User talk:MastCell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia! 2 Another doctor? 3 Praise 4 Page Moves 5 Medical advice 6 ABC article 7 References 8 Section ordering 9 Hi MastCell 10 K Harris discussion 11 Ischemic colitis 12 Melanoma edit 13 Re:Speedy action 14 Featured Article: AML 15 Accusations you made against Harvey Bialy 16 AIDS Reappraisal 17 Thank you 18 Depo Provera talk 19 Here, I'll even help you out, "MastCell" 20 Reply 21 Medicine Collaboration of the Week 22 orthomed 23 Orphaned fair use image (Image:RichardHofstadter.jpg) 24 Fair use images in user namespace 25 Christine Maggiore

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another doctor?

Hi, and another welcome. I saw you made some very good contributions to oncology related articles lately. Are you a doctor or a medical student? You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine where a lot of the medicine related action happens. --WS 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I added you to Category:Physician Wikipedians, I hope are all right with that. --WS 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Praise

Hey there. I just noticed your edits pop up on the recent changes page, and I have to say, this is some very good stuff.

Not only is it good, useful information, it's well-written.

We need more contributors like you. Keep at it! DS 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Moves

I just saw you move Chloroma to Chloromabb to BBBcoma, and then copy and paste from BBBcoma to Chloroma. This removed the page history from the page, which is not allowed under the licensing Wikipedia uses. I suggest you straighten this out at requested moves since an administrator has to fix it now. Timrem 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My bad... still learning how to do things. I've listed it on the Cut-and-paste repairs page to get straightened out. Thanks for your attention. MastCell 17:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been fixed by an admin. Apologies again. MastCell 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical advice

I think that the wiki has a policy of not giving medical advice, or this what I got a message about once. Snowman 17:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed parts of the bone marrow biopsy page from advice to a tutorial style. Snowman 08:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABC article

Thanks. It sure wasn't/isn't easy. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You are a scholar and a gentle(person). While indeed sometimes I can get annoyed at things getting inaccurate, after I calm myself it is obvious things were inaccurate to begin with. And only by continuing to bounce opinions and ideas off each other can we arrive at a truly superior article. Quite frankly you are the best person to work with on this article; as we disagree on the conclusion of the ABC issue, but we both see there is enough ambiguity in the evidence for us both to be somewhat wrong. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi. When adding references to an article it is easy to use this tool to create a reference that uses the cite journal template from only a pmid as found in pubmed. --WS 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section ordering

I saw you put the see also section in acute myelogenous leukemia back at the end of the article. However it is described in the wikipedia manual of style that this section should be placed before the references and external links sections. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Standard appendices. --WS 21:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi MastCell

Wow, you've certainly made a productive start here this month! You're additions have been great! I've had fun putting up endoscopy images, but the hard part is getting consent from patients for their release. You should join us at WP:CLINMED, the Clinical Medicine Wikiproject, and at WP:GI, WikiProject Gastroenterology where we have fun bouncing article ideas off each other. If you haven't met User:Jfdwolff, he's a fabulous editor and administrator to work with, and laid the foundations for a tonne of the medical articles here. Take care -- Samir धर्म 05:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi once more, and welcome to WP:CLINMED! Keep the histamine flowing and hope to see you around! PS: If you're interested, we're working on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): have a look!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K Harris discussion

Thank you for stepping in to the discussion and helping to hopefully diffuse the situation between ThuranX and myself. I don't know what exactly set him off, but by reading his user talk page, I'm starting to understand I'm not the only editor that he does not work well with (even resulting in some warnings against him for incivility to others). I'd like to leave it to you and other editors to work towards a consensus on the Trivia section issue. I will still voice my opinions but will not be responding to ThuranX and I've made as much clear on his user talk page. Thanks again, and have a good day. ju66l3r 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ischemic colitis

Great job! It looks fabulous. I had a couple of things I wanted to add, one of which is a picture that I have but need to get patient consent for its release -- Samir धर्म 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melanoma edit

I liked your edit of my contribution to the Moh's section under melanoma. Much more fluid now. Cheers. RobDroliver 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Speedy action

I'm just glad I was able to deal with it before it got out of hand. Keep a close eye for other page moves that may be done by Residuals' sockpuppets (or so he claims). --Nishkid64 00:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article: AML

Kudos on the AML article accolades--well-deserved after your hard work on it. Keep up the quality contributions.

Chavoguero 01:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations you made against Harvey Bialy

Randroide 08:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)I see no external (not wiki) source for you grave accusation against Harvey Bialy. Please provide us with that external source. You MUST do it. Thank you.

