User talk:Jfurr1981

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Contribs

Hi Jfurr1981, good medical work there! Have you seen WikiProject Clinical medicine? You may want to join! Could I also ask you to stick to the general article outline mentioned on that page? This would be immensely helpful. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 07:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

At the moment we have a weekly collaborative article, which is multiple sclerosis. We recently worked on asthma and improved it to become a featured article. Please work on anything you like! You may wish to register your affinities on the WikiProject page, in case we need help with something. Enjoy! JFW | T@lk 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I would not refer to this as a "rewrite". JFW | T@lk 04:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether it matters... I do think it does. A rewrite is IMHO fairly drastic, and to completely rewrite a page there must be a fairly good reason (e.g. the old page was biased, incorrect or hopelessly phrased). If all you've been doing is expanding (and in a very good way too!) this is something rather different.

Talking about ITP, is it worth mentioning rituximab as a treatment used in refractory severe cases? JFW | T@lk 06:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thrombocytopenia

For heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, I took the liberty of removing the references to quinine and other antibiotics, since the page discusses HIT specifically rather than thrombocytopenia in general (where they should be mentioned). Andrew73 19:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Most medical articles follow the outline you suggested: starting with signs & symptoms, diagnostic approach, pathophysiology, then treatment and prognosis, epidemiology and finally historical context. Some articles do deviate from this, generally for good reasons. The template is here on the WikiProject page. JFW | T@lk 01:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for the help with Circulatory system. Can you enlighten me; where is the roll back-function hidden? --Ekko 05:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Perfect sense! :-) --Ekko 06:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle University Law School

Hey, I removed this page from your CSD. While it is a substub, it does have coherent context that leads to expansion. At this point it could be argued that it should be made into a redirect but I think for now it should stand. You could try it out on AfD if you'd like but usually schools fail there. Does that sound okay? gren グレン 01:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats :) gren グレン 01:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia

My changes were reverted? There are a lot of things factually incorrect that I changed. For one promyelocytes are not precursors of either red cells or megakaryocytes.

Also, promyelocytic leukemia is not defined by the PML-RARa translocation, it is defined either morphologically or by just the RARa component as there are several decribed fusion partners. Guymd 05:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neuroanatomical articles

Jfurr--I'm curious as to why you removed the categories "CNS" and "anatomy" from arcuate fasciculus and basal dendrite, and category "anatomy" from basal ganglia. The first two are most certainly located exclusively within the CNS. All three are certainly anatomical features, though I can see and argument for removing this designation from basal dendrite. semiconscious (talk · home) 00:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Your methodology sounds very reasonable, especially if the more-specific subcategory (e.g., "brain") exits within a supercategory (e.g., "CNS). Thanks for clearing that up! semiconscious (talk · home) 10:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aarskog sryndrome

Your new article Aarskog sryndrome is under a spelling error and Aarskog syndrome already exists. Just thought I'd let you know, I rather think a merge is called for. MeltBanana 02:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medical analysis of circumcision

I admire your boldness in taking on this article. It certainly needs attention. Unfortunately, it's a highly controversial subject, and so it's hard to change without upsetting people.

I've moved a couple of sections that you placed in the wrong section, by the way. Jakew 13:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the introduction of the article also needs work. The introduction used to say, "Currently neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary according to professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In their view the potential medical benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not significantly outweigh the potential medical risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death)." In my opinion that introduction accurately and fairly summarizes a broad consensus that now exists in the medical community regarding the medical analysis of circumcision.

Also I think the order of the possible benefits of circumcision should be changed. No professional medical organization even mentions prostate cancer in relation to circumcision, yet it is the first possible benefit discussed in the article. The section on prostate cancer should be at the end of the possible benefits section if it is included in the article at all. -- DanBlackham 07:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In your re-write, I believe that these two sentences need to be brought into harmony:

It is believed that these are complications, as they are seen
more often in circumcised boys. However, this may be because it
is impossible to diagnose the condition in uncircumcised boys.

If the conditions are truly impossible to diagnose in uncircumcised boys, then all cases will be seen in circumcised boys, not merely more often. RussellKent 23:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links in section headers

Hey, I appreciate all the linking you are doing, but the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Linking explicitly states that one should "Avoid links within headers. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the header." Perhaps you should switch those headers back. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation link repair heads up

I noticed you had done some DAB stuff on Native America, and I noticed a few pages that you fixed on link but left others. With Native American especially if it is linked to once on a page it is likley to get linked again (And some times with the phrase Indian or natives displaying. I just thought I would give you a heads up to look out for those. Dalf | Talk 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup taskforce

Looks like H5N1 has been getting a lot of work. You can close out the Task force entry on both the articles if they look done to you. Thanks for working on these. RJFJR 17:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience

Jfurr: I'm trying to revive the temporarily defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience. Because of your past edits on neuroscience related articles in the past, I thought I'd let you know. Cheers. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience

Hey Jfurr: I'm reviving the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and thought you might care to join us over there when you have the time. Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human brain

About Human brain, I suggest that you just dive in and be bold. It would be nice to have a less technical introduction. --JWSchmidt 20:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup taskforce

The article Biofeedback has been added to your desk. Please let me know if would like to decline the article. RJFJR 22:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connecting tubule

Hello. I noticed that you are a participant in the WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. The article Connecting tubule has been nominated for deletion. As this is an anatomical subject I was hoping to get somebody within the project to adopt the article for expansion. I could find no way to add the article to this project. I hope you or your fellow particpants would consider adopting this article to love. James084 22:03, 20 February 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] Menorrhagia

You have provided an addition footnote in the references section, but not linked it anywhere in the article, using {{ref|FA}} - could you amend this please. Also the edit re menorrhagia being at regular intervals - I presume this is that menorrhagia occurs with regular menstrual intervals, rather than that all periods are habitually heavy. Is 'hypermenorrhea' then heavy irregular periods, or regular periods that occationally are heavy. ie is the 'regular' to the 'heaviness' or to the menstrual cycle predictability each 28 days ? David Ruben ^Talk 22:39, 11 June 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) 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronic granulomatous disease

Good work. I've added the article here for others to review it, and made a couple of comments on the Talk:Chronic granulomatous disease page. --apers0n 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News Update: Medical Genetics Wikiproject article assesment

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Apostogan.jpg

[edit] WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 23:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:MS5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MS5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:MS8.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MS8.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AndrewsNC.jpg

Please only upload himages that have been released under acceptable licenses. In addition, please do not tag images incorrectly. Image:AndrewsNC.jpg is licensed under cc-by-nc-nd, but you tagged it as cc-by. Thank you. --NE2 08:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:AltaVerapaz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AltaVerapaz.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Image:AsheboroNC.jpg article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Stifle (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GrahamNC.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Image:VeteransStadium.jpg

Hi Joe, the image licensing tag that you chose for Image:VeteransStadium.jpg has been deprecated in favor of the equivalent PD-self tag. I have replaced the tag on this image on your behalf. I did have a question, though. In the image description you say that you "release rights for use on Wikipedia". If this means that you release the rights only for Wikipedia, that is not equivalent to the meaning of the licensing tag that you chose for the image. Indeed, Wikipedia cannot use images for which the rights are exclusively granted to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia content is reused commercially. If this was your intent, the image will need to be deleted. If that wasn't your intent, please revise the description of the image. Thanks. Kaldari 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)