User talk:Arcadian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archives
1 • 2


Contents

[edit] Barnstar

The Oddball Barnstar
for being nice
Thank you! --Arcadian 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Antivirals

Hi Arcadian. I hope you don't mind, I've removed the line breaks (separating virus and virus classification) in the template; since size seemed to have been the major concern for splitting it, I figured making it a little more compact wouldn't hurt. If you think it's clearer with the line breaks, please feel free to revert my edit. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all -- your edit improved it. While you're in there, can you see a logical classification for the anti-herpesvirus agents? Some of those (i.e., Aciclovir and Valaciclovir) are of common families and could be grouped together, and there should be a name for the parent, but I can't figure out what they would be. --Arcadian (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Guanine analogues? (aciclovir et al.) Idoxuridine, trifluridine and vidarabine could be under nucleoside analogues. Maybe cidofovir too, although I believe it's a nucleotide analogue. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tried it out here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That was quick -- thanks! --Arcadian (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Labial frenectomy

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Labial frenectomy, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070726151212AAj9UCS. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've split labial frenectomy out from frenectomy. The Yahoo page contained an excerpt from Wikipedia's labial frenectomy page, which is why labial frenectomy has prose similar to the Yahoo page. --Arcadian (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Hi Arcadian,

I noticed in the history of edits on "Neuroblastoma" there have been a lot of external links added and removed. I understand that a "general" pediatric fundraising organization or support link for pediatric cancer is not appropriate for this page. I also noticed you put "protected external links" in the edit history so thought you would be perfect for my questions.

So I wondered two things. Right now there are two external links just added (Post Pals and Alex Lemonade Stand) that clearly do not meet the requirements for an appropriate link and they have been added and removed before repeatedly. Can you prevent that?

The other question is I do not know if the link I added to the neuroblastoma conference videos is appropriate. The organization sponsoring the NB Conference is a non-profit also raising money for NB research. They have a unique focus on "parent education" and the video presentations by neuroblastoma experts are excellent. Video presentations from the 2007 conference are also forthcoming.

What do you think? Thanks so much! DMLudwinski (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a few different issues going on here, and they will be easier to address if split. First, I want to thank you for your comments at Talk:Neuroblastoma. That was sufficient to allow me to find the journal article you were talking about, and add a reference to it. It sounds like you're familiar with the literature, and so I'd encourage you to expand what I wrote. For the external links issue, I agree that there is a concern, but I'd recommend getting additional outside input, since I've already repeatedly used semi-protection on that article without success, and when that happens, it's better to establish a consensus before moving on to hard-blocks. I'd recommend reporting the issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. --Arcadian (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Retinoids

Template:Retinoids has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the new format of Template:Carotenoids, I have no objection to Template:Retinoids being merged into it. --Arcadian (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatigue (medical)

You removed red linked syndromes in Fatigue (medical). I suggest that the items be put back but not wikilinked until articles are written. Mikebar (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are offering to provide references to assert that those conditions are causes of fatigue, I'd have no objection to their reinclusion. If you're not offering to provide references, but still want the redlinks back in, please discuss at Talk:Fatigue (medical) before restoring them. --Arcadian (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helminthic therapy edits, and tool tip

Thank you very much for your very good edits to the page. It was a slap the head moment when I saw some of them.

This stuff is actually very time consuming and hard if one wants to do a good job, I really appreciate the help.

The tool you sent me for obtaining formatted citations is like manna from heaven. Wow. What a fantastic addition to my tools, thanks again.

I am going to be taking some time off from working on this page for a while. Real life is intruding. So it might be a while before I check back, but if you make any more edits thanks very much in advance.

