Talk:CDN99/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2004 and 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Contents

TRSI versus the expanded name

Helo CDN99, and welcome again to Wikipedia. I wanted to personally give notice that I have reverted your redirect to the borderline copyvio which exists at Tristar and Red Sector Inc. until some issues have been resolved. Please refer to the talk page for further details as I would like for you to weigh in on this matter. Best regards, —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup tags on Type Ia sensory fiber

I added the cleanup tags for Type Ia sensory fiber to Talk:Type Ia sensory fiber because the new guidelines at Wikipedia:Cleanup explicitly says "Add the appropriate tag(s) to the article's talk page" (emphasis in the original). Were you aware of that when you moved them into the article? --rbrwr± 22:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. There does seem to be some debate at Wikipedia talk:Cleanup on whether putting tags on Talk: is the right way to go. --rbrwr± 11:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

alternative medicine stubs

Thanks but no thanks since there already is a category on this called category:CAM stubs. So, I will ask to have your totally unnecessary template deleted. Kindly, STOP wasting my time. -- John Gohde 09:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Civility

Oh now, come on ... your sarcasm was both dripping and uncalled for; I was responding in kind. It's a matter of two good meaning folks poking one another in the ribs. Courtland 23:20, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

I am getting rather tired of editors undoing virtually everything that I do. -- John Gohde 05:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(to John and CDN99) Well, when that happens to me I ask myself "is the information I've added still represented in some form?" Style is is one thing, content another. If you are constantly getting reverted that's quite different from continuously being revised. Courtland 13:18, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

(to CDN99 & Kbdank71) I'm glad there's no bad blood coming from the words exchanged. Words said here without the benefit of tone of voice or gesture can easily come across differently than intended. Courtland 13:18, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

From Mart Owen, regarding Michael Cretu.

Hi mate, I did originally have the album listings how you described, but someone changed it, telling me that I was wrong. What can I say? I always thought it was better the other way too :-)


List of publications in biology

I want to return the categories you removed from the list. For a discussion on a similar issue, please see Talk:List of publications in philosophy. Thanks, APH 05:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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 10:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi, CDN99. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and know much more about content than I do about formatting, so many thanks for your recent contributions to the articles on Pick's Disease, Pick bodies, etc. In the Pick's disease article, I noticed you removed the entire See Also section. Is it really not okay to have a See Also section? They're pretty comon features in standard encyclopedia articles. These particular See Also references (notably semantic dementia, progressive aphasia, frontotemporal dementia, etc.) are quite important as many people learning about Pick's disease really should also see those articles. Those syndromes are the usual clinical manifestations of Pick's Disease (or dementia lacking distinctive histology). Admittedly, I should add all this to the article's content, but without much time to edit at present, I used a "See Also." Can I at least return this section until i have a chance to add the additional content. Also, isn't it alright (even a good idea) to have a list of closely related articles for a complex topic? (It's pretty easy to get swamped with the in-text hyperlinks and miss out on which other articles are the most important to check). sallison 18:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Well, I decided not to re-add the See Also section to the Pick's disease article, because I decided it wasn't adding much in it's current form. I realized that i could add the same links to the text with greater effect. That said, I have seen See Also sections in other articles that really add to the content by pointing the reader in a couple very interesting directions right at the end of an article. I believe that relying on categorization alone in these circumstances lacks this degree of taylored specificity and convenience that the See Also section can bring. Cognitive disorders is indeed an appropriate categorization for Pick's disease, for example, but there are many cognitive disorders, and it can be helpful for the reader to be directed to a few closely related or easily confused cogntive disorders or related topics in a See Also section (like Corticobasal degeneration for example). For this reason, I would be careful with regards to outright deleting See Also sections when cleaning up articles (unless you know the content well). In the Pick's disease case, I agree with you that the See Also section can go ... at least for now :) If you by chance find more info on the See Also policy, feel free to let me know. Cheers, sallison 20:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Waterloo, Ontario. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Waterloo, Ontario for instructions.--Rmky87 02:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer

Thank you for your question. I think it is better to discuss on the topics talk-page. Have place an answer there.--Nomen Nescio 10:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Voltairine de Cleyre death date

Hi CDN99. I saw your edit comment on the Voltairine de Cleyre article regarding her date of death. I made a note about the date on Talk:Voltairine de Cleyre, but in short, Emma Goldman said "She died on June 6th, 1912" in a memorial essay published in 1922. I'm not sure where the June 20th date comes from, but the talk page for the article has a comment indicating that a recently published book by AK Press says the 20th. It's possible that Emma was wrong, but unless AK has a strong reference (like a death certificate), I'd trust the contemporary publication written by a friend of Voltairine de Cleyre on the 10th anniversary of her death. Mike Dillon 01:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Emergency department

I wonder if you would consider supporting this article by voting for it at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive to improve it towards feature article status. I hope to increase the profile of clinical medicine and related subjects on wikipeda. The current article is basic, in particular with regards to EDs around the world.--File Éireann 20:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Bipolar Disorder

