User talk:Erich gasboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

gedday! Post message

(I love a good chat!)

Contents

[edit] List of publications in medicine

Hi Erich,

The list of publication in medicine is part of an attempt to compile a list of publications in science. I'm sorry to admit that I have no knowledge in medicine. There for I just created the list as a seed, hoping that people with proper knowledge will improve it. I created the seed by reading the medicine article and by doing some editing. I'm quite sure that the paper isn't too important today.

I'll appreciate it very much if you will be able to extend the article or tell about it to other people practicing medicine.

Thanks, APH 08:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] chatting

Hi Erich, User:Kd4ttc recommended that I approach you for a group of doctors on Wikipedia. The "blue boxes" in all non-medical articles are making me jealous, and I think we might perhapse breathe some life (and/or sevoflurane) into the Wikiproject Medical Disorders etc. Please consult the temporary WikiDoc page and see what you think. JFW 19:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to the doctors' mess. I hadn't known about it. Alteripse 15:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC) no worries! it's only new. hopefully it will catch on. Erich--Erich gasboy 19:12, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] XXXXX proposal

Thanks for your fascinating proposal on the doctors' mess page. I'd be quite interested to participate, as I'm presently looking for work and have some time on my hands—at least until August.
JFW | T@lk 21:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Great! should we keep discussion in the mess? or should it be moved to it's own page? what should we call it? do you think four founding members is an appropriate target? (btw liked your mess photo complete with couch and TV!!)

The XXXXX proposal should perhaps move to its own subpage on your userpage. Keeps the doctors' mess tidy :-). I can't think of a name yet... Four founders is fine; anything more will just lead to chaos.

I'll move it to my main page until it gets a name then. did I read somewhere about avoiding subpages? --Erich gasboy 10:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] babies

How's Myrtle going? --Erich gasboy 22:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Myrtle => real name Hadassa (Myrtle is the translation). She's sleeping well and gaining more weight than me (thankfully).

Lemon myrtle (Backhousia citriodora) is an aussie plant - so easier to remeber - my son Jacob is aka Chook around [our house] --Erich gasboy 10:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediawiki:Anaesthesia and Anaesthesia

Concerning your Mediawiki:Anaesthesia - do you intend to keep this as a sidebar, or will it be moving to the bottom of the page?
JFW | T@lk 09:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

dunno - i need to tidy it first then some peer review... down the side keeps it clear of the lovely medicine bars... but whatever the convention is really. --Erich gasboy 10:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Wellness and CAM

I see that you have found wellness, he ... he. The CAM people might eventually take this article over, as it obviously is a CAM term.

In reference to your prior interest in working on User:Irismeister/Conventional medicine, you are welcomed to start over again in a brand new article. I would suggest that you put the link to it in Philosophy of alternative medicine. And, for the text of it you could start by editing a temporary revert of User:Irismeister/Conventional medicine to an earlier version which you had mostly written. But, I would suggest that you pick a different article name.

If you think that the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine might be in competition with WikiDoc, you are right. WikiDoc was my first introduction to the concept of a project and was actually what inspired me to create my little project. The edit wars is what motivated me to do it only 2 weeks. -- John Gohde 20:21, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