FQ1513 (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but the person you should really thank is Diberri, who built that wonderful tool. --Arcadian (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andropause

Thank you so much Arcadian, for your excellent work on cleaning up the Andropause article, and attempting to give it NPOV. For a while there before you got to it, it was a real embarrassment to the name of Wikipedia ! Let's hope it stays in good shape now. If it runs downhill into a mess again, I may call on you or another expert for some more help with it. Invertzoo (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of service now, and in the future. Since I've done one thing of use to you, let me ask you to do two things for me. :) Could you take a look at Climacteric (biology)? I recently disambiguated it from Climacteric (astrology), but the article needs help, and judging from your user page, you would be an excellent resource. (Obviously, one of the major challenges in these articles is the clear definition of closely overlapping terms.) Also -- if you feel that the major issues with andropause have been addressed, would you mind removing the tags at the top of the page? I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it myself, since I've made so many other edits to the page recently. --Arcadian (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links on template

You may be interested in issues raised on Template talk:Epithelial neoplasms concerning links you appear to have added recently to the template. --Russ (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Response at Template talk:Epithelial neoplasms. --Arcadian (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why am i being banned for spamming?

Hi Arcadian,last week i felt a bit sad and angry for being banned for spamming .why am i being banned for spamming while i add the source of the material i added to external links?Is this not allowed?

Please review Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest - "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." --Arcadian (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeast infections

You created this redirect a long long time ago, should this be a separate page from candidiasis? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm probably not. But if we want to increase site traffic we might think about creating vaginal yeast infection. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centromere protein B

Hi Arcadian, I proposed the deletion of your creation Centromere protein B, but somebody removed my tag. Since I know nothing about such things, I may have been mistaken. But I wonder if you could add some information to the article explaining what the protein does, why it is important and so forth? Strandwolf (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An expansion of the article by User:ProteinBoxBot should be coming soon. --Arcadian (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been months, article is exactly the same... Strandwolf (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signiatures

So why can't I put my signiature on my work? --Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Signatures -- "Edits on main Wikipedia article pages should not be signed—the article is a shared work based on the contributions of many people and one editor should not be singled out above others." --Arcadian (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)


[edit] Infobox Disease

Thank you for the notice! Everything seemed to be correct in Firefox, but after emptying my cache, it seems that the required edit changed the whole table. I reverted it. Cheers, NCurse work 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When redirecting a page, please redirect the talk page too

I'm talking about your redirection of neoplasia to neoplasm. By the way, tradition wants redirections to be discussed first. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] neuroblastoma?

Hi Arcadian, if you get a moment to look at Talk:Neuroblastoma, especially the mess I left referring to phase III clinical trials for frontline therapy for high-risk disease, I'll be interested in what you think should be done (if anything) to make the article more thorough...thanks! DMLudwinski (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you formatting the references by hand, or are you using http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ ? --Arcadian (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much Arcadian! That is a BIG improvement over doing refs manually! I also found a site the searched for DOI--do you have any recommendations for that? Thanks! --208.123.11.69 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Ugh! Login issues again! --DMLudwinski (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks SO much Arcadian for the help on formating the image of ganglioneuroblastoma. Obviously I am having trouble! Any hints? I really tried. I was trying to figure it out without having to bother you! Thanks for coming to the rescue! DMLudwinski (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Extended image syntax has a useful overview. --Arcadian (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow--you are incredible at catching and fixing vandalism lightening fast! THANK YOU!!! I see you have rescued neuroblastoma article once again! DMLudwinski (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titin full name

Well, I didn't add a plaintext version as you can see here. And last time I checked, vandalism is defined by a deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia. If you think that's what I'm up to simply because I added it once (without reverting mind you!), go fuck yourself and put your blocking threats where the sun never shines you're wrong. Please assume good faith, brush up on your knowledge of what vandalism is and is not, and learn to assume good faith. User:Dorftrottel 14:21, January 13, 2008

Also, I replied at Talk:Titin#THE_WORD and would greatly appreciate a reply without you resorting to baseless allegations and blocking threats. Believe it or not, there are arguments. Please address those. User:Dorftrottel 14:55, January 13, 2008

[edit] Macrogol

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Macrogol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Macrogol. Mayalld (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nootropics

I don't believe using the term "impaired" human cognitive ability is entirely accurate, as the drugs are proposed as substances that improve this regardless. Whether they work or not it in question, although their more legitimate use does seem to be in cass where impairment has occurred (e.g. Alzheimers). Perhaps it would be better to rephrase this to reflect this.Halogenated (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the definition of nootropic in Dorland's Medical Dictionary (the ref I added)? Of course, if you can find support for your view in a reliable source, feel free to add it. --Arcadian (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS?

