User talk:InvictaHOG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite your awesome contributions nobody has bothered to welcome you! I'll refrain from posting my long welcoming message (can be seen at User:Jfdwolff/Welcome) as you appear to be well versed in the technicalities of Wikipedia.

Enjoy Wikipedia, and keep on sharing your clinical pearls with us. JFW | T@lk 18:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh shoot. Trust JF to beat me to this. I was planning on blue-linking his page today </grumble>. Anyway, welcome, InvictaHOG, your contributions are spectacular, and if it is any indication of things to come the medical folk at WP are fortunate indeed! Keep it up (but don't burn out, ok!) :) See you around the wiki! encephalon 20:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Howdy, and welcome to Wikipedia. I nominated the article "Multiple Solutions" for Deletion, and later I saw that you had questions about it. Feel free to visit its nomination for deletion page if you want to understand more of Wikipedia policy Runnerupnj 03:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

---

InvictaHOG, thank you for fixing Cabot, Arkansas. I was pretty sure it was just a matter of time before someone would fix it. Sadly, I've found that the small community pages are really prone to all sorts of things like this.

I actually visited your user page before you sent me a note. I work for Goodyear. When I saw the name, I wondered if you had a Goodyear connection; there is a Goodyear Invicta tire. I did a Google search and found there are other users of the name, so maybe not.

Thanks again. Catbar (Brian Rock) 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Harvey Cushing 2 Negative studies in medicine 3 Emergency department 3.1 Pneumonia 4 Amazing 5 Prostate cancer on WP:MCOTW 6 Emergency department 7 Whale.to RfC 8 Sources for Lisker's sign 9 DYK 10 Braglist 11 Carlo Pezzati 12 Prostate cancer 13 Overboard 14 Deleted "See Also" on Vaccine Controversy 15 Medical controversies 16 Quack 17 Atrial fibrillation on WP:MCOTW 18 Barnstar 19 RE: "and is sometimes referred to as a triple-jab." 20 Lily Loat 21 Archie Kalokerinos 22 AIDS on WP:MCOTW 23 You might find this interesting 24 Classic in biased editing 25 Image:Types of MS.jpg 26 anti-vaccine 27 Cystic fibrosis on WP:MCOTW 28 RFC on Whaleto as an acceptable site to link from WP to and user... 29 “Medicine” on MCOTW 30 Attacks on WP editors 31 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ike Altgens 32 Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Woodruff 33 Another spot where cite.php is being discussed 34 Live "hybrid references" 35 Re: Congratulations on the Featured Article! 36 Cystic fibrosis 37 Glacier National Park (US) 38 RfA 39 Re Organization of CF article 40 My RfA 41 G Patrick Maxwell 42 My FA 43 I am not withdrawing Rfd 44 thanks... 45 Thank you - U.S. FAC 46 Rfa thanks 47 New medicine COTW 48 From Vibo56, about blood types MCOTW 49 Thanks 50 After you come back from vacation 51 MCOTW 52 Leukocyte adhesion deficiency 53 Thanks for comments 54 Aortic dissection 55 Cystic Fibrosis 56 Nevsky Prospekt 57 Thanks 58 Syed Ahmed Khan 59 Notability 59.1 Thanks for the reply 59.2 Why this has become a big issue 60 Interesting discussion 61 Questionable behaviour 62 Pictures 63 de Quervain's 64 Spondylolisthesis 65 MCOTW 66 List of people with epilepsy 67 Prostate cancer 68 Please take a look 69 Down syndrome 70 Deville's RfA 71 MCOTW 72 Balezino 73 Re: Krasnoyarsk 74 re: ==HSV 2\HSV-2== on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, Sept. 3/06 75 re: ==STI's== on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, Sept. 3/06 76 WP:MED 77 Hi InvictaHOG! 78 ABH blood group antigen image 79 TS Review 80 Down syndrome 81 Image work 82 News Update: Medical Genetics Wikiproject article assesment 83 RfA thanks 84 Reverse placebo effects 85 Favor 86 Odigitrievsky Cathedral 87 Supermarine Spitfire FPC vote 88 Asphyxia 89 My RfA 90 Asphyxiant gases 91 casting doubts 92 Syed Ahmed Khan 93 extra eyes requested on an HIV-related subject 94 Medicine Collaboration of the Week 95 Thanks

[edit] Harvey Cushing

Good job catching typos.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Negative studies in medicine

Hey, I just started negative studies in medicine...figured you may have some cents to spare for this topic! Andrew73 03:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency department

I wonder if you would consider supporting Emergency department at Wikipedia:Article improvement drive, to raise the profile of medicine on the wikipedia. The ED is a key area where the public receive emergency care, but the current article is very inadequate.--File Éireann 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pneumonia

Pneumonia article is very nice. Good feature. I added three sentences in prevention section that I hope can stay since pneumonia is over represented in infants. I added an image to the treatment section that can stay or go.--FloNight 01:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing

I understand that both yourself and User:Wouterstomp contributed to Pneumonia. I just want to say that you both did an amazing job! Please, keep up the good work :-) Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, InvictaHOG. Editing is easy; you did the hard work -- writing and research! Rewster 23:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prostate cancer on WP:MCOTW

Hi! You showed support for Prostate cancer, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency department

Many thanks for your support!--File Éireann 23:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whale.to RfC

Pray tell, where might the above captioned be found? Ombudsman 19:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Lisker's sign

Hello, good work on Lisker's sign, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Lisker's sign? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 04:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Gleason score, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Braglist

Thanks for fixing my braglist[1]. Don't tell me you had that on your watchlist! JFW | T@lk 12:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo Pezzati

• Sisto and Cesarina Pezzati: Their Descendants, 1995. (A gealogical work on the Pezzati family. Multiple contributors.) Carr

[edit] Prostate cancer

Your contributions have bordered on the heroic. Thanks for all your hard work. --Arcadian 15:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that! Rewster 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overboard

Please slow down a bit on eliminating Wikilinks from see also sections. Your pov is already plenty well represented in the Wiki's many biased and misleading medical articles, and simply wiping out untold numbers of Wikilinks to add further bias does little to enhance the Wiki. While it is to be expected that orthodox views hold sway on articles on mainstream topics, it makes no sense to sanitize and corrupt other articles that counter the overwhelming extant bias. Narrowing see also Wikilinks down to a single laundry list link is disingenuous at best, and clearly dubious by any standard. Ombudsman 01:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The medical articles are not "biased and misleading", but your vaccine pages certainly are. Your abuse of the "see also" section to create some sort of a daisy chain of your cherished topics is noticable on every page you've edited. I believe the list of vaccine topics was your creation and you should be proud it is serving its purpose! JFW | T@lk 01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You would say that, as they are allopathic biased, especially the vaccine pages, and vaccine disease pages. john 22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted "See Also" on Vaccine Controversy