Can you please justify removing Bipolar Disorder from the Catagories Psychiatry and Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ISCDRHP?. -- Anarchist42 17:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

British v. American English

You made changes to the article on Toxoplasmosis. Thank you, there were some useful little things that you spotted. On the other hand, you also changed one or two uses of words like "faeces" and "foetus" to "feces" and "fetus" respectively. Could you try and avoid changing single words like this from British to American Engligh in the future, as it disturbs the consistancy of the article: the rest of it uses these spellings. Its just about alright, in my view, to convert the entire article from one to the other, although I'm not sure how necessary this is, and should be done properly. --Mike C | talk 23:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Parasite Treatment Drugs

I'm not a particularly good person to ask as I'm not clinically orientated, but I guess that "anti-parasitic agents" is fine. I've never heard anyone call them that before, though: The "agents" bit sounds odd. That category is currently a subcategory of antibiotics, which doesn't seem right to me. --Mike C | talk 21:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Emergency department

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Emergency department was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Many thanks for your support!--File Éireann 23:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

General Anxiety Disorder

Hi,

Why did you remove the example symptoms from the General Anxiety Disorder page ? They are very important to judge the disorder.

Please put them back.

Thanks... Maruthi

MSF

Thanks for the re-write of MSF! Much better. Keep up the good work! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 03:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

manganism categorization

What is the difference between a "neurologic disorder" and a "neurological disorder"? The Literate Engineer 17:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Note

On User talk:Dino, you note:

Hi Dino; Crystal healing is one type of crystal power, and crystal power was two sentences long before the merge. Nothing is gained by having separate articles (now they're just duplicates of each other); I'll make a sub heading called "Crystal healing" in the crystal power article. Plus, the image of a quartz crystal is just that, a quartz crystal, so it's just a "decoration" of sorts. What do you think?

OK. As long as content is clear, and no content is lost. I seem to recall I uploaded the image, but something makes sense, even if it's not a real "power crystal."

dino 03:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dosing

Surprised! Merger with Article Dose does not go with the contents of talk page Dosing. Please read again the talk page on Dosing. The contents are very clear to represent the use of the word Dosing in Industries even to day. My vast experience for years in various countries also supports this idea of mine. Please therefore remove merger and confirm. Then I can make this an Article. You can rethink of what you have to do in the case of article Dose.

--Dore chakravarty 17:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dosing

What is your suggestion next please? How can I keep the contents of Talk Dosing in an article because there are articles with this word dosing to be linked.

--Dore chakravarty 19:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dosing

Can I change the article name by adding a word before the word dosing like this - Chemical dosing to suit the change in other articles? Just a suggestion only as I have to think further on the other places where this word appears. Is it not posssible to remove the Article Dose, a disambiguation page or add the verb, dosing in line with explanation of (v)erb? Any other method to overcome this problem please?

--Dore chakravarty 20:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dosing

Probably a para as under may be added in the disambiguation page Dose and article Dosing can be made. As I am raw regarding the Wiki rules I cannot think of any other alternative please.

v The verb for this is dosing. There's also the usage of the word dosing in the medical sense, (to give a dose of medicine to somebody), engineering sense, (to measure an amount of chemical feedimg) etc. Hence see Article on Dosing which covers these aspects as well.


--Dore chakravarty 23:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dosing

Probably the article name would be Dose (dosing). This is what you want me to understand by seeing the disambiguation page Radical. I think the above name will not be correct in other articles because the word dosing is used normally.

--Dore chakravarty 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dose and dosing

Hi, I believe that the usage of these two words is widely different and hence, they require different disambiguation pages. Also, dose is not a candidate for wiktionary as an album, a magazine and a food item are named thus; Dosing in its current form deserves an article and is not a wiktionary candidate. However, it would also be a disambiguation page in its current form. We have several instances of having two disambig pages for similar words e.g. Time (disambiguation) and The Time are both disambiguation pages. A See also from each page linking to the other page makes it easy if at all someone were looking for the other page. Hence I am converting Dosing into a disambig page instead of the re-direct it is currently. --Gurubrahma 16:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

re: herbal and fungal etc

thanks for the heads up.  ;) --Heah talk 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

MSF

I've been watching, and I'm quite pleased with the additions you're making. Depending on how much more gets added, we may want to move the Access to Essential Medicines Campaign to its own article, and just have a summary at the Médecins Sans Frontières article. But I'm not sure about that. I also wonder whether listing all the chapters at the end is important, and if there may be a more concise way to do that. But the information you're adding is great! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine

Hey, thanks for the help with the copyedit! Happy Holidays and Happy New Year! -Parallel or Together? 14:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine

Osteopathic medicine is a branch of medicine that encompasses all clinical specialties from family practice to neurosurgery. If not in the top level medicine category, where? It doesn't just belong in alternative. Please discuss.--DocJohnny 23:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)