Hi, you made an edit to the Helminthic therapy page citing "MOS". What does that mean?

Please excuse my ignorance. - FQ1513 (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My edit was referring to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. More specifically, Wikipedia:Lead_section#Sections_and_table_of_contents states "Although the lead section is considered a section, it has no section heading; an "Introduction" headline should not be added at the beginning of an article." --Arcadian (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsing nav boxes

Hi,

I noticed that a couple of the Navboxes start off open; a lot of them are pretty big. You're the last contributor to one ALL of them I saw, so I figured you'd be a good person to ask. Is it a bad thing to autocollapse them with state = {{{state|collapsed}}}? Is there a reason not to? WLU (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to make that decision on a case-by-case basis. When an article is very short, having a long navigation box can be disproportionate and disorienting. However, the navboxes provide context that can be very useful in understanding how very precise subjects relate to their "peers". There are also color clues that help orient the reader, and some of this benefit would be lost if the navboxes all started off collapsed. Also, Navboxes are configured to automatically collapse when more than one exists on the same page at the same time, and the navboxes are configured so they disappear from the printed version, so wasted space is less of an issue. I try to split up Navboxes when they get too big (look at my initial version of arteries and veins from Oct 2005, and compare it to what you now see at the bottom of Artery and Vein), but it can take time to find the best breaking points, and sometimes they have to be fleshed out before one can find the most natural seams. I don't think it is a good idea to globally force the collapse tag. I think the best solution is to use overrides, as documented at Template:Navbox#Other. For example, I know Template:Metabolic pathology is too long, but I don't know the best place to split it, and no one else has split it yet. So, to provide the most extreme example, Pentosuria would probably look better if the template was collapsed on that page. However, on a page like Maple syrup urine disease, the template is very helpful. Most people, when they first hear that term, think it is a joke -- but by scrolling down and seeing the bolded text in the navigation template, they immediately understand that it is a organic acidemia, which in turn is a disorder of amino acids, which in turn is a inborn error of metabolism. By not hiding the navigation template, users can more easily abstract up to their level of comprehension, and then drill down to their level of interest. --Arcadian (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance, I'll review it in more detail in a bit and see about possibly removing the autocollapses I've already put in. WLU (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sweet holy mother of God that is a huge navbox. The only breaks I could see (and I've minimal biochem - the citric acid cycle is my limit) would be macronutrient, (protein, fat and carbohydrates), micronutrient/non-energy (minerals/vitamins/electrolytes/water) and byproduct/other (things produced by the body/other). Another option might be to {{Johnny Cash}} it and collapse nested boxes, though it looks like it ends up looking like several stacked pre-collapsed boxes.
I would also venture the idea that the people for whom the navboxes are most useful are those who already have a fair bit of experience (mostly editors, it'd take a sophisticated reader to understand what they're for), who would also know enough to be able to open a pre-collapsed navbox. I don't suppose there's a way to force a collapse on specific pages, is there? That way you could collapse on stubs but leave open on longer pages.
A final question, though it's more of a favour. It's mostly in regards to this edit - psychogenic amnesia is a medical condition, so MEDRS applies, but my biggest problem is just a gut feeling that it's not a good place to put it, possibly extending to a 'this should not go on the page' in part because the journal is of dubious reliability (no pubmed). I've already removed the section, but I'd like a better reason than 'it just doesn't feel right (or someone disagreeing with me and saying it is appropriate). The issue that also feeds into this is Dataman5 has been working with me on dissociative identity disorder and it's been going well though we edit from different sides of the concept. It feels like a POV push, but not one I can easily rationalize a push back on. Any suggstions? WLU (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox_Brain doc subpage

02-Feb-2008: I have created a typical "/doc" subpage to describe the parameters and show an example with "Template:Infobox_Brain/doc" as standard documentation. The doc is displayed only when the full template page is displayed, not included, by using "{{template doc}}" which boxes a doc subpage in that narrow institutional-green documentation box. The example text had to be narrowed by 2 characters to fit within the green doc box. The doc is in draft form, and more parameters should be described. You might want to contact a brain-anatomy person to expand that documentation. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Freund Publishing House

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Freund Publishing House, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Freund Publishing House seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Freund Publishing House, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] broken external links

hi,

1. though i enjoy the site traffic, maybe www.progenetix.net is not the first place for coding information 2. but if you use it without noticing me, deep-linking may produce problems:

http://www.progenetix.de/~pgscripts/progenetix/

is now

http://www.progenetix.de/progenetix/

and directory links should be used instead of "casetable.html" (deprecated); e.g.

http://www.progenetix.net/progenetix/I95103/

links to ICD-O 3 9510/3.

