User talk:Lbeben

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Lbeben! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dreamy \*/!$! 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] Heart failure

Thanks for adding more information on systolic & diastolic heart failure on the heart failure page. I was wondering if you could expand the pathophysiology page a little bit further. At present, the article does not readily explain the mechanisms behind heart failure, and doesn't address important points such as LV remodelling, pump failure, functional valvular regurgition etc.

For such a section to be good, we would need good references (preferably medical journals or textbooks, see WP:CITE) and a good outline. I would also recommend adding wikilinks to relevant terms. As a non-cardiology clinician my knowledge of the backgrounds of heart failure is fairly basic, and my recent improvements to the article have been mainly to the clinical content. Let me know if you need any further help. JFW | T@lk 14:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lbeben, could you please add wikilinks and relevant sources to your additions? I hope you appreciate the difference between your contributions and the remainder of the article? I can help with the technicalities of citing sources. JFW | T@lk 16:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I am a practitioner in a small town. I see mostly older patients and have read widely about this topic for many years. How does one begin to appropriately source the pathophysiology of heart failure? Many of the original contributors to the work are long dead and the living list of sources is longer than you or I have time to compile. I argue that a compendium of clinically relevant terms is needed to better elaborate the pathophysiology of heart failure. Wikipedia seems an expedient means to divide the wheat from the chaff.

There are two problems. Firstly, your additions need links to other related articles. Usually, they are simply created by putting square brackets around the words in question, like this: [[heart failure]]. If the term in question doesn't have its own article, but it is covered in a related article, you can use the | character, like this [[heart failure|systolic heart failure]].
Secondly, the references. I'm not asking you to provide every single reference for every part in the pathophysiology of heart failure. Rather, we need to provide a few major sources (e.g. a textbook of physiology, a journal article that summarises recent findings in the development of heart failure). Hopefully you can provide some of these. If not, we can always ask Ksheka (talk · contribs), one of our longterm cardiology contributors, to help out.
Let me know if you need any further assistance. JFW | T@lk 13:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

JFW: Sir I need a great deal more assistance and thank you for your counsel to this Wikipedia novice. I will begin to make these changes immediately. My cornerstone reference work would be Arthur Guytons Textbook of Medical Physiology. I have actually pondered contribution to this article for quite some time. The foundational premises of pathophysiology in heart failure have already been written by at least 100 authors. Most prior work is focused on smaller determinants that collectively add meaning to the terms Systole and Diastole. Making a list would be most interesting but will always omit someone.

Integration and clinical weighting of the determinants of heart failure is a clinical and policy urgent priority. When collected into two convenient bundles (Systole and Diastole)the individual clinical bricks begin to fall into place neatly. Systole and Diastole are readily understood in terms of individual determinants/articles under Wikiclassification.

Another problem: I believe my inclusion of work defining Diastole and subsequent diastolic heart failure is novel. Integrated theory disclosed inverts work of Guyton,Fick,Frank and Starling in mathematical definition of Cardiac Output/Systole to the covariants of Cardiac Input/Diastole. (Guytons' sump = diastole). Theory is a ticklish area in almost any arena. Where does Wikipedia stand in disclosing theory?

Suggest an Article on a compendium of terms and weights of determinants of pathophysiology in Systolic and Diastolic Heart Failure.

I wil contact Ksheka about the proposed article.

See my comment below. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Target level

Hi, a common tendency I think amongst all doctors starting to edit wikipedia, is to treat it as needing to be the best possible medical reference that we ourselves might wish to refer to. However Wikipedia is not a medical text book nor a how-to-guide. The target level should probably be to the well read under-graduate, but with simple enough description for a high-school pupil to follow. Whilst the points made at Heart failure all add to a deep understanding, the language and pitch were inappropriate. I've had a go at toning it down for an encyclopaedia... but I suspect a totally fresh rewrite may be better. To see what other medical topics people are collaborating on, come to the medical wikiproject (WP:CLINMED) and its dtalk page acts as the doctor's mess (WT:CLINMED). 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was left by Davidruben (talk · contribs). He also made some substantial changes to the content that you've been adding to the heart failure.
I think a "pathophysiology" section on heart failure needs to start by carefully defining its terminology. That means we need definitions of systole and diastole, but also of forward and backward failure, the Frank-Starling mechanism etc.
We must approach the subject from different angles. Neubauer, for instance (PMID 17360992) devotes 12 pages just to the energy metabolism of the cardiomyocyte. That may be a starting point for a paragraph on energy metabolism. We then need to look at the mechanical models, and their impact on physiology. For this, a physiology textbook chapter or recent review article would be useful. To suggest that Chagasic heart disease is a useful model immediately begs for a reference; who thinks this is the case?
When linking to other articles (e.g. using [[CO]] to refer to cardiac output), you may want to check the link indeed refers there. CO refers to disambigation entry. Rather [[cardiac output|CO]] will get you the link that you need.
Starting off on Wikipedia is always a bit of a struggle. You've taken a rather difficult subject, but we're always available to help. Once you've identified some sources, please let me know so I can help you add them to the article. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks

Leslie, please note that Wikilinks need to include two square brackets on either side to be recognised as hyperlinks by the wiki parser. I would advise you to always check whether a term actually has a corresponding article. You added brackets to [nonischemic], which has no article (many adjectives have no articles). Please refer to my comment above on how to "pipe" links to related articles (i.e. nonischemic would direct to ischemia).

Have you made any progress with finding suitable sources? JFW | T@lk 19:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did to Heart failure. There is a Manual of Style#Wikilinks that should be followed (also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). Thank you. David Ruben Talk 02:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as you did to Heart failure. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. David Ruben Talk 02:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


re persisting use of obfuscation terminology and failure to wikilink appropriately (double square brackets) despite repeated reminders:

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive or hard to read formatting, as you did to Heart failure, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. David Ruben Talk 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

May I propose, :-) , that you suggest further edits to Heart failure on its talk page and let someone else help out by deciding if & how to add to the article ? David Ruben Talk 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patents

Lbeben, You might want to check out Public participation in patent examination.--Nowa (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obtuseness

I've reverted your posting to Talk:Cardiac output for being quite meaningless in jargonistic twaddle ("Noninvasive echocardiographic mathematic variables in calculation of EF and CO as intellectual property are becoming increasingly concrete as equivalents to the term [systole]" - I think that was meant to be "Echocardiogram derived measurements of EF and CO are increasingly accepted as defining systole"). Please write in language we can follow, and as repeatedly requested, use double square brackets to link when required.David Ruben Talk 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI ?

re Talk:Heart failure#Device Therapy in Heart Failure - you possibly have a WP:COI given http://www.patentdebate.com/PATAPP/20040186522 patent application, so take some care :-).
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Heart Failure, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. David Ruben Talk 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)