Please reinsert the See Also links in the Vaccine Controversy article. Deleting them amounts to censorship. --Leifern 23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No it does not. Ombudsman added these to push a POV, and removing them is completely legitimate. And I think your use of the term "censorship" sours the debate and is completely unwarranted. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken; until there is a policy banning see also links on vaccine articles, it is their suppression that is illegitimate. The same goes for Whale.to links. Resorting to terminology like pov pushing is simply a distraction from the matter of the content deletion campaign being waged, which inherently violates the spirit and intent of the Wiki. Add balancing content, if you wish to further compound the bias favoring medical orthodoxy, but please desist with the gratuitous deletions. Oh, and by the way, happy new year. Ombudsman 19:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

InvicatHog main job is suppressing links critical to allopathy. It diminishes Wiki integrity when one group of doctors attempts to control medical thinking here. It is bad enough that they control all of the text on the vaccine pages (at least) but removing external links just shows the Wiki pledge "anyone can edit" is false, a lie. What it means is "anyone can edit the vaccine pages as long as they conform to allopathic beliefs". Censorship is a long tradition in medicine. john 20:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop mis-representing the MMR RfC, which you started after the discussion had reached an impasse and degraded. There was nothing to add, as the comments regarding hazing within the medical field have now been proven to manifest right here at the Wiki. Mentioning the muddled RfC over and over is just a distraction; you have failed to secure a mandate, and proceeded to wage an unfriendly campaign to enforce silence in the see also and external links sections. Please refrain from using diversionary tactics to draw attention away from your deletion campaign. You should show some respect for the passing of a Safe Minds principal by contributing to articles, rather than deleting content just because you don't like its implications. It is time to adopt a more professional demeanor for the new year. Ombudsman 04:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You're almost right, but not really, as the particular example used above the MMR RfC postdated your professed lack of understanding. You responded to an explanation of the suppressive hierarchical influences upon the medical field (initially using the Whitehall Studies as an example; the hazing rituals example came afterwards), by saying "I fail to see how the Whitehall Studies or French economists relate to the Wikipedia article on MMR." For your edification, a second example was provided for you, outlining an anthropologist's observations about hazing rituals (as a primary means by which orthodoxy is enforced in the medical field); you never indicated that you grasped the point, regardless of the sequence of examples.

Getting back to the matter at hand: you keep stating that long lists are being reinserted into see also sections, but the fact is that only a few especially pertinent links are being reintroduced; you have systematically deleted all the see also links from an array of vaccine articles, repeatedly, without a mandate, without any real consensus, leaving a virtual desert in your wake; and you have repeatedly complained about pov pushing, which is nothing more than a diversionary tactic. If you want to have the merits of your concerns taken seriously, please try a little harder to be accurate with your representations, and please try to show a little more affinity to the collaborative spirit that should be fostered within the Wiki. Ombudsman 07:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical controversies

I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical controversies. I'm not sure that Medical controversies is going to survive in Wikipedia. I've already moved a backup copy to another wiki in case it is deleted from Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 02:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quack

[edit] Atrial fibrillation on WP:MCOTW

You expressed support for Atrial fibrillation, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

InvictaHOG, you've done some incredible work while you've been here and have been the major driving force behind the featured medical articles. Your contribution has been invaluable. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

'Medical' is a pseudonym for allopathic, and he sure has done a good job suppressing links and text critical to allopathy, I will be putting up a page to his efforts in due course under my 'suppression' section [2], it also will bring into question the integrity of Wikipedia by allowing biased editors to suppress information they don't like. john 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: "and is sometimes referred to as a triple-jab."

The idea is not to limit Wikipedia to what you know but to bring it up to represent the sum. No disrespect to a harried housewife and busy mother but can you really imagine a doctor using the term trivalent to her? Hells bells, clinicians use triple jab when talking to each other. Stick it in Google and see for yourself. Do please check first -before deleting.--Aspro 20:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lily Loat

Sigh indeed ;) Cyberevil 05:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archie Kalokerinos

How do you explain deleting two of his books [3]??? john 12:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS on WP:MCOTW

You voted for AIDS, the current Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You might find this interesting

Deletion of "improper comparison" -- Fyslee 00:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classic in biased editing

That [4] was a textbook example of biased editing to make him, a vaccine critic, appear (Beddow Bayly) an idiot, well done! I love collecting those. And I have a great example of your other ones [5][6] [7] [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Keep up the good work! I was keen to get examples of allopaths suppressing drug criticism and truth. john 10:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Types of MS.jpg

While reading the Multiple sclerosis article, I noticed your image, which attempts to show the four clinical courses of MS. However, the image does not match the description in the text. If you wish to revise this image, I refer you to the National MS Society's description of the courses: http://www.nationalmssociety.org/What%20is%20MS.asp Thanks for your contribution! BonsaiViking 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-vaccine

I have to laugh that after you spent some time deleting whale links, Midgley has put up a page highlighting whale.to. Funny old world! I do suspect it will all come back to haunt him. john 00:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cystic fibrosis on WP:MCOTW

Cystic fibrosis, which you voted for, has been selected as the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Whaleto as an acceptable site to link from WP to and user...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto Midgley 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your comments on possibly improved scanned page management per John's concerns, storage limits for Whale's potential uploaded images to WikiSource and any of the others storage options that you are familiar with. Thank you for your calm and constructive comments in this RfC. --66.58.130.26 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “Medicine” on MCOTW

After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks on WP editors

Thought I should draw your attention to [19] and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto Gleng 12:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ike Altgens

I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thank you for the comments! RadioKirk talk to me 00:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Woodruff

Thanks for your input on Michael Woodruff, I've tried to incorporate your suggestions, but please tell me how well (or badly) I did. Thanks again! Cool3 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Woodruff is now a featured article. Thank you for your help in making it one! Cool3 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another spot where cite.php is being discussed

I just noticed that there's a heck of a lot of discussion of cite.php, including discussion of limitations and feature requests, over at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. Might have more leads on the issue you asked me about the other day. (I'm leaving this note here just in case you got bored with watching my own user talk page :) Bryan 01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live "hybrid references"

I saw you comments at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. Since I posted my note on the "hidden refs", I figured out how to properly hide them, and implemented "live" versions at Cuba and Shoshone National Forest. I'm still waiting on the code changes to let us move those reference blocks to a later section of the page; but if the code change is made, it should be a simple cut-and-paste to move the identical reference block down, where used. LotLE×talk 03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Congratulations on the Featured Article!