I would try to fix the Wiki entries, but have no clue about the nested links.

Michael Baudis.

Thank you -- I have updated Template:ICDO accordingly. --Arcadian (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:MedlinePlusEncylopedia2

A tag has been placed on Template:MedlinePlusEncylopedia2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On contributing to the Paranoid Personality Disorder articles

It is nice to make your acquaintance. I had wanted to mention to you that there had been an extensive deletion to the above noted article.

I don't know if you've had your Psych classes and upper classman rotation, but would hope that, if so, you might drop by to take a look at the article and strike out anything that you know to be false and add in, under references, the relevant texts you have been assigned or books or articles you have sought out yourself.

I know you have limited hours (and limited sleep if you are in your 3rd or 4th year), but if you could browse over the article and, even if you don't have the time to add in any citations, any contribution you might add to the talk page would be appreciated.

I was tickled to see that you are not only quite interested in the Neurosciences (as am I), but that molecular and cellular microbiology is too (in college, as I was? It was my major).

I rather hope you specialize in Neuropsychiatry (or Psychoneurology). My niece has wanted to be a psychiatrist since she was in 6th grade and is now nearly in her senior year and still just as anxious. I keep sending her articles in psych-related neurology (and primatology), wanting her to keep her enthusiasm up by recognizing what an exciting growing field she is entering. She will have tools and knowledge that my psychiatrist husband never had. Back then, they were taught that children could not be depressed - that only older adolescents and adults were capable of depression. (and you should of seen the look on his face when I told him that my mother's dog was severely depressed after her dog companion was killed *laughing*) Spotted Owl (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- I did some hunting, but couldn't find much on this condition that wasn't already in the article. --Arcadian (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SCDS article clean-up

Thanks a lot for the excellent spring clean of the entry on SCDS. I'm fairly new here and still learning about the technicalities of Wiki, so I've learned something. Greetings from Germany, Adrianocorno (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. Thank you for creating the article. --Arcadian (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of the term Dysphagia

Dysphagia is a symptom, not the same as "difficulty in swallowing". I know the online references and the print references say "difficulty in swallowing", but that should be understood in the context that it is used generally as a symptom. Schlesinger. & Fordtran’s Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease explains this well. That source is more authoritative regarding GI disease than the dictionaries, or from examples where the term is misused in the medical literature. Please see the discussion regarding dysphagia as a symptom in the talk page. Stephen Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My full response is at Talk:Dysphagia#Definition_issue, but please read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, and don't delete comments made by other editors on my talk page. --Arcadian (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize that I had deleted the other comment on your talk page when I added this section. Sorry about that. The mistake was inadvertent. Steve Holland Kd4ttc (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henoch-Schönlein purpura

A little while ago you left a cri de coeur on WT:MED that Henoch-Schönlein purpura was a mess. I felt guilty (because I'd started the page) and therefore went on a big improvement spree. Could you have a look at the result and counsel me on accessibility of content, grammar, etc. I'd rather this article becomes a WP:GA at some point... JFW | T@lk 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -- it is much better now. I think it is probably ready for a GA nomination now. --Arcadian (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if a peer review would be more useful initially.
Nice work on Haff disease - I had been a bit hesitant to put in those other reports, but now it looks great. How did you find out that I created it? JFW | T@lk 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm everywhere...no, actually, it's because I saw this on my watchlist, and I wanted to learn what it was. --Arcadian (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fab

Hi Arcadian,

Could you tell me how did you come up the formula for this Fab? Thanks! (unsigned -- Trishcl)