One can find any number of uncouth Bialy quotes here, including the one which I mentioned. However, my source was the dissident AIDSWiki, which proudly publicized Bialy's comments here. By the way, it was not so much a "grave accusation" as a direct quote from Bialy which he himself has gone out of his way to publicize. An accusation is unnecessary; his words speak for themselves. MastCell 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The accusation was to say that Bialy said that, but seems that he said it. We do not know what was said in the previous dialogue with the other guy, though.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and anyone can write anything. That´s the reason I asked you for an external source. Anyway, thank you for the references.Randroide 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem; you were right to demand a source. I didn't mean to give you a hard time about that. MastCell 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It´s all O.K. Thank you : )Randroide 19:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS Reappraisal

Could you please explain me this, ,MastCell?. I can not understand the blanking of these links, but I am sure you had a good reason to make that. Could you please explain me that reason?. Thank you. Randroide 09:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the relevant article for discussion. MastCell 16:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

MastCell, thanks for taking the time to make this comment. It means so much more coming from you and I really appreciate your 2 cents;) And yes, your right, we use little CT anymore with MRI available, but most of us don't even order them until they have failed to respond, that is if we don't just send them to the surgeon. Most xrays are to rule out contraindications to spinal manipulation which means two or three views. It's nice to know that someone understands that is a necessary risk to prevent iatrogenic injury. --Dematt 04:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

MastCell -- a fellow Dr Strangelove fan I presume! In any case, if the profanity on the pseudoscience talk page offended you, I apologise, but you're really need to read the archives from three or four days ago to see how we got to that point. Also, Krishna commented to your post here. You may wish to reply (or not). But, if you stick with it for a few days (if you have the time) you might see the dynamic of the page and might even feel tempted to use profanity as well. Also, I echo Dematt's thanks. •Jim62sch• 19:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depo Provera talk

Thanks for request commentary on Talk:Depo Provera, I've tried not to take sides - I well appreciate your intentions to help improve this article and that you probably have greater familiarity than myself with the research into this area. As you invited the commentary, having recognised your own sense of "getting more argumentative", I've mostly focused on your style of debate. However I did feel only fair to then offer as an example an alternative wording to one of Cindery's postings too. I truely do not wish to cause either of you ill feeling, so please read the points as positive friendly constructive suggestions. In the spirit of NPOV, I am sure you can work with Cindery to find an acceptable phrasing over the various points and so help resolve the impass :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here, I'll even help you out, "MastCell"

[Personal attack removed] darin 69.252.201.61 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I think now, based on your behavior the last two days, that you probably did engage in borderline wikistalking, and that you are probably are personally over-engaged with reacting to me out of aniumus. What I find disturbing is that I have made an effort to completely disengage with you/have carefully worded all my comments on EC talkpage, but you still seem quite hostile --your kneejerk accusation of OR yesterday that you had to cross out, your inappropriate comment today which I just ignored re "the sulfurous smell of pharmaceutical companies" or whatever...It's not necessarily assuming bad faith to point obvious things like that out--it can also be called "naming the conflict," per meatballwiki. If you find yourself, as you said, "being more argumentative than you should," you should make an extra effort to disengage emotionally, not find ways to amplify your engagement, like writing aggrieved opinionated notes to my talkpage, full of inappropriate accusations. This is a "content over community" endeavor, and I am not obligated to personally engage with you. Please leave me alone, and restrict your comments to impersonal discussion on the talkpages of articles. Cindery 07:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You've leveled a number of accusations toward me and then accused me of being "over-emotional" when I've attempted to address them or engage in dispute resolution. I'd prefer to resolve our differences and work together. If that proves completely impossible, then I will happily leave you alone. MastCell 12:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that disengagement is probably a good idea at this point. However, leveling a lengthy series of accusations and then erasing any response or attempt at explanation and olive branch extension from your talk page without a trace, with an edit summary alleging "further harrassment", is not exactly disengagement.

I've edited controversial pages before, and tempers certainly flare, but I've never before been accused of such a wide range of violations in such a short time by someone with whom I really have no major content disagreements. It's instructive to see that I'm not the first (or second, or third) editor with whom you've reached such a meltdown, including many with cooler heads than I. I also note that there was discussion of an RfC regarding your conduct in the past, and that Severa pointed to his/her interaction with you as one of the decisive moments leading to his/her departure from Wikipedia. Encouragingly, some editors have moved beyond any disputes to work productively with you; I hope this is possible in our case.

I mention these things because your edits are generally high-quality and you've improved quite a few important pages, and your contributions to the articles make Wikipedia a better place. I'd encourage you to learn something from our dispute in terms of how you interact with other editors (I certainly have), as a pattern is in danger of emerging. Disengagement is a logical next step at this point; I'll keep discussion article-focused, but at the same time it seemed useful to respond to the above accusations. MastCell 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine Collaboration of the Week

WS 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] orthomed

My reply yesterday was hot under the coller because I only read the OM article's dif on an old screen and read it as *commenting out* the entire second paragraph that you had formed instead of just the one sentence that you commented out. So my apologies in another hot zone where small communications errors could cause wider misunderstandings.--TheNautilus 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. MastCell 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:RichardHofstadter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RichardHofstadter.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Oden 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images in user namespace

Hello! You have used a fair use image in your user namespace. Criterion 9 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." I have removed it on these grounds. Sincerely, --Oden 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Maggiore

[Moved to Talk:Christine Maggiore]