Thank you! :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cystic fibrosis

In thanks for your incredible contributions to the Cystic fibrosis article I would like to give you this barnstar. I doubt the article would have shapped up this well without you. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glacier National Park (US)

Sorry if I came across as rude. I took out a bunch of "in the park" comments, restructured some wording and almost completely rewrote the intro...let me know there what other enhancements you feel are needed. Thanks.--MONGO 06:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delink dates, in the text, of the month day year format. This is required for the date preference feature of Wikipedia. Dates in official names don't need to be linked and references don't matter as much (although some will still link them for the same reasons behind linking in-text occurances.) Rmhermen 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_containing_a_month_and_a_day To be more explicit than the links: if you link only the day and month but not the year, date formats with year first or all numerical ones are not enabled. Rmhermen 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I notcied that you participated in the Michael Woodruff featured article discussion, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in the Rfa for Cool3, the creator at WP:RFA. ShortJason 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Organization of CF article

Thank you for your note. I basically made two major changes: 1. rewriting the introduction, 2. reorganization. I understand that the reorganization does not follow the standard medical template. I will adress this issue in the talk section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions as suggested by you.Ekem 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We all strive to improve the articles. Our discussion seems to have initiated a healthy larger discussion about the medical clinical template: should it be “popularity-driven” or “progression-driven”? It is my opinion that a “progression-driven” template makes a more logical, ergo better read. But let us see what others have to say.- Regarding the introduction, I noticed you reversed it. I admire all the great work you put into this very extensive and important article. My point is simply this: What should the introduction do? In my view, it should offer a definition, it should not be too wordy, and it should not “steal the thunder”, rather it should seduce the reader to go on to an interesting and informative article. The body of the article is very informative, but I do not feel that an introduction that attempts to be summary or an abstract is the optimal way to lead the reader to it. – Just on the side: I would think that animals may have CF, too. Ekem 00:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. My interpretation of WP:LEAD is not that it is a directive to write a summary or an abstract. But no need to belabor the point. – Please take a look at the CF articles in other languages. The French article has a beautiful, logical structure and contains information that may be useful for the English article, such as a listing of common gene mutations. The German article has a great definition, very specific and to the point, also the Dutch and the Danish articles have more specific definitions that the current English version. I hope that will help.Ekem 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't think why you deleted all the "foreign" CF links (including one to CF Australia which is in our national tongue ie. English) but left all the Seppo sites in Albatross2147 03:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

[edit] G Patrick Maxwell

I saw your 'keep' vote on this. Did you really look at the article on him? There is precious little to differentiate him from many thousands of academics. By the way, I liked the work you did on the MS article. It's an outstanding article.MollyBloom 03:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your civility, which is more than I can say for the editor of the article in question. Please go back and look at it. I agree with you that I might just sit back for awhile and watch. It is true I feel strongly about this, because I simply can't see what makes this individual so unusually notable as to be included in a Wiki entry. I also know the history of the author of the article. I read the court case against that surgeon, and frankly was repulsed. You should read it. Rob and Midgely both misrepresented the issues and rulings of that case. Well, it is possible that Midgley simply can't read legal cases, so I will give him the benefit of a doubt. However, Rob is astutely aware of what happened. IF that article stays, then this should stay in the discussion. It goes to the essence of one of the major complaints about plastic surgeons who advocate silicone implants.

As to the article on MS....I was diagnosed with R/R MS in 2004, so I have an interest in it.MollyBloom 05:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your assessment on my talk page of the case is very benign. The facts in evidence included his alcoholism (and most recent 'rehab' about the same time as the filing of the lawsuit), as well as his failure to keep proper records (at best). I have no doubt that what was stated was true. But even if it was more 'benign', he still violated ethics (and the law) in his failure to keep records of the (supposed) informed consent. He has a legal duty to keep all medical records. His failure to do so, combined with her assertions, speaks volumes, and goes beyond the 'he said she said' that you suggested. That most likely is the reason he did not appeal his loss in the appeals court. It is very likely he would have lost.MollyBloom 05:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If this is an example of a noteworthy plastic surgeon, god help us.MollyBloom 06:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A doctor has a legal duty to maintain medical records. This is not optional. In fact, a plastic surgeon who did my implantation had his licensed revoke, in part because of sloppy record keeping - and that was in the late 80s. I am shocked that you would say keeping records is not necessary. It may not be a medical ethics rule (I wonder if there are there any) but it most certainly is a legal requirement. It is an ethics requirement for lawyers. It is also practical. Can you remember every detail of every patient? Would you be willing to base your treatment of a patient based solely on your memory? That does not pass the smell test. And why did he suddently want her to sign one then, after the fact?

The uncontested facts and facts which were consistent with the evidence are as follows:
1. Silicone was placed in the patient by Maxwell,
2. Maxwell told the patient about the hazards of silicone,
3. The testimony of the staff that the patient was shocked and upset (i.e. visibly upset) upon learning she already had silicone implants.
All things considered, since Maxwell informed her of the silicone hazard issues at the time of the initial implant, it's not logical that she would agree to silicone. Couple this logical point with the testimony of the staff regarding her refusal to sign a silicone consent form when she came back for later surgery, and the fact that the patient was visibly upset when she learned she "already had silicone"- and its hard not to draw the conclusion that Maxwell violated informed consent and breached his patient's trust. Neither one can produce a consent form for the use of silicone. Again hard not to draw the conclusion that Maxwell violated informed consent.MollyBloom 06:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you a plastic surgeon? Just curious, based on your statement that you saw a trans-flap or Maxwells work? You are indeed correct, that there is no reason to continue this discussion. You have made your position and your attitudes very clear. If it is a doctor with a few publications, include 'em, regardless of how unethical he may be. Or maybe ethics, as you implied, is not a concern for doctors. MollyBloom 07:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC

[edit] My FA

Thanks for the kind note! It's always nice to know that one's work is appreciated. See you around, Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am not withdrawing Rfd

The Rfd turned into a personal attack forum, focusing on people and not the merits of the Rfd. Please tell your friend Midgley to stop hurling insults. I am sick of a senseless war that is nothing but fighting off insults. What I do not understand is why any doctor would support any other doctor who uses Wikopedia as a forum to harass, insult and disparage. That does not seem very professional. MollyBloom 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks...

It is rather sad to watch. Whether one of the mediator cabal might step in ...? Midgley 01:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Troll?? Not 86...???