I'm sorry, I don't understand the reference. --Arcadian (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I was browsing the revision history of this Fab. It seems to me that you added the infobox in Jun 2006. In this box, it contains an item called formula. Since this information didn't appear in previous vision, I was assuming you added it. I am looking for sequence information of this Fab for a related project. If I am wrong, just forget about it. However, it seems you are quite experienced, would it be possible for you to tell me who added the formula information into the infobox? Thanks for the help! (unsigned -- Trishcl)
From here, I can't tell what Fab you are talking about. However, whenever I add formula information, it is almost always as it appears in PubChem. If you can tell me the name (or give the URL), I may be able to provide more guidance. --Arcadian (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
oops, i thought this page is only for the Fab I am talking about. Anyway, it is about Abciximab or ReoPro. Thanks!
From here, as generated by this page. --Arcadian (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
     Excellent! so much thanks for your help!!

[edit] Striated muscle

Hi, why would you undo dab page? I know it should be an article, but as of today it's neither an article nor a decent disambiguation page. Renata (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

By converting it to a dab, you removed the external links to the medical dictionaries. Some people consider striated muscle to be equal to skeletal muscle, while others consider it equal to skeletal+cardiac muscle. By retaining article form, we can better explain the reliable sources behind the diversity of interpretations, while still directing readers towards more precise terminology. --Arcadian (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Titubation

A tag has been placed on Titubation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. nneonneo (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dimmed yellow with anatomy wider typesetting

30-March-2008: Hi, Wikid77 here. I have shifted Nerve coloring to more yellow. Thanks for taking time to contact me: I feared distracting you from the impressive med articles. My focus has been to polish typesetting with 50% wider text, more space for images, and smoother colors, plus documentation for the templates: Infobox_Brain, Infobox_Bone, Infobox_Muscle, Infobox_Nerve.

The dreaded yellow is culturally marked in the USA for yellow-marker pens used to "hilite" textbooks, so I was seeking a dimmer yellow to also avoid the USA 1970s fashion of red+yellow clothes, plus the artistic problem of complementary colors causing eyestrain: opposites split from R-G-B cause psycho-afterimages, with wiki-blue links directly opposing yellow (Red+Green) as a mental glare to many. The dimmer yellow adds blue as RGB=#FFEE77 and also avoids red-green colorblindness or even yellow colorblindness by merging some blue. Again, I did not want to distract you from the awesome med articles which are always timely (until the ice caps melt!), and I just wanted to adjust typesetting & color hues for a wider audience. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template colors

Hello, please note Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Template_styles_and_color_schemes, in response to your edit on Template:Respiratory pathology. Regards—G716 <T·C> 04:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear lamina

Hi Arcadian, I've a little question for you.. Since I've updated the article concerning the nuclear lamina, the older version is still displayed when I visit the page. I wonder why that is, for it says clearly in the edit page that 'any saves you make will be visible immediatly'. Did I forget something of is there a special reason why this page is not updated?
Hugo

When I look at the page, I see your latest edits. This might be an issue with your local browser, or you might be linking to an old version. This test should distinguish between those scenarios -- click on this link: nuclear lamina. What are the first words you see in the article? --Arcadian (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Flaccid

An article that you have been involved in editing, Flaccid, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flaccid. Thank you.

ImperviusXR (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Re: Fumarase deficiency

Thanks so much for helping me add cites to the article on Fumarase deficiency. It's wonderful to put out a call for help and have it answered so quickly. My background is in Anthropology, Linguistics and Folklore. This particular article is interesting and deserves to be beefed up and well-referenced. Many thanks. LiPollis (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your initiative and improvements. --Arcadian (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cladinose

Hi Arcadian, regarding 'your' article on cladinose, I think the classification as "hexose deoxy sugar" is clearly wrong, it would be rather something like "methyl ether of a branched heptose dideoxy sugar" but I'm not sure how chemists usually refer to such substances. Could you shed light on the issure? Icek (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was following the guidance provided by MeSH. I don't object to your proposed change, but if you are looking for more details on naming standards, the good people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry would probably be able to help you more than I could. --Arcadian (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help! Hip dysplasia (human)