gedday - so whatever happened to IrisMeister?
re competition... well you and I would disagree on most things, but from what I've seen you can do reasonable NPOV. You are more than welcome to write that "feedledumpaths (supported by feedledeepaths and cosmicgonadologists) believe that sticking your finger in your ear three times a day increases vitality"!! You won't find me arguing if thats what you think. If you say that getting more excercise, not smoking and eating a balanced diet with lots of fresh fruit and vegies is good for you... well I'll be right there beside you cheering you on!! But I'm hoping we can just spend our time doing good NPOV. all that fighting in User:Irismeister/Conventional medicine is just a waste of time and poisons one's spirit.
your boxes are very pretty by the way! best wishes Erich gasboy 20:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
IrisMeister was recently banned, and is currently on 2 weeks medical leave. What ever that means, he did not say.
Actually, I am into natural health and the psychosoical / mind-body interventions which are backed by science. Psychosoical interventions start with palliative care and go beyond. But, it is hard to even bring the topic up when so many editors think that cognitive behavior therapy and even hydrotherapy (which started with the ancient Roman spas in Europe) have nothing to do with CAM since alternative medicine is just another word for quackery. Ergo, another reason-for-being for my CAM project. I hate quacks probably more than do the science people.
My accredited health website, was recently re-certified by that Swiss HONcode organization. -- John Gohde 21:01, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi John, I must say I had no objections to your natural health page. I agree with you that there is much psychosoical / mind-body intervention which are backed by science. I spend a lot of effort on the mind body stuff in my work... it's not good for people to worry - its not good for their immune function or their experience of pain - people benefit from reassurance and a calm atmosphere (as well as big needles and good drugs!
It is good to hear you believe in science.
Actually, I object to peer-reviewed science. It is more of a labor union mentality than a science one, IMHO. I prefer a more direct approach to science, like the one NASA used to put a man on the moon. -- John Gohde 19:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Why spend so much time on the whacky stuff then? I agree it is too easy to be reactionary over the internet... if you ever get hassle from medical students you should send our way so we can calm them down a bit for you. That's kinda why I'm in no rush to pick up on criticisms of modern medicine (although now i've put a red link here it may tempt me!)--Erich gasboy 17:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Why spend so much time on the whacky stuf I am not. I am just pointing out that CAM covers a very broad area of stuff. Some, if not a lot, of it actually works! I am, also, tired of being attacked as a quack and totally unqualified to write about CAM. From my perspective, most of the mind-body interventions require a foundation in psychology rather than in the basic sciences. -- John Gohde 18:19, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
but psychology is a science. some of the cleverest sceintists i know are psychologists.--Erich gasboy 18:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Psychology is known as a soft science. -- John Gohde 18:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I must say I don't find the soft/hard distinction particularly useful. Science is science. Just because you can't measure it easily doesn't mean its not important and doesn't mean you can't use the scientific method (pain comes to mind). Sometimes (often) scientist find themselves making decisions without enough scientific evidence and they wing it... but thats a completely different aspect... any way coming back to your original point most of the mind-body interventions require a foundation in psychology rather than in the basic sciences - I agree. so anyway... do you support the labelling of unscientific rubbish as such? --Erich gasboy 19:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
do you support the labelling of unscientific rubbish as such? The project currently has 5 standards of knowledge and that phrase is not one of them. -- John Gohde 02:47, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
pity. --e 04:42, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hello/welcome

Hello Erich. I'd like to thank you for your excellent, fact-based edits to the medical articles, particularly cesarean section and the various articles on inhalation anesthtic agents. These areas needed the work of someone with the expertise that you have. Keep up the good work, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Best regards

UninvitedCompany 15:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

awh shucks... thanks! i'm just hoping others will tidy my spelling and typo's... (which are a bit weak). There is now a bit of a group of us over at WikiDocs. It'd be nice to make wikipedia a bit more welcoming for othe docs - I think most would rapidly loose patience with the apparent anarchy. If we can welcome them in a bit I'm hoping we can get more to stay around. Erich gasboy 16:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gedday

Hi Erich. Thanks for your message on my talk page; it's always nice to receive a compliment prefaced with a religious pejorative :-)

I kid. Thanks for the welcome message to join you folks in the doctor's mess. Though I'm not myself a physician, it's always helpful to be able to bounce ideas off of 'em.


Quick question: Your last addition to my talk page was the word oops and the corresponding edit history says sorry - won't meddle next time :-). What did you mean by this? I'm just curious... --Diberri | Talk 02:21, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

(the oops was in reference to Template:Lymphatic system). I did spot your current status on your page... at your stage you're quite likely to have a better broad grasp of many of the basic sciences than most of us. Also us postgrads are drawn into our own silos and are interested in minutiae. So in many ways - IMnsHO - a med-student (or pre-medstudent) will make a better wikiauthor than us. Anyway, med-student's are welcome in any doctors' mess i've been to and with the quality of your work you'd be most welcome! e 04:36, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] status of things

We're finally moving to Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine. This includes the doctor's mess!
Your present "signature" is just a lowercase "e" - are you sure you like it that way?

I know - just playing - may change to 'erich'... dunno...

