User talk:Mikael Häggström/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Withdrawal syndrome

I'm puzzled why you reinserted "withdrawal syndrome" in syndrome.[1] Withdrawal syndrome is nothing but the groups of symptoms that occur on withdrawal of a substance (alcohol, benzos, opiates, cocaine). In that sense withdrawal is no different from other collections of symptoms; I have relegated the mention of withdrawal to the "see also" section, and added the related concept of toxidrome. Hope you're okay with the solution. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with the solution. My point was that withdrawal syndrome, although a collection of symptoms of different causes, still may be regarded as a syndrome (hence its name). However, I agree it might not be worth having a whole section dedicated to it, so I find it all right to keep it to the See also section. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Embryology

Hej, Mikael!

I'm just curious about your shift of the template Developmental biology to Embryology. In the resulting navigation box, the article with the box seems to be concerned mainly with a subfield of "Developmental biology", namely "Human embryogenesis". This is a bit of a surprise in articles like Developmental biology itself. (Are you absolutely sure that you were not just a little influenced by your own field of study, human medicin:-)?) If you or someone else explained why somewhere, then I'll be happy with a link; else, I wouldn't mind you explaining your reasons here.

I notice that you descriebe yourself more as a "doer" than a "discusser", and also declares yourself quite ready to be reverted. That's not unreasonable; but it's a bother to revert your re-linkings from {{Developmental biology}} to {{embryology}}, and I personnally would prefer to know the "why's" first (anyhow being a "1RR-ist").

Med vänlig hälsning, JoergenB (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hej Jörgen!
You're right. It is confusing with the template rather concerning a subfield. Thanks for notifying me! The reason I fused them was that the template Developmental biology still didn't really contain anything new. However, since such a template still is needed I reinstated it, but tried to fill it with rather original articles instead of duplicates. I'd be glad to hear further suggestions.

God kväll! Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps morphogenesis? Or, the lists in de:Ontogenese might inspire. Anyhow, thanks! JoergenB (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 15:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs).
Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.


[edit] Mola hydatidosa

Hi there Mikael. Would you mind merging mola hydatidosa into Hydatidiform mole? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! Good to see that there actually is a lot of information about it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Methylsergide maleate

A tag has been placed on Methylsergide maleate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 article's 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. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 07:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ref ranges

Hi - I'm a big fan of your work in general, but I'm concerned about this edit, which adds a reference that isn't published or available on the web. In my opinion, if it can't be validated by other editors, then it isn't a reference. --Arcadian (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It isn't good as a reference. I thought it was better than just writing without any reference at all, but perhaps I better do the latter after all. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, when you cite PubMed, this tool allows you to paste in the PumMed ID (PMID) and retrieve a fully-formatted reference. Makes life much easier! All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'm not always bothering with finding that PMID all the times, so sometimes I find it easier just copying and pasting the header and author text.Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's at the bottom of all the abstracts on PubMed. Thanks for the help with Malondialdehyde‎. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lymphocyte activation simple.png

Hi Mikael,

I noticed that you created this image and added it to the Immune system article. I have to be honest, this image doesn't