Hi Arcadia. If you could spare a bit of your time I'd like to request your help for the Hip dysplasia (human) page. I came across the Hip dysplasia page while researching a related topic for a client and decided to "adopt" the topic. So far no one else has contributed. This may be partly due to the fact that the medicine links still go to the canine page. (At least the ones I haven't found or where the editor reverted the correction because I'm not a "properly certified expert".) I'd like to bring the page "into the fold". However I'm encountering some issues there. There seems to be no template "developmental diseases(conditions?) of the musculoskeletal system". If I'd link it to "congenital" I'd feel a bit as if I was linking an aricle about Galileo to "flat planets". As most sources agree that the description of hip dysplasia as "congenital" is outdated. Only "Beukes dysplasia" could possibly be considered congenital. I also checked the box someone put at Hip dysplasia and most of those link to the medicine library numbers for humans. (But again under "congenital"}. What do you think? Should I copy the box from the canine page? Would you have enough clout to request a new template? I'm currently working on getting a "background/development" section going. I had hoped that I could link to existing pages there, but things have not been generated yet. So I'll just put in some stuff that could maybe serve as starters for new stubs later. I know the femur and the pelvis/acetabulum develop from the same group of cells (mesenchyme if I got it right) But I haven't found a source yet that tells me whether the femur and acetabulum develop as one unit that then gets separated by scavenger cells or start of separate. If you know a good wikisafe source I'd be delighted if you could pass it on. Do you think "Concepts in Fetal Movement Research by Joyce W. Sparling" is an adequate source or could you recommend something better. Sorry for bothering you, glad if you could help out. Thanks. --Lisa4edit (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)oops--Lisa4edit (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the box. The article looks better already.

[edit] Hip Dysplasia article

Arcadian Please give me some guidance as to how to improve on the changes that I had made to Hip Dysplasia that got pulled down this afternoon. I put a lot of time into writing the additional pieces and would really like them to see the light of day. My guess is that you removed the changes I had made due to the list of references. Is this correct? What other areas do I need to address? I am more than happy to put the time and effort into getting this right. Would it be best to work section by section? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. talk

I'd be happy to work with you, and working section-by-section would probably be best. First, if you haven't yet, please read Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:External links, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Then, start adding content, but since you are a new user, it would be better to add it relatively slowly, to help facilitate collaboration. If you have specific questions, of course I'd be happy to answer them, but I'll bet after reading the four links above you'll have a good sense of how to move forward. --Arcadian (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flashcards

Hi, Arcadian. I've just read your offer that you would like to help creating a Wikipedia-like resource for flashcard content. Few months ago I have started such a project. If your still want to help, please contact me: adam.dziendziel at gmail dot com. --Nalfein (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthroscopy images

Hi,

I uploaded some arthroscopy images to Commons, could you have a look? Can they be used in articles here?

--Arthroscopist (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions! I've added one of your images to Medial meniscus and another to Tear of meniscus. If you click on this link and this link, you can see the formatting I used. There are several different ways to add images to pages, and an overview at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial is available. Be bold, but if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. --Arcadian (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: New article needed

Hello. Could you please create stubs for laropiprant, rolofylline, and odanacatib? :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strychnine vs Strychnine poisoning

It'd have been polite to gauge consensus first. The poisoning and pharmacology are intimately connected. I see Arsenic and Arsenic poisoning are separate, but there's so much more material there that a split makes sense. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

I read the article on anaplastic thyroid cancer, and other thyroid cancer articles, too. I was just beginning to wonder that there was very little mention of factors that result in such different manifestations from the (presumably) same cell of origin--papillary carcinoma, follicular carcinoma, and anaplastic carcinoma. But, that's not what made me reach here. I just logged in to the history of that page and realized that almost the entire article was singularly created and expanded by you--I was very impressed. I went on to your contributions' page, I was further impressed by the vastness of your knowledge; then, I went to your user page, I don't know what do we call getting impressed to the degree that I had got. I was just bowled over by its simplicity.

I too am a medical student (legally, already a doctor), but I don't know if I do possess knowledge in the same depth as you do.

Your work is really amazing, and the link you provided to your encounter with Wales was interesting as well as inspirational.

Congratulations, again. Bye. Take care. (Hope you get to read my message in the vast swarm of messages that you get.)

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you give me more credit than I've earned, but that does not mean I do not appreciate your encouragement and generous spirit. Thank you, and I hope we cross paths someday. --Arcadian (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again!