I'm sorry for not responding sooner to your initiative on forming a more formally accredited doctor's group. Personally, I think this is not necessary on Wikipedia, but any future "Medical Wiki" (holding somewhere between a textbook and a user manual of medicine) might need such a structure.
JFW | T@lk 12:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that, apreciate the feedback. The group, with your guidance, is making solid progress and I think I agree that formalisation wouldn't add much value at this stage. But I'll keep the proposal signposted in the mess... maybe in a year (or sooner) it'll be needed and get picked up by the group (?) --e 21:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to have removed the doctors' mess. I discovered that quite a few people were reading it! I'm not sure if I want it as a subpage of my talk page. Would you be in favour of a subpage to the WikiProject?
JFW | T@lk 09:14, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Wikidoc sounds fine. Do you see the need too or am i just being separatist? --e 10:09, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Separatist> Well, depends if you want a republic of keep Lizzie. Kidding aside, I love the "mess" idea, but we have to make sure the conversation remains civil. JFW | T@lk 10:22, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] phage therapy

I saw you muttered a little on that. Phage therapy involves using bacteriophages as antibiotics. The science of this was largely done in Russia. The field holds promise as antibiotic resistance becomes more of a problem. Bacteriophages are very specific and have a remarkable safety profile. There was an article I heard about recently that seawater has an order of magnitude more bacteriophages than bacteria. Probably belongs as an article on it's own with pointers from ID and gene therapy. Kd4ttc 02:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought it might have been something like that... hence i didn't zap it. your placement proposal sounds perfect! e 02:17, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I took it of the main medicine page. Doesn't belong there. We never walk into a room and say: "Hello madam, I'm the phage therapy doctor!" JFW | T@lk 16:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
mmm... might try that tonight for a lark ;-) e 21:28, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Well done on reverting that abusive vandal on obesity. Probably has a complex about his weight. Both User:Cecropia and me ended up blocking him, although Cecro was quicker... JFW | T@lk 16:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] vasoconstrictors

Hi. I did the redirect on that that long ago because it didn't say anything extra that wasn't in the blood vessel article. Was waiting for someone to fill in more details when it would make sense as its own article - like I'm sure you will... that's what I was thinking. Alex.tan 17:34, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

ooh - I wasn't expecting you to see my note. I thought i was just talking to myself as usual. oh alright but Kosabamese's article said something. I'll link it vasconstriction. e 21:32, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


Ok, I'll try to remember to say "moved from" instead of "from". I'm not sure what you mean by the post message question. Did you mean how do you get a link to post a new message? If so, it would be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Erich_gasboy&action=edit&section=new for this page, which is just adding &action=edit&section=new to the end of the URL. It works on any page. Angela. 21:57, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hello to Australia. Message for you at my talk page. Get-back-world-respect 12:46, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mitral valve prolapse

Thanks for your comments on MVP! I've made some changes, and definitely welcome your comments. (Besides, who better than an anesthesiologist to critique an MVP article? :-) --Diberri | Talk 19:57, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Village pump

I'm having trouble finding out the exact disagreement between you and Jiang. Could you enlighten me? Also, messages on the village pump are read by a lot of Wikipedia oldtimers, so I wonder what kind of reaction you'll be getting (possibly not the one you were anticipating!) JFW | T@lk 23:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

well what ever reaction I get i'm sure one way or another it will terminate my dealling with Dr J. If they all tell me I'm an idiot thats fine. at the momment I feel like I'm one on one with an arrogant little bully-boy who does not read what I say... so i'm not making progress. If others agree with him at least I can let it go. The last paragrah on the project talk page explains all. I'm sure it wont be on the VP for very long. His latest annoyance was to try and tell me where I can and cannot discuss topics - extremely irritating. I'll purge it myslelf VP once its resolved. Erich 23:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't get the actual topic of the discussion. Was it the definition of doctor, or is there something bigger between the two of you? JFW | T@lk 23:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

the annoying thing is that it is something less! but I refuse to be bullied by one person who does not have the patience to wait for consensus. anyway the point is:

I converted the doctor page to be like this, and moved the existing doctor page to doctor (title) as that is what it discussed. Jiang unilaterally reverted it.. despite others supporting my edit.

silly really...     :-| Erich 23:40, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much wrong with the present situation. You might like to comment on Jiang 's style, though, as Finlay says in his reply to your VP message. JFW | T@lk 23:45, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello again, Erich

Wikipedia has an unusual culture. I want you to stay because of your uniquely valuable contributions, so I'm willing to help.

In general, the most effective way to deal with these sorts of matters is to go slowly. Generally it is most effective to wait a day or two, say what you want to do on the talk page, wait a few more days, and then do it. Particularly if there are a lot of people who agree with you, that will give them ample opportunity to add their voices to yours. If not, you won't risk creating the appearance of being arbitrary and capricious.