It doesn't look entirely compatible with a continuing professional practice, but no, I don't think it is fake.

Actually, based on this and a colleague whose postings to a UK mailing list progressed, there is probably a paper to be written, on what doctors should or may say or do in the line of description of behaviour and advice to moderators and the like. A very touchy subject though. I don't suppose I'll be thanked for [20] either. Midgley 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you - U.S. FAC

[edit] Rfa thanks

Dear InvictaHOG, I can't thank you enough for your support during my recent request for adminship. I look forward to collaborating on many more medical articles! Your kind words were greatly appreciated. Take care -- Samir धर्म 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New medicine COTW

NCurse _work 15:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Vibo56, about blood types MCOTW

Hello InvictaHOG! As stated on the talk page, I think you did a splendid job on the Kell page. I just realised that blood types were the MCTOW project, and assume that this fact attracted your attention to the blood type page. As I'm leaving for holidays I won't be able to contribute now, but if you have the time, I would appreciate greatly any other blood type system subpage. I think it's maybe because I'm a specialist working in the field that I've been procrastinating about creating these subpages, making myself busy on the reference desk instead. It's like I feel it has to be perfect. I'll get back to it later this summer. Best regards, vibo56 ^talk 14:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for editing the article Transfusion-associated graft versus host disease. I will look at the main article later, my interest shifted to something else right now (started working on a separate article for Abdominal aortic aneurysm). Can you tell me how to join the wikiproject clinical medicine? Just adding my nick to the list would work? Could you also look at the Orthomolecular medicine article? I think I will withdraw from discussing with those two guys coz it makes no sense to argue with them. ackoz 14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After you come back from vacation

I would like to nominate you for adminship. You have an outstanding record of edits and you could use the administrator priviledges in editing wikipedia. Would you accept the nomination? ackoz 11:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MCOTW

NCurse _work 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leukocyte adhesion deficiency

Here I expressed my opinion about your article. NCurse _work 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for comments

Thanks for all your comments on Wikipedia:Peer_review/Down_syndrome. I guess the peer review is officially closed (although I still have it on watch). I'm too close to the project, but I think it has improved based on your comments and criticisms. Thanks, again. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aortic dissection

Please have a look at this. Aortic dissection is a featured article candidate. Thanks. NCurse _work 14:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cystic Fibrosis

Thank you for your work on the CF article. I'm glad it made FA status so others can learn more about it. I used to have a friend with CF in college (she is still alive).whicky1978 ^talk 06:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nevsky Prospekt

The truth is that the article had modern pictures in the past, but their quality was appaling, so I removed them without much ado. Your pictures are fine and I definitely want to use some of them when I will expand the article in the future. Please upload them to Wikimedia Commons for the time being. I also plan to upload some of the Nevsky photographs from www.walks.ru, as we have the owner's permission. I also reworked your article about Vladimirskaya Church and announced it on Portal:Russia/New article announcements. I plan to write much about St. Pete sights when I shall have more time. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for uploading Image:Yelagin Island.jpg and releasing it into the public domain. I think that one of things that makes Wikipedia great is its unique collection of images. You might also consider uploading your pictures to the Wikimedia Commons so that all of the different projects can use them. Happy photo taking! --Hetar 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syed Ahmed Khan

Hi - Yes actually I've still got a lot of info to add to the article. Your comment is right - I was writing in context of the partition of India, which happened 50 years after Khan's death and thus is not properly explained or directly relevant to this article. Thanks for your comments, but do check back in the coming weekend. Rama's arrow 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO published authors are notable. The guidelines do not say whether it is Junior/Senior or Fiction/ Nonfiction etc Is it correct or notDoctor Bruno 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. I request you to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mariano_Anto_Bruno_Mascarenhas When the guidelines are like this, why should users use own guidelines like "junior" "exam cram" "limited shelf life" "no post graduate" etc that are insulting to the concerned person. What is the solution for such personal slanderingDoctor Bruno 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the reply

Thanks again for you reply. You have understood the problem. It is not regarding "keeping" or "deleting". I wanted to bring to notice of every one that the AFD debate is not proper. As soon as an article is listed for debate, you see everyone coming and adding delete (or keep) even without reading the article and the relevant points, but based on their personal opinions. For example if there is an article in Hitler's good qualities (for example) and that is marked for deletion, then every one who does not like the article start adding delete immediately not seeing the merit of the article.

I am sure that the same thing has happened here also. You can see one user has voted three times. Another user gave a hasty decision and in the process of justifying that, they invent their own guidelines and in that process insult the subject. If you have read the AFD Debate you will see words like "junior author", "carm", "no post graduation" etc. What is the need for the words. After I decided to counter all these they change the stand.

The article was listed under "no proof for the book" When the proof was shown the decision changed into "Non-notable" and then after that was shown, it was 'Vanity". The bottomline is very simple. The ego of the user prevents him from going back on the decision and hence to justify the speedy decision he invents new guidelines

You should note that I have been able to substantiate my points far better than those opposing it

To summarise, let us see what the Guidelines say

1. Notability of Books. THe books have an ISBN Number. 5 books are published by reputed firms. 4 of those are published by the biggest medical publisher in India. In such a case, one user who gave a knee jerk comment in the first place has choosen the 6th (1 out of 6 minority) and say that it is self publishable. He has ignored 5 because his ego prevents him from going back on his earlier words

Notability (people) 1. Published authors - 6 books is more than enough to satisfy this criteria

Notability (doctor) May be there is nothing called as exam preparation in western world, but here it is a budding field. I did not give these links it that page as it will amount to "self-glory", but since you seem to understand, I am giving you few links. You can search at www.rxpgonline.com [21] www.aippg.net/forum[22] and www.netmedicos.com [23] You may think me of some one obsessed with self glory, but the point to prove is that, unless some one is regarded as an expert in that area, you will not see students from the length and breath of a country with 1000 million population to ask for my help. May be this branch of Entrance preparation per se is not notable in western world, but just because some thing does not exist in America, it does not mean that it is not an entity

Then

Regarding the counter points

1. The article was not written by me. When this controversy erupted, I read the guidelines regarding autobiography and has followed what is given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you Even without going through the debate, when users accuse of vanity (as if I have created the article) it hurts a lot

2. WP:BIO clearly says that you can have articles on published authors. There is no talk about Junior/Senior, Undergraduation/Post Graduation, Fiction/Nonfiction etc.

