User talk:Bticho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Marshall Parks 2 Strabismus surgery photo inserted 3 Shaken baby syndrome 4 Your expertise is requested 5 Exaggeration 6 Featured picture promotion!

[edit] Marshall Parks

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've taken notice of some of your contributions and created a stub for Marshall Parks should you wish to contribute. If the article can be expanded sufficiently within the next five days, it would be eligible to appear on the Did you know section on the Main Page. FYI, I believe User:EyeMD did a pediatric ophthalmology fellowship. Cheers! -AED 04:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions to the article are great! If you have references or links for some of the information that is currently not referenced, I'll be happy to format them into the article for you. The list of trainees may not be entirely encyclopedic, but it's certainly worthwhile to create article stubs for them if they meet the guidelines at WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Wikipedia:Copyrights can give you more information on images; you may need to get permission to use images that are copyrighted by others. Check out Wikipedia:Changing username for information on changing your user name. FYI: To sign your name with date stamp, type ~~~~. -AED 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strabismus surgery photo inserted

Welcome to Wikipedia! I have placed your strabismus surgical image appropriately on the Eye surgery page. The link for the actual image is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Disinserting_the_muscle.JPG and the code for inserting it into the wiki page is:

- the photos have been place in correct surgical order - first the rectus muscle isolation, and then the medial rectus disinsertion (yours). EyeMD 03:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaken baby syndrome

Thanks for your note. The subject matter is largely beyond my area of expertise, but I'll forward your concerns to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. -AED 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi I reverted back the Occular manefestations that had just been deleted, correcting the opening & closing ref tags so that it displayed correctly.

• There is no need to use the whole URL address to the PubMed's abstract, if one has the Abstract number simply place it after 'PMID '. Hence PMID 12345 is automatically displayed as PMID 12345.
• Even better, Diberri's tool at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates can generate the full citation template markup for one, given the Abstract number. Simply select for PubMed ID and enter in the abstract number (see this example). One can then copy & paste the markup into an article (enclosing of course in <ref> ... </ref> tags)

Shaken baby syndrome though needs some reorganisation - it is getting quite long and your additional information is both perhaps a little too detailed too quickly (articles should slowly increase in complexity of knowledge) and sits awkwardly in the current article structure. The options (if everyone agrees the additional information should be kept) are either to redistribute your additions across the existing top-level headings or use of a separate article on teh topic, with SBS having just a brief paragraph introducing these ideas and pointing to the new main article on this aspect. See Talk:Shaken baby syndrome#Occular Manefestations for elaboration of issues and to debate approach :-) Yours David Ruben ^Talk 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the great reference and especially the wording in the abstract of "subclinical vitamin C deficiency". Bone pathology is greatly effected by the subclinical state. May include more information concerning your insert of the reference. Unfortunately, the only problem is there are only guinea pig studies to cite. I have two good guinea pig studies to cite if you know of any other references please let me know.

Thanks again, The Stroll 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your expertise is requested

FYI: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology has just been started. -AED 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exaggeration

Hello! I was a bit amused to see your edit to Residency (medicine) (someone else reverted before I). I don't know how familiar you may be with U.S. residency programs, but 100-hour work weeks or greater are not an exaggeration by any means. When my family friend was doing his intern year of general surgery, he easily worked 130-hour weeks. For the whole year. That's why the new 80 hour-per-week restrictions are such a big deal, and why programs are having such a hard time adjusting to fit that. (For the record, my residency program does an excellent job of staying within 80 hours per week, on average.) — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not experienced enough to form an opinion on which system is better, and I haven't read the article in detail, so I don't know if it is biased one way or the other. However, you removed the text "(100+ hour work-weeks)" with an edit summary of "No need to exaggerate", implying that you thought 100+ hour work-weeks were an exaggeration, which they are not. Perhaps you felt that the article was exaggerating the number of residents who actually exceed 100-hour weeks? Feel free to make further changes or to balance the article; I think the way you phrased your edit made you seem uninformed, and that's why it was reverted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture promotion!

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! KFP (talk | contribs) 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)