physiology, ocular disease, etc.), but I'm not sure how to set them up. Keep up the good work! AED 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with you that ophthalmology is appropriate for all the subcategories that you mentioned (and I encourage you to pursue those), I feel quite certain that there is enough distinction between the ophthalmology and optometry for there to be two categories. It would seem quite absurd to categorize the American Academy of Optometry under Ophthalmolgy, for example. Likewise, there would be sufficient distinction to seperately categorize Optometry from Opticianry. Natebw 19:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary request

Hi Edwardian. Thank you for your contributions. And I have a request. I would like to ask you to use the edit summary more often when you contribute. It really helps others understand what you changed, think of it of the "Subject:" line in an email. I hope you don't mind. :)

And I have one remark about the "No new messages" joke at the top. I did not find it as funny as you wanted it to. But never mind about that. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll work on the edit summaries, but if you don't want me to mind a remark, you shouldn't make the remark. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I intended it to be funny since it's a banner that merely reflects the status of my Talk page... with a link to a WikiProject that I like to keep an eye on. AED08:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Watchlist problem

I've deleted the page in question (Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative medicine/Archive 1), hopefully that will make it possible for you to remove it; if not, let me know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My next suggestion is to contact a developer. You can often find them on irc, either in the main #wikipedia chanel or in the server channel. If you don't use IRC, try contacting them via meta:Requests for permission(I think). If I can be of further help, let me know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Eye to eye

Hey Edwardian, I've never had a chance to compliment you on your awesome ophthalmology work. You've been doing this largely on your own, and the effort is admirable. Have a barnstar, and keep up the great work! JFW | T@lk 21:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that most of my contributions have been busy-work, but I appreciate the compliment. Cheers! AED

Feel free to move the star to your userpage. It's empty at present... JFW | T@lk 15:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Username change

Your request has been fulfilled. Regards — Dan | talk 05:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Eye-stub

Ah, I see you've noticed the new {{eye-stub}} I just created. Glad to see someone so interested in helping out! Please do note, however, that there are some ocular muscle articles that should be double tagged with both {{eye-stub}} as well as {{muscle-stub}}, if you wouldn't mind. I delibeartely had not yet tagged them witht he muscle-stub because I wanted to wait until eye-stub had been created. --EncycloPetey 14:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Font size help

Done. Is that the effect you wanted? You may need to play around with it some more. Let me know if I can help. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You're quite welcome; I'm always glad to help you out. Happy New Year to you as well! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice organization of your user page.

I'm not sure how many others are interested in eye articles, but I'd encourage them to view this to get a conception of distribution of articles! Natebw 21:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)