I'd created an article, rather a stub--clone (cell biology), wherein I'd try to convey the definition and implications of "cells derived from the same cell through asexual division"--quite particularly in immunology. But, the article was prematurely redirected to clone (B-cell biology), which is quite different in its treatment of the subject, and may I add, also inadequate.

I undid the redirection once, but beyond that wasn't allowed, as it created some "editing conflict". Can something be done about it?

Basically, I wanted to expand upon the article B cell, which I think, does not convey the ideas of clonality and clonal selection well enough. But, that's not provide the scope to explain the concepts. A separate article for the purpose would have been quite justified, and hence the attempt.

I'd be happy if you could go through an article I completed recently polyclonal response.

I also realized that somehow there isn't any article/section that adequately deals with secondary immune response (i.e., the fact that it is more specific and more intense). The section on affinity maturation deals with it, but not to my satisfaction. I'm bringing all these points to your attention as I believe to resolve all of them, an article on 'clone'/'colony' as it applies to immunology is really required.

Looking forward to your reply.

Regards (and you deserve the credit I gave you).

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thx

Image:WikiThanks.png Hey, thank you for referencing and otherwise improving Infantile neuronal ceroid lipfuscinosis. I knew about enough from looking over doctors' shoulders to start an article, but not to shore it up all proper. While we're at this, thanks for all the other things on your user contributions. --Kizor 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And thanks to you for starting the article -- it made it easier for me connect the dots. --Arcadian (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zygomycosis

Hi there!

Me and another user have recently made some big chances to an article called zygomycosis (previously mucormycosis) and I noticed from the history that you had some prior input on the article. I was wondering if you could take a look at the changes and see what you think?

Thanks. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Partial knee replacement

Could use an expert, I thought you might be interested! WLU (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I've added some refs; hope this helps. --Arcadian (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Boceprevir

Hello. When you create new drug articles, you should also take note of the IUPAC name, chemical formula, and molecular weight. If not in your browser favorites, please add this Lists of Recommended and Proposed INNs.

By the way, the IUPAC name and chemical formula for boceprevir is on List 59[1] of the RECOMMENDED International Nonproprietary Names List. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually do, but this one wasn't in PubChem. --Arcadian (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that will happen sometimes; the WHO lists have gradually replaced PubChem as my preferred source for drug structures (I'll whip one up for it in a few minutes). By the way, Arcadian, I reverted your edit to Anti-diabetic drug because those refs are there to support the article's general content as supposed to a specific statement (that's why they aren't footnotes—see Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references versus inline citations). This was the second time I added them back IIRC, so I apologize for the curt edit summary :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you say it was okay to delete them? MEDMOS discourages orphaned citations. --Arcadian (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I did, but that was before I realized we had a guideline on how to present both inline citations and general references (hence the edit summary). I realize MEDMOS discourages them—the ideal course of action here would probably be to go over the article, find more inline refs for uncited statements, and reword anything we can't verify. I might be able to do something of the sort over the next few days... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ICDO

The external links provided by the template do not lead where intended. See e.g. at International Classification of Diseases for Oncology. --Eleassar my talk 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- I've updated the link again. --Arcadian (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but some of the links still don't work. I've tried with '(M8590/1) Sex cord-stromal tumor' at International Classification of Diseases for Oncology. --Eleassar my talk 15:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please comment this before I try to tweak the template myself? Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 11:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the issue is that the source (progenetix) doesn't support every ICDO code. If you can find a different way of linking to the source that provides more success, or if you can a different source that supports more codes, feel free to implement those changes. (If you have further comments, it would be more productive to leave them at Template talk:ICDO, to make it easier for others in the future to follow the discussion.) --Arcadian (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for your recent help with subcutaneous emphysema! Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Arcadian (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HSN2

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of HSN2, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=HSN2. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] oral pathology

I noticed the move of oral pathology to Stomatognathic disease. Why the move? There are 9 recognized specialties, as the infoxbox at the bottom of the article shows, and the names of the specialties recognized by the ada defines this specialty as "oral and maxillofacial pathology." It would seem inconsistent to me to list the specialties, but change the name of one of them. I did not want to support a move of the article without hearing your thoughts. Thanks. - Dozenist talk 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Stomatognathic disease. --Arcadian (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Partial ileal bypass surgery