Nothing useful will come of listing this sort of stuff at the village pump or "requests for comment."

Sooner or later, the article will be right. Wikipedia timescale is measured in months, and articles change slowly. Don't get too worried about how the article looks today, think in terms of where it will be in a month.

Best wishes, UninvitedCompany 23:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll add this anecdote. My father has a Ph.D. in a field unrelated to medicine. He was being treated at the Mayo Clinic at one time, and someone in the administration had noted on his chart that he was a doctor, and so the nurses and administration people all started referring to him as such. He was rather embarrassed by it since even his students don't do that, and finally asked them to remove the note on the chart... UninvitedCompany

[edit] Reverts at Arbitration by Mr. Natural Health

Did you notice Mr. Natural Health deleted much of the evidence you put into the request for arbitration page? Kd4ttc 01:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He's a funny guy. I'm sure he'll argue that this was not his reponse... well he's going to cop a ban for a while isn't he. I think he needs a week to cool down than a be kept on a short leash. quite a bit of time has been wasted now... although i got a bit of a belly laugh about some health :-) edits Erich 03:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ".... no need to use an 11 letter word when a four letter word is at least as correct?" on Circulatory system

"Just" is a little chatty for an encyclopedia, but it means the same thing as "immediately" ..... :-) ... Never mind.
Have a nice day. -- PFHLai 14:08, 2004 Jun 9 (UTC)

gedday. mmm you may be right but I'm not convinced. I personally loathe the use of long words when short ones are sufficent. More to the point, though, is that not all the changes are immediate but may take days to weeks - especially FO and ductus arteriosus closure. Maybe should read: "After birth...."

Weeks ? I didn't realize that the post-natal changes take so long, but it makes sense to take so long if remodelling is involved, even though everything is so tiny in the baby's body.
I was about to fix up the sentence as you suggested, but Diberri beat me to it... -- PFHLai 22:36, 2004 Jun 9 (UTC)

So what's your thesis on? Erich 17:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, my thesis ? It's about boring cellular and molecular biology stuffs. All the keywords can be found on my User page (obviously I don't mean the opentasks ...) -- PFHLai 22:36, 2004 Jun 9 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine and detachment

See Talk:Medicine on the removal of the detachment paragraph. You offered no evidence that supported that detachment developed as described in that paragraph. Kd4ttc 01:29, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops, fighting over medical error

What time is it over there? It's 10PM here (Chicago). Isn't it a bit early in the day over there? Steve Kd4ttc 03:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

well it's 13:50 saturday in Brisbane now... but I'm on the labour floor so I'm a bit sporadic. Erich 03:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the compliment

Thank you Erich for the compliment on editing the 'physician' page. I was an anonymous user but decided to go ahead and sign up for an account. I really enjoy this concept and am hoping I have time to participate more. Have a good day! Skellam 21:59, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] hypercategorisation

I share your worries about the category thing. Sometimes we may have to leave "good enough" alone, and just leave the opioids together on one big heap. Categories do rather poorly in actual classification, although User:fuelbottle is trying to sort out wikipedia's enzymes admirably using the EC-notation (see cyclooxygenase to see what I mean).
If you like pharmacology so much :-) you might want to register with WikiProject "Drugs". There may be hope for the drug side of Wikipedia (when are you writing up ropivacaine to get rid of the red links on your userpage??) JFW | T@lk 22:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Who am I

Hi Erich,

When working with users with a history of ad hominem attacks, I prefer editing anonymously. Wikipedia shut down the use of anonymous proxies, so this time I chose a similar sounding login-name. I do not believe we have met 'logged-in' before, but I have read a lot of your work and find it to be of a general excellent quality.

207-203-156-105 09:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) well thanks for the compliment 207, I hope nobody mistakes you for my sock-puppet!, Erich 12:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] invite to a fight?