My main concern is that all these points come out only after I put a counter question. They are not the real facts or standing norms, but are made up as the users ego prevent them from stepping back and change the hasty initial judgement. In order to substantiate the hasty vote, they invent their own new guidelines and terms like junior doctor, exam shelf life, not finished PG etc . Wounded by these new "self invented" guidelines, I even deleted the article my self, but that has been restoredDoctor Bruno 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why this has become a big issue

Why this has become a big issue is for the simple reason that the concerned subject himself is giving responses to the claims and 'that too in his own name from an account that is a year old instead of using sockpuppets. May be the issue would have been different, if I had replied "keep" under 10 different account names, or asked my students and readers of my books (in real world) who are wikipedians to vote for me. We made a careful decision of not interfering with this process and only me (the best person to give proofs) to respond to the question.

I would like this issue to be a turning point as far as meaningful debates in AFD is concerned.

One important point I want to emphasise here is this - User A gives and opinion of "keep". User B counters that with a good explanation. How can User C then come and add "Keep as per A" Should he not counter the argument of B with his own points. That has not been done in that debate.

Also I can very well claim that there are forces with malicious intent who want to damage my reputation acting over there.Doctor Bruno 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not accusing every one, but one user - who claims to be from India who could have easily called the Publisher to verify whether I have written the books for Re 1 (cost of phone charge - less than 3 cents - a coffee cost Rs 3) - who said that I have never written a book. He also goes round various talk pages and incites opinion about meDoctor Bruno 01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I am not able to say with certain whether it is a "intentional personal attack" (which was my first opinion), or an vain attempt to satisfy one's ego to justify the initial hasty comment at the AFD page (which I assume to be the reason now), I think that in the interest of the WIkipedia and community as a whole, the best, easiest and least stressful option is to just let things go and to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as if it never happened and count it as water under the bridge and move on. [sorry for the copyright violation :) ]

As of now, I feel that I have wasted 5 days of my time and time of editors like you in this controversy. May be if some one had spoken to be like you, Blnguyen, Erechtheus, Sarah Ewart and Samir (Scope) on day one itself (instead of quoting the lone book ignoring 5 books) this controversy would not have ballooned.

As far as the "bold and large text" is concerned, let it be like that till the debate is closed. I would like to bring to the notice of the community that voting in Afd (as well as in Rfd etc) should be done after some thought and contemplation and not mechanically. Let this incident may serve as a mind opener to avoid un necessary heated exchange of words.

Thanks for the patient words. And do include me in future projects related to Medicine. Regards Doctor Bruno 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting discussion

...at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Medicine-related_articles)#Suggestion.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable behaviour

Can you please give your opinion regarding the behaviour of User EyeMD. Please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FK._R._Kaushik&diff=68742235&oldid=68722846 Also see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doctorbruno/Archive_6#Published_MCQ_books He seems to drag my name into each and every controversyDoctor Bruno 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Hello, your pictures are very nice and I appreciate them a lot. Why don't you create an account in the Wikimedia Commons, where we can upload pictures to be used in other Wikipedia projects, such as de.wiki or ru.wiki. There you will find Category:Monasteries of Russia, where I upload my own pictures and where your photograph will not be lost. I shall take a look and try to find a place for it in Novodevichy Convent, Novodevichy Cemetery, Moscow, Russian Orthodox Church or some other article in en.wiki. Please keep up the good work! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's me again. I was nudged by your notice to rummage out my old PC and upload to Commons my own sloppy pictures of the Donskoy Monastery. Now I search for your picture of the Novodevichy and can't find it. What's the matter, man? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you a lot. It's late here in Russia and I go to bed now, but I'll be back on Monday and will have a look. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 20:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] de Quervain's

Hi there; we may have here an example of transatlantic language shift. I am more than happy to give you a laugh, but in the UK the description of "stenosing teno-vaginitis" is in fact common usage. In this context the use of the word vagina clearly has no gynaecological connotation; it refers to a sheath or tube within which the tendons of flexor pollicis longus and abductor pollicis brevis travel. Tenosynovitis indicates an inflammation of the synovium lining the tendon sheaths, while tenovaginitis indicates an inflammation of the sheaths themselves.--Anthony.bradbury 23:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted it. I fully recognise that this may be a specific British usage, but as I am sure you know the live-and-let-live approach in Wiki is to leave USA/UK terms as they are first entered. Tunica vaginalis is, of course, a good example of alternate usage, though clearly unconnected to Monsieur de Quervain.

I note that you have written vast numbers of articles with a medical orientation - it's quite difficult to find something new to write about!--Anthony.bradbury 23:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true. But whenever I think that I would like to write about something, I find that somebody - often you - has already done so!--Anthony.bradbury 23:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spondylolisthesis

Hi: thank you for your kind words on the article on this topic. I found a gaping hole between slipped disc and sponylolysis which was crying out to be filled; and before becoming a general practitioner I was an orthopaedic surgeon.--Anthony.bradbury 23:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good going! As a Physical Therapist who has worked in Greenland, I have quite a bit of experience with this diagnosis. It was so common (30-50% of all Eskimos) that it was hardly ever listed as the primary cause of pain. One simply took it for granted that the poor patient probably had it, as well as other problems. It's actually rather easy to diagnose a stable or unstable one. -- Fyslee 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MCOTW

NCurse _work 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people with epilepsy

Based on your discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles), I thought might like to comment over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with epilepsy. This list had undergone some big changes whilst being reviewed and is now starting to get some support. I fear, however, that it might run out of time to become featured. Regardless, I'd appreciate your opinion. Cheers, Colin Harkness°^Talk 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to review this list, and for your support. Cheers, Colin Harkness°^Talk 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostate cancer

Reply to your enquiry is on the Prostate cancer discussion page. Nunquam Dormio 12:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look

I think most of your objections are dealt with at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redshift. Please take a look. --ScienceApologist 13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We're having a bit of a dispute now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redshift. Please take a look. Thanks for all your input. --ScienceApologist 20:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Down syndrome

I was going to nominate it as soon as it came off semi-protection. Sorry I have been unresponsive. Summer grades and Fall registration make for a killer couple of weeks in August. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deville's RfA

Hello, Invicta, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MCOTW

NCurse _work 12:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balezino

Well, I understand that it was hard to find information, but your entry contained several grave errors, hence the summary. Balezino isn't a city, or even a town, so no need for the template. It is also not in Siberia (Siberia is east of Urals). The picture, however, would be great. You can add it when you have time. Hopefully you enjoyed that trip through Russia. When I was travelling from Perm to Moscow recently, there was an English guy, who was taking education in China and returning home by the train. Seems to be a popular route, although I cannot understand why people choose train over aircraft.  Grue  08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Krasnoyarsk