Thanks for your help with this article by adding a navbox :) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 08:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template question

Hi,

I was going to add acute aortic syndrome to {{Circulatory system pathology}}, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate. Is it a symptom or a condition (or, duh, a syndrome?) Anyway, I'll have a go at expanding AAS a bit more but as usual any comment, suggestions, advice, correction or direct editing are welcome. WLU (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I've added a few refs in trying to figure it out. It seems like the term is intended as an analogue to Acute coronary syndrome, which itself was only added to MeSH less than year ago. Part of it depends on what the "aortic" refers to: aortic valve or aorta? Before I edited it, the article said it was a "threatening, aortic valve abnormality", but from what I read, it seems to be more closely associated with the aorta, rather than the heart itself. I've added a ref to that effect, but there aren't many references to this condition on PubMed. It seems to be an emerging term to describe chest pain which has been narrowed down to the aorta, but not narrowed down further yet, and could be due to aortic dissection, intramural hematoma, or a few other conditions. I tend to be hesitant to include items in navboxes unless the terminology is supported by at least one infobox resource, and this one isn't. However, if it had to go someplace, I'd put in Template:Circulatory and respiratory system symptoms and signs, in parentheses under "Chest pain". --Arcadian (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My first change to the text inserted aortic valve, but I later removed it based on other references - I also found it unclear and wasn't able to sort it out based on pubmed abstracts (speaking of pubmed, I did find a variety of abstracts referring to AAS and integrated what I could find after your changes). Then the version I was working on got erased, so I don't recall anymore where I found it or what the reference was. I'm quite content to leave it out of any templates for now (and you know about it, so once you're satisfied I trust your ability to slot it into the appropriate template). I also created penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer based in part on not wanting a redlinked term and finding a specific reference trying to define the term. A review would be nice, as always, as well as a quick review of the changes I managed to recover and re-insert in AAS. Also thinking about creating a page for intramural hematoma, to clean out all the red. We'll see. Thanks again for your help, much obliged as always. Now I've got some orphan tags to add... WLU (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Quick question

I noticed that your a pretty active editor of the ICD pages so I thought you would have an idea about this, the UN and WHO use Oxford spelling as standard on their publications (I think) but I'm having trouble finding anything concrete written about this. Do you know what spelling the ICD document follows? British English/Oxford English/American English etc... I'm creating a spell checker and looking to incorporate sections of this document as a source. Thanks. Andrew.Ainsworth (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be British English in most cases, though I'm not aware of anything documented to this effect. In most cases the spelling is the same, but the major difference seems to be the translation of the typographical ligature Æ -- British English uses "ae", and American English uses "e" -- "anaemia" vs. "anemia". "haemophilia" vs. "hemophilia", etc. --Arcadian (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My PDF IS ADVERTISEMENT?!?! ARE U FUC*@N KIDDING ME???

Can you explain to me please how what i added is advertisment?! Can you show me 1 advertisment in the pdf i posted? Please... find just one... I can't wait to see you pull this off! PLEASE RE-POST MY COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE ARTICLE!!! AND IF YOU BEG TO DIFFER LETS LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE!!!!!!!!-- unsigned, User:Number631

Please review Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#External_links, and Wikipedia:Civility. --Arcadian (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did, everything seems perfectly on par, my material was completely relevant, scientific data, and no hyperlinks or links at all to any other website! No ads or anything related to ads, just scientific data! you got problems with anything specific or are you just mad with power? Can you get one of your fellow colleagues to check out what i posted, because no offense but you seem to be a plain jerk! OR tell me exactly what your problem is because i'll be honest EVERYTHING seems perfecty legitimate, its just you!

Why do you keep changing the title to "fuc*@n kidding me"? Are you that bitter? I really don't care if you wanna act like a baby... grow up kid!

That's the header you chose, and my response was to that message. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, do not edit the comments you leave on other people's talk pages. --Arcadian (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

what about what i wrote after that? I'm still waiting for the answer to that... since you seem to be in the mood for answering! Thats your job as a moderator isn't it... to answer? Or do you only answer when you feel like it? Maybe you have a boss i should talk to...