Actually I was thinking things were a little dull myself. I've been adding lots of stuff but have only been in one minor skirmish lately on Phil Gingrey but I don't know who is more annoying, Gingry or the anonyomous user who keeps insisting he's violating medical ethics but won't actually argue about it, just keeps reverting like a moron. Anyway, I'd be happy to fight but can't remember any disagreements with you for quite a while. Go ahead and say something annoying and wrongheaded and lets see what we can work up... Alteripse 03:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

sigh, things have just been a bit dull really since NMH got the flick. Maybe able to workup a head of steam on US foreign policy, but the urge for a stowsh has passed now. :-) I'll wander over to diabetes later to see if I can find something annoying to say about it... but my ignorance may make that hard. Erich 06:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heated words

I agree Erich, the situation is a shame and I acted inapropriately and out of anger in continution a revert war. I am at a loss as to how to resolve this, since we do not seem to agree on the fundamentals like whether policy should be followed. I know that sounds explosive, but I can't think of any other way to put it. Your input would be valued. Mark Richards 14:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

good morning Mark, well the basic principle is if two people cannont reach agreement then they need to appeal to others. Have another read of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The reversion war is unproductive and ultimately reflects reflects badly on both of you. And talk about feeding the trolls!!! Personally, I think the answer is a well thought throuh and defined procedure. If Heph wants to be a lone ranger for a little while and none of the other sysops will act to cool him down, then let it go and put your energy into Wikipedia:Dealing with trolls/detail policy proposal. I undestand (and actually agree) if you have concerns about freedom of expression on talk pages but the looser whose page you were squabbling over does have the rest of the entire Internet to express themselves. Wikipedia is feeling vulnerable at the momment and people are scared of the trolls, if we give them tools to adequately and justly deal with them I thing people will become more reasonable. But that adolescent rant page simply isn't that big a deal. Which is the current policy you think Heph is not complying with? Erich 21:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it reflects poorly, and agree that what is needed is a well throught through and defined procedure. I have been putting a little thought to the policy review, and am a little frustrated at the lack of interest by most admins in developing new procedures or following old ones. I do not believe that there is any established procedure for blanking a user page because it annoys us, rather than because it is offensive or an attack on people. I am worried about the precident being set that admins have the right to silence any debate over their role, simply by saying that it annoys them. One doesn't have to agree with the adolescent rant to believe that it is better to let the user have their say than to provoke them into more damaging behaviour. Heph certainly seems expert at courting that type of thing. I think leaving that sort of thing on a page that no-one will ever look at is far less damaging than the bull-in-a-china-shop behaviour of chasing that user around until they retaliate or vandalise something. Mark Richards 21:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

well rise above this issue. Policy and procedure development is harder than it looks. Rally you friends, and you foes ('keep your friends close and your enemies closer!'). Currently I've drafted both a 'dealing with trolls' and a 'supervising editors' procedure. I think the former appears to be more urgent. Surely these, or something like them, have to be the way forward. Who are the admins that may take an interest? best wishes Erich 22:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So maybe this is where I accept your "invite to a fight"? I agree with you on the revert war, but can't believe that Heph is getting pilloried in public for blocking that bozo Lir. I did review your proposal, but as I read it was imagining Lir whining "but it's only been twice, you should ban the sysop not me." I was impressed by the observation made by someone that "trolls love rules" and I'm afraid your proposal strikes me a little that way. I would rather support sysops and encourage them to look at the whole picture of what a user is doing. I have less fear than some that the sysops will ban people because of disagreeable views, and what I really think would be a shame would be if editors like Heph and Mark got driven out de jure or de facto while the dwindling number of those of us who write articles will have to listen to people pleading to give Lir yet one more chance. I'm not talking about booting people right and left, or using that as a way to settle arguments or eject people for general abrasiveness. There is a large gulf, not a continuum, between the contributors here to write and those here for their own private grudges and psychodramas. I have no real disagreement with your proposal and it beats endless handwringing over whether someone like Lir or Irismeister might just, just maybe, become useful contributors. Gee thanks for letting me vent here; I feel better. Now what were we going to fight about again? Alteripse 00:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] very many

Some day I will list them all for you. Alteripse 17:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Signing pages

Sorry Erich, just learning. Wikipedia is interesting, not sure of the relation of it with medipedia, and overawed with exhortations not to publish original thoughts, dictionary entries, lists of links etc.

Nick Bell 22:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (hope I can sign this!)

[edit] troll poll

hello Erich, sorry if my comment sounded overly critical of you. I understand that you wanted to help move this debate in, but I just think that this debate is fundamentally misguided. IMO Wikipedia works because there are few rules and little hierarchy - it encourages people to get involved and keep on contributing. But recently, sysops etc. are exerting more power, and IMO this is a very unhealthy development.

gedday Pir, don't worry mate. I'm thick skinned. My reply is: I agree that freedom of expresion and openness has fertilised Wikipedia. Anyone can edit, it's fun, and you get to create something worthwhile. But there are rules: NPOV and no peronal attacks being important ones. Most people who want to contribute can live within these rules, but we have no way of fairly managing the small numbers that cant.