Hi, thanks for the picture. I don't live there, but contribute to the article and watch it. Nice picture, but I'd post one of those of the station overview. I've noticed you've made quite a trip! --Ъыь ^(mailbox) 20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: ==HSV 2\HSV-2== on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, Sept. 3/06

Ok, sorry let me rephrase my question: Must you display at least A symptom of HSV 2 [or otherwise called herpes simplex virus 2, herpes simplex virus-2, or HSV-2] in your lifetime, [i.e.: before you die] if you have HSV 2 [or otherwise called herpes simplex virus 2, herpes simplex virus-2, or HSV-2]?100110100 00:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but that means I could have HSV 2 [or otherwise called herpes simplex virus 2, herpes simplex virus-2, or HSV-2] without knowing because I could have shook someone's hand, or if they touched me....... isn't that terrible?!100110100 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But on the article, it says that its passed on by broken skin, and that maybe the person I'm shaking hands with has HSV2 on his/her hand I shoke but the sores were not there [you can transmit HSV2 without having symptoms]. Well my concern is that how could I say I'm disease free if that could well be the case, & yet I don't even know if I have HSV2 on a part of my body? Because I could have HSV2 on my forearm, someone could transit me HSV2 to me by their foreare [say, if they are wearing a tshirt & brushed against me].100110100 08:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Or even, if I was wearing a tshirt.100110100 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: ==STI's== on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, Sept. 3/06

Pardon my response, I didn't make it clear. What I meant is that some STI's do not affect the baby prenatally, SOME, not all.100110100 00:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MED

Hi,

the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi InvictaHOG!

I edited your link into our "Saletta Morgagni" now pointing to your en.wiki (very impressive!) user page. Your appreciation to my categorizing style for histopatholoy images made me happy!--Alex brollo 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABH blood group antigen image

Hi InvictaHOG, you created a great diagram Image:ABO_blood_group_diagram.svg, but it looks like you labelled the A and B erythrocytes the opposite way round (the ABO blood type article says: "Type A has an extra N-acetyl galactosamine bonded to the galactose near the end, while type B has an extra galactose bonded to the galactose near the end"). I'm not sure how to edit an SVG, otherwise I would change it round. --apers0n 05:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily uploaded a modified PNG image to the Commons Image:ABO_blood_group_diagram.png until you (or someone) can modify the SVG. --apers0n 11:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for going on about this, but it looks like you have replaced my temporary PNG with the SVG image in the Blood type articles apparently without modifying it, so it's still not technically correct. I saw you also made the image Image:Bloodtype final.svg where the A and B red blood cells are also the wrong way round. --apers0n 05:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The exploded view of the antigens now match the RBC labels on Image:Bloodtype_final.svg, but you made all the little antigens sticking to the red blood cells, which don't match! It might be easier to swap the A and B marking on the red cells in the original Image:ABO_blood_group_diagram.svg. --apers0n 15:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That has sorted it, the image is now perfect and I think the Blood type article may be ready for a peer review? I've nominated the duplicate article Image:Bloodtype final.svg for deletion on the Commons, but thought I would notify you here in case you have a reason for keeping it. --apers0n 08:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TS Review

To all who have helped me develop the article Tourette syndrome, I was hoping you'd have a new look. Jkelly has checked the images, I've asked Tony to do a thorough copyedit to polish the prose when he has time, and I've completed the referencing and expanded the Screening section. I think I've done all I'm capable of, and would appreciate any new input you may have. Sandy 23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Down syndrome

Thanks. It has been an interesting time working toward FA. It would not have been possible without the article on health aspects. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image work

I wonder if you could help with Image:BMIchart.png or if you have any comments on images or charts for BMI. See also BMI Chart (height 150 - 174cm). Snowman 12:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the chart made with perl.

BMI  =  10.0   15.0   18.5   20.0   25.0   30.0   35.0   40.0

1.25 |  15.63  23.44  28.91  31.25  39.06  46.88  54.69  62.50
1.26 |  15.88  23.81  29.37  31.75  39.69  47.63  55.57  63.50
1.27 |  16.13  24.19  29.84  32.26  40.32  48.39  56.45  64.52
1.28 |  16.38  24.58  30.31  32.77  40.96  49.15  57.34  65.54
1.29 |  16.64  24.96  30.79  33.28  41.60  49.92  58.24  66.56
 1.3 |  16.90  25.35  31.27  33.80  42.25  50.70  59.15  67.60
1.31 |  17.16  25.74  31.75  34.32  42.90  51.48  60.06  68.64
1.32 |  17.42  26.14  32.23  34.85  43.56  52.27  60.98  69.70
1.33 |  17.69  26.53  32.72  35.38  44.22  53.07  61.91  70.76
1.34 |  17.96  26.93  33.22  35.91  44.89  53.87  62.85  71.82
1.35 |  18.23  27.34  33.72  36.45  45.56  54.68  63.79  72.90
1.36 |  18.50  27.74  34.22  36.99  46.24  55.49  64.74  73.98
1.37 |  18.77  28.15  34.72  37.54  46.92  56.31  65.69  75.08
1.38 |  19.04  28.57  35.23  38.09  47.61  57.13  66.65  76.18
1.39 |  19.32  28.98  35.74  38.64  48.30  57.96  67.62  77.28
 1.4 |  19.60  29.40  36.26  39.20  49.00  58.80  68.60  78.40
1.41 |  19.88  29.82  36.78  39.76  49.70  59.64  69.58  79.52
1.42 |  20.16  30.25  37.30  40.33  50.41  60.49  70.57  80.66
1.43 |  20.45  30.67  37.83  40.90  51.12  61.35  71.57  81.80
1.44 |  20.74  31.10  38.36  41.47  51.84  62.21  72.58  82.94
1.45 |  21.03  31.54  38.90  42.05  52.56  63.08  73.59  84.10
1.46 |  21.32  31.97  39.43  42.63  53.29  63.95  74.61  85.26
1.47 |  21.61  32.41  39.98  43.22  54.02  64.83  75.63  86.44
1.48 |  21.90  32.86  40.52  43.81  54.76  65.71  76.66  87.62
1.49 |  22.20  33.30  41.07  44.40  55.50  66.60  77.70  88.80
 1.5 |  22.50  33.75  41.63  45.00  56.25  67.50  78.75  90.00
1.51 |  22.80  34.20  42.18  45.60  57.00  68.40  79.80  91.20
1.52 |  23.10  34.66  42.74  46.21  57.76  69.31  80.86  92.42
1.53 |  23.41  35.11  43.31  46.82  58.52  70.23  81.93  93.64
1.54 |  23.72  35.57  43.87  47.43  59.29  71.15  83.01  94.86
1.55 |  24.03  36.04  44.45  48.05  60.06  72.08  84.09  96.10
1.56 |  24.34  36.50  45.02  48.67  60.84  73.01  85.18  97.34
1.57 |  24.65  36.97  45.60  49.30  61.62  73.95  86.27  98.60
1.58 |  24.96  37.45  46.18  49.93  62.41  74.89  87.37  99.86
1.59 |  25.28  37.92  46.77  50.56  63.20  75.84  88.48 101.12
 1.6 |  25.60  38.40  47.36  51.20  64.00  76.80  89.60 102.40
1.61 |  25.92  38.88  47.95  51.84  64.80  77.76  90.72 103.68
1.62 |  26.24  39.37  48.55  52.49  65.61  78.73  91.85 104.98
1.63 |  26.57  39.85  49.15  53.14  66.42  79.71  92.99 106.28
1.64 |  26.90  40.34  49.76  53.79  67.24  80.69  94.14 107.58
1.65 |  27.23  40.84  50.37  54.45  68.06  81.68  95.29 108.90
1.66 |  27.56  41.33  50.98  55.11  68.89  82.67  96.45 110.22
1.67 |  27.89  41.83  51.59  55.78  69.72  83.67  97.61 111.56
1.68 |  28.22  42.34  52.21  56.45  70.56  84.67  98.78 112.90
1.69 |  28.56  42.84  52.84  57.12  71.40  85.68  99.96 114.24
 1.7 |  28.90  43.35  53.47  57.80  72.25  86.70 101.15 115.60
1.71 |  29.24  43.86  54.10  58.48  73.10  87.72 102.34 116.96
1.72 |  29.58  44.38  54.73  59.17  73.96  88.75 103.54 118.34
1.73 |  29.93  44.89  55.37  59.86  74.82  89.79 104.75 119.72
1.74 |  30.28  45.41  56.01  60.55  75.69  90.83 105.97 121.10
1.75 |  30.63  45.94  56.66  61.25  76.56  91.88 107.19 122.50
1.76 |  30.98  46.46  57.31  61.95  77.44  92.93 108.42 123.90
1.77 |  31.33  46.99  57.96  62.66  78.32  93.99 109.65 125.32
1.78 |  31.68  47.53  58.62  63.37  79.21  95.05 110.89 126.74
1.79 |  32.04  48.06  59.28  64.08  80.10  96.12 112.14 128.16
 1.8 |  32.40  48.60  59.94  64.80  81.00  97.20 113.40 129.60
1.81 |  32.76  49.14  60.61  65.52  81.90  98.28 114.66 131.04
1.82 |  33.12  49.69  61.28  66.25  82.81  99.37 115.93 132.50
1.83 |  33.49  50.23  61.95  66.98  83.72 100.47 117.21 133.96
1.84 |  33.86  50.78  62.63  67.71  84.64 101.57 118.50 135.42
1.85 |  34.23  51.34  63.32  68.45  85.56 102.68 119.79 136.90
1.86 |  34.60  51.89  64.00  69.19  86.49 103.79 121.09 138.38
1.87 |  34.97  52.45  64.69  69.94  87.42 104.91 122.39 139.88
1.88 |  35.34  53.02  65.39  70.69  88.36 106.03 123.70 141.38
1.89 |  35.72  53.58  66.08  71.44  89.30 107.16 125.02 142.88
 1.9 |  36.10  54.15  66.79  72.20  90.25 108.30 126.35 144.40
1.91 |  36.48  54.72  67.49  72.96  91.20 109.44 127.68 145.92
1.92 |  36.86  55.30  68.20  73.73  92.16 110.59 129.02 147.46
1.93 |  37.25  55.87  68.91  74.50  93.12 111.75 130.37 149.00
1.94 |  37.64  56.45  69.63  75.27  94.09 112.91 131.73 150.54
1.95 |  38.03  57.04  70.35  76.05  95.06 114.08 133.09 152.10
1.96 |  38.42  57.62  71.07  76.83  96.04 115.25 134.46 153.66
1.97 |  38.81  58.21  71.80  77.62  97.02 116.43 135.83 155.24
1.98 |  39.20  58.81  72.53  78.41  98.01 117.61 137.21 156.82
1.99 |  39.60  59.40  73.26  79.20  99.00 118.80 138.60 158.40
   2 |  40.00  60.00  74.00  80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
2.01 |  40.40  60.60  74.74  80.80 101.00 121.20 141.40 161.60
2.02 |  40.80  61.21  75.49  81.61 102.01 122.41 142.81 163.22
2.03 |  41.21  61.81  76.24  82.42 103.02 123.63 144.23 164.84
2.04 |  41.62  62.42  76.99  83.23 104.04 124.85 145.66 166.46
2.05 |  42.02  63.04  77.75  84.05 105.06 126.07 147.09 168.10
2.06 |  42.44  63.65  78.51  84.87 106.09 127.31 148.53 169.74
2.07 |  42.85  64.27  79.27  85.70 107.12 128.55 149.97 171.40
2.08 |  43.26  64.90  80.04  86.53 108.16 129.79 151.42 173.06
2.09 |  43.68  65.52  80.81  87.36 109.20 131.04 152.88 174.72
 2.1 |  44.10  66.15  81.58  88.20 110.25 132.30 154.35 176.40
2.11 |  44.52  66.78  82.36  89.04 111.30 133.56 155.82 178.08
2.12 |  44.94  67.42  83.15  89.89 112.36 134.83 157.30 179.78
2.13 |  45.37  68.05  83.93  90.74 113.42 136.11 158.79 181.48
2.14 |  45.80  68.69  84.72  91.59 114.49 137.39 160.29 183.18
2.15 |  46.22  69.34  85.52  92.45 115.56 138.67 161.79 184.90
2.16 |  46.66  69.98  86.31  93.31 116.64 139.97 163.30 186.62
2.17 |  47.09  70.63  87.11  94.18 117.72 141.27 164.81 188.36
2.18 |  47.52  71.29  87.92  95.05 118.81 142.57 166.33 190.10
2.19 |  47.96  71.94  88.73  95.92 119.90 143.88 167.86 191.84
 2.2 |  48.40  72.60  89.54  96.80 121.00 145.20 169.40 193.60
2.21 |  48.84  73.26  90.36  97.68 122.10 146.52 170.94 195.36
2.22 |  49.28  73.93  91.18  98.57 123.21 147.85 172.49 197.14
2.23 |  49.73  74.59  92.00  99.46 124.32 149.19 174.05 198.92
2.24 |  50.18  75.26  92.83 100.35 125.44 150.53 175.62 200.70
2.25 |  50.62  75.94  93.66 101.25 126.56 151.87 177.19 202.50

Snowman 17:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News Update: Medical Genetics Wikiproject article assesment

One of the tasks of the WP:MEDGENP is to assess all unrated articles listed on the article rating page so that the quality of the articles within the scope of the project can be seen at a glance. This was previously updated only manually, but now the ratings are also harvested daily by a bot and the results posted here, with significant changes from the previous rating listed here. If you would like to assess an article relating to genetic disorders you can add the relevant template to the article talk page, which will add the article to the relevant category and will be monitored by the bot.