Practices that work in the real world might very well fail here, because Wikipedia is a volunteer project and if people feel put off by bureaucracy it will die.

mmm well even volunteer projects need and have rules. The real difference with wikipedia is the inability to easily exclude people because of reincarnations. This make the behaviour management system more important, because, the probably only two or three losers that keep coming back are making this into a bigger issue than it should be....
I accept that I'm not proposing a simple system, but it's not that complicated, and only needs to be done by a few wikipedians. Once there have been a few examples it will seem very straightforward.
And not everybody involved needs to know all the in's and outs. It's a stepwise process. One step at a time. And it starts very well:
  1. Notice a problem
  2. Warn the user
  3. Warn the community
  4. Illustrate the problem with evidence in the form of diffs
  5. Escalate from there.

Many people have pointed out that far more ordinary Wikipedians are put off by sysops' actions than by trolls. Therefore, (and although I am not necessarily totally opposed to making trolling bannable in very exceptional cases where all else has failed),

I agree, and think that is why we need rules to guide the sysops. I guess the rules are a neccessary evil.

I think the answer lies in changing the inherent dynamics of Wikipedia without increasing hierarchy. I wonder what you think about my views? - pir 14:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"changing the inherent dynamics of Wikipedia without increasing hierarchy" sounds very interesting... you mean like Jimbo'suggestion and the trust networks... well I agree that would be a big leap forward. Erich 07:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi Erich, thanks very much for your reply. I saw it several days ago and was thinking about what you said. I agree with you that rules are necessary. It's important that they are clear and easy to find and read. IMO the problem lies with enforcing them. I believe they should not be enforced by banning people. I also believe that they should not be enforced by a vanguard of Wikipedia commissars upholding their version of the Wikipedia ideal - giving people that much power could be very dangerous I think. Imagine for example an organisation with large resources, enough intelligent and very dedicated followers and a totalitarian mindset (like the Chinese government or Scientology) decides to infiltrate Wikipedia. (You might think that I'm being paranoid, but it's possible, see this.) Say they give twenty or a hundred people the task, who initially do great work on articles, making good contributions. Since they are such dedicated and valued Wikipedians (after all they are paid and could spend all day writing articles) they are soon nominated for adminship and of course approved. Then they seize on every opportunity where someone who they disagree with breaks the rules (most people do so at some point) to abuse their admin powers to kick them out. Would there be a way to prevent Wikipedia purges? I think not. In the situation where this kind of power still lies in the hands of ordinary Wikipedians it would be vastly more difficult. pir 13:49, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ToN

Hi Mark, et al, did this question ever get answered?Erich 07:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not that I saw. Mark Richards 16:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

Hey gasboy <tehe> :) - Great work on Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors. I sure hope some form of that becomes policy since we have a decent court system developing (the AC), but no real police force (except in dealing with obvious vandalism). Thus things are a bit chaotic. It makes perfect sense to give admins some more authority to play that role. --mav 07:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

thanks mav. are you teasing me for my name? ;-) Erich 07:13, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just giggling. :) --mav

[edit] Policy

Great work w the antisocial editors page. I was wondering if you might be be interested in arranging a vote to make Wikipedia:No personal attacks official policy (I thought it already was myself, it sure looks like it is..) or at least help it gain a solid community support. Have you given any thought to starting a policy catagory? ;) 03:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV isn't solvable by anything other than time, and the group editing process, IMO. The personal attacks issue is a big one for me because I feel that rudeness (particularly by those in a position of power, i.e. admins) is perhaps the primary obstacle to the ability of the group editing process to filter out POV and factual innacuracy. Besides, I simply don't like to be around rudeness, and neither does almost anyone else. I am somewhat worried that certain well known folks get away w murder, while the community turns their heads toward the rowdy newbie, and shout "troll". I think you get my gist ;) Sam [Spade] 04:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the current personal attacks policy is good, and your proposal a good way (along w the arbitration commitee in extreme cases) to enforce it. I think all that needs done is to achieve community support for both. UC seemed to think it wasn't ratified as policy yet or something. Maybe it needs a poll? Sam [Spade] 04:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yep, which part are you refering to? Sam [Spade] 04:45, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] hello

I have just checked through your user page and you sound pretty cute;) Actually ... you dont just sound cute ... you are cute! What do you think about getting another rat;) Now they are cute too ...

nearly as cute as you;)

[edit] On editing the page sympathetic to pedophiles

I agree 100% with the edits you have done to this rather disgusting page but am worried that others may consider the changes too POV. In light of this, I think you should post an entry on the talk page describing why you have made the changes you have. I'll defend you if anyone trys to revert your changes; they better have a very good reason for doing so. I also would like some kind of reference to back up "The overwhelming majority of the community and experts in child development hold that children do not have the mental, emotional, or physical capacity to consent to sex, especially with those much older than them". Again, thanks for the edit; this article was rather disgusting when I first stumbled upon it earlier today. Samboy 10:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ?

[1] I don't know what this is refering to, sorry :S Can you be alot more specific, please? :) Sam [Spade] 17:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] DWDAE

No, I cannot support it in its current form. Snowspinner 11:27, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Is it a step in the right direction? Probably, yes, a step. But I don't think, in its current form, that it would be a helpful piece of policy. I'll see if I can get to writing a revised version that I could support before the deadline, but I'm kind of swamped with returning from vacation and preparing to move. Snowspinner 11:44, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stress

Because, like numerous other people here, I'm sick and tired of having to go to hell and back to deal with disruptive users. Ambi 07:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree this is a big problem here; basically, as Wiki gets more popular, it attracts more undesirable types. We may eventually need to have a hierarchy of articles, where popular articles can't just be edited by anyone on the world any more. This may discourage people from making new articles, though. Basically, the big issue with a popular interactive website is dealing with disruptive users. Slashdot does this poorly; and has degenerated in to a place with airheaded discussions (like Usenet, which was great long before Slashdot's glory days, but is now just a garbage heap of flame fests with the occassional gem). Wiki strives to be something more, and, so far, the level-headed people are winning out over the trolls and ad-bots. Samboy 07:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've always thought Wikipedia could be more selective... maybe I'm just a snob. If we are going to be selective though I do think we need to be fair about it! Erich 07:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

accepted :-p EastNile

accepted :-p

EastNile

yes. my first article was expanding the stub for homeworld. I've also added non-geographical information to the article Harleysville. Currently, I am working on improving the page on "Tropical Cyclones."

EastNile

[edit] Hi Erich

Long time no talk. I just read your "Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors". It's a shame you've got only 1775 edits at the moment, because this would immediately catapult you into administrator status.
Are you presently very busy, or can we expect some more anaesthetics work from you (or CPR) in the near future? Also, would you mind looking at acute respiratory distress syndrome? It seems User:Aside has abandoned the project. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Caesarian section

It doesn't seem overly gory to me, though if other people object, you might want to move it further down the page so it isn't instantly visible, or even consider only linking to it rather than showing it inline, but I doubt many people will object to it considering some of the other images that people support having on Wikipedia. Angela. 07:55, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

hello, i just want to let you know, that we copied your caesarian section photo into our pflegewiki (german nursing wiki): [2].. greetings from germany, Produnis.. --80.138.245.91 08:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for your nice words over at my talk page (where I'll write a little more). Kosebamse 18:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Consent sought

Hey Erich, good to have you again for a bit! As for Image:Caesarian.jpg, was your son's consent sought before you published this image? This is particulary worrisome as the anatomy of his perineum is rather visible :-) JFW | T@lk 13:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Check out episiotomy

Hello, You seem to be the most active editor for the episiotomy article. I've revamped it completely. Would like to supply a photo of my own, but that won't be happening soon! :-)

[edit] happy new year to you too

Good to have you back. alteripse 13:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Healthcare in the United Kingdom

Hello. You have just placed the category, "Healthcare in the United Kingdom", which you created on 3 January, in the main UK menu. I have been sorting out the UK menu for the last couple of weeks, and have created more than a dozen new first tier subcategories. One of them is "Health in the United Kingdom", so we have a duplication problem. I don't really mind which one gets kept, but one of them has to go. Do you know how to delete a category? Philip 05:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Childlove -- trying to get both sides of the story in.