A new assessment category {{GA-Class}} (Good Article) has been added for articles that have been assessed as a Good Article.

There is also a new category Category:Acquired genetic disorders for genetic disorders that are not inherited. Please add this category to any articles you think may qualify.

If you are registered to use the AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) (requires Windows 2000/XP + .NET framework v.2) there is a Wikipedia Assessments plugin that is designed to make the assessment process faster and easier (about the plugin / user guide). It has an assessments mode, for reviewing articles, and a talk page tagging mode for reviewing articles. Users with more than 500 mainspace edits can register to use the AWB.

[edit] RfA thanks

Hey InvictaHOG, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your comments and support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse placebo effects

I thought this was a little too off-topic to reply in the RFA, but I agree, the article on the nocebo effect is quite good. Reverse placebo effects are distinct in many ways though (it is covered very little in the medical literature, psychology has more on the phenomenon), but for now it makes a very good redirect. Thanks. :-) Irongargoyle 01:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your support in my RfA, I really appreciate it. Here is the reference you were asking about in regards to a reverse placebo effect that's not a nocebo there are others out there as well, although I think you are right about maybe it just warranting an inclusion in the nocebo article. We'll see. Thanks, Irongargoyle 04:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favor

A new user recently created the article Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis and I've been trying to help him bring it up to Wikipedia standards. However, his description of the model as "unconventional" on my talk page and a google search have made me wonder if the article is really suitable for Wikipedia. The article is well-sourced but I'm afraid it may actually be original research. With no medical background, I feel unable to judge whether or not this is the case. I remembered your help with the article Michael Woodruff and the fact that you are apparently an expert on medicine, so I thought I'd ask you if the article seems suitable for Wikipedia. I'd hate for the newbie to come across this discussion, so I ask that you either reply here on your talk page or contact me via email with your response to the article. In any case, your input is much appreciated. So, if you'd be so kind, just look over the article and give me a thumbs-up/thumbs-down. Thanks again. Cool3 23:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest it is not my primary field and I am not conversant with the newest theories and ideas for the truly puzzling question which this theory intends to explain. However, I can say a couple of things about the theory - it seems to make sense and it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal. You are right that google (and similarly, citation trackers) do not make much out of this theory. I can only find articles on pubmed which are by the same authors when discussing this theory. Some strengths are that this is certainly presented in the terms of a hypothesis and is well-referenced and well-written. I don't think that this counts as original research due to the fact that it is published. There is, however, a precedent for deleting such an article as this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis). In that instance, the page was also well-written and referenced. The argument seemed to hinge on notability, which might actually be a problem in both cases here. However, as you can see I actually voted to keep that article, so you know up front where my preferences lie. If you want a more diverse set of opinions, WP:MED has quite a few of us who like to talk about these sort of things! InvictaHOG 01:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As the article does appear to not be orignial research, I'm not particularly concerned about its notability. At any rate, it passes my personal criteria for inclusion. If someone is interested in pursuing the matter further, they may do so at will. However, insofar as I am concerned, Wikipedia's probably better off to have the article. Cool3 21:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odigitrievsky Cathedral

How very odd. Perhaps because it was the last section and was seen as including the "categories". Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 19:50 5 October 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Supermarine Spitfire FPC vote

Hi Invicta,
I was wondering if you had a preference for an edit version on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Supermarine Spitfire XVI? If you do not specify an edit, your vote will count as a support for the original version. Thanks! --Fir0002 23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asphyxia

I've edited the page to include the term. I'm done editing. Keep up the good work, regards Widefox 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asphyxiant gases

Editing clash - I thought you were working on Asphyxia? I have rewritten the article. I shall now merge your recent changes. best regards Widefox 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) I'm done merging your changes. And not editing more. My changes are what I consider a balancing to provide NPOV. I look forward to your changes. regards Widefox 16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] casting doubts

I do not take kindly to your unbased assertion that I did not read your reference, in fact my extensive comments would lead to the opposite conclusion. Please treat me with the respect that I try to give you. And please find some better references, so that the page grows stronger, and not bulking it up with asphyxia references to avoid deletion! I have constructively added to the article (I'm probably the major author now), despite still believing that asphyxia is the real place for this. My understanding is that you are talking about asphyxia, and not asphyxia gases. This only adds backing to the idea that asphyxia is the correct place for this material. Further, just between you and me, I am a science post-doc from a top-tier international research institute, and so I can read through a 2 1/2 page reference! Widefox 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syed Ahmed Khan

Hi - I request you to please visit Syed Ahmed Khan and its FAC. I need your input, advice and criticism. Many thanks, Rama's arrow 01:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] extra eyes requested on an HIV-related subject

Hi - don't know if you have time for this, or interest, but I'm having trouble getting any third-party attention on Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis (talk) and thought of asking you because of your AIDS-related contributions.

The editor who started this article, and who has added links to it and a bit of related questionable text in HIV and SIV, is apparently the principal author of the peer-reviewed papers cited; is new to Wikipedia; and has taken a very combative attitude to my admittedly blunt questions about references and notability. At this point he is refusing to talk to me, saying I don't understand the subject, and generally coming off a bit grandiose (I'll be proven right, they called Einstein a crank, etc. - there is actually a bit of this style in his published material too). I'm just a nerdy nurse but I don't think my doubts about his reasoning are totally off base... but it may just be that he's not expressing himself well on Wikipedia and needs some editing help. So, if you get a chance and don't mind wading through some rather pointless arguments... thanks. ←Hob 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed the previous comment about this. And I should've thought of going to the medical portal - the first thing that came to mind was WikiProject AIDS but that's defunct. ←Hob 18:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine Collaboration of the Week

WS 19:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for pointing out the RfC. Have a nice day! Cool3 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)