Maybe you could help improve my work. Thanks --64.160.45.176 22:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Erich 02:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Anal Fissure

Hello Erich, could you briefly list which facts need checking on anal fissure? I'll try to work on it. Thanks. Hfwd 04:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Test score

I did the test: 35/50 and satisfactory! Yahoo. PS Mr-Natural-Health is back as User:John Gohde. Look at the edit history of his talk page and shudder. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This, is up :)

We (the French wikipedia list) have received a request from a person in the Communication service of the Conseil du statut de la femme in Québec (http://www.csf.gouv.qc.ca/fr/english/) who wished to use your picture (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Caesarian.jpg) in one of their publications (http://www.gazettedesfemmes.com/accueil/). However, your picture is under GFDL and GFDL only, and the GFDL stipulates for pictures that the entire text (14 pages) be published with the document used. This is fine when it comes to Websites, but makes it quite difficult when it comes to paper publications.

I was wondering whether you would consider dual-licensing this picture under a less compelling license as well, such as Creative Commons-BY-SA, which would allow them to use it in their paper publication. Please see the CC-BY-SA (special Australia ;) ) here : http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/au/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/au/deed.en here. This is the adapted license for Australia, but of course any CC-BY-SA license will do. This allows the publisher to get away with a text that looks like this http://creativecommons.org/license/non-web-popup?lang=en&jurisdiction=au&license_code=by-sa&format=image rather than the fourteen pages of the GFDL. You have done that with your contributions, so I guess you would not be completely reluctant to the idea :). If you agree to do this, please email me your ok and I will add the CC-BY-SA licence to the image on Commons.

Thanks a bunch,

Delphine notafish }<';> 15:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) (delphine at notafish dot com)

PS : this was intended to be an email, and I am too lazy to redo it and go for the wiki links ;)
Hey Erich, I have tagged the image with the CC-BY-SA and you can see the result here : commons:Image:Caesarian.jpg. I have put the link to the diff to my talk page on the Image talk page, but feel free to add any information you want on the Image description. Thanx a bunch for everything. notafish }<';> 22:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey Erich, me again. The Québec people are so happy that they get to use your picture that they would like to send you a copy of the magazine when it comes out. But...they're asking for your postal address. So if you're ok with that, thank you for sending it to me at delphine at notafish dot com. Thanx again and again. notafish }<';> 02:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I hope I did what you wanted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Recentchanges#dumb_question_sugestion

Robin Patterson 06:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Choking

Gracias. Delighted to hear of you again and would immensely appreciate if you'd be around a bit more. The anaesthetics/ITU subjects still need more writing done. My daughter is well - she has started to walk. JFW | T@lk 19:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Added your userpage to category physicians. Hope you don't mind.--Nomen Nescio 09:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paid Editing Project

Hi: My name is Tess and I work for a global independent research firm in New York. I am interested in hiring you for a Wikipedia editing project, based on your technology and medical experience and expertise. I attempted to email you through your user page. If you received it, please read it over and contact me with any questions. If you did not receive this email, please let me know and I would be more than happy to tell you more about this project. (You can call 512-651-1797 or email tfurman@glgroup.com). Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon! Tess - Gerson Lehrman Group 19:15, 28 September 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 23:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the holiday greetings

Merry Christmas to you as well. Don't see you around much but it's probably best that your kids and your patients should see more of you than we do. Do drop by occasionally though. alteripse 23:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Receiver operating characteristic

Hi Erich, I just read your addition on the ROC page about the origin of the word being related to Pearl Harbour; this is quite fascinating, and since I did not know anything about that, I'd love to read a bit more; do you have any reference or information about this ? Schutz 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have done a google search, but not finding anything does not suprise me. Indeed, the story makes sense, and it is nice to be able to explain where the strange name comes from. I'll have a look a the library see if I can find anything. Schutz 07:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Asthma"

I liked the definition of asthma that Erich gasboy gave at the begining of the asthma page with the exeption of one word "Disease"

Becuase I have asthma, I consider myself to be disabled. I have substituted the word disabled (with a link to disabilities) for the word "Disease" which I find offensive for a number of reasons.

[edit] Wikipedia Brisbane Meetup - Invite
Brisbane Meetup Invitation

The First Brisbane Meetup of Wikipedians in Queensland is in the Planning Stage.

If you're interested in meeting other Wikipedians, please join us!

-- Chez (Discuss / Email) 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/r/i/User_talk%7EErich_gasboy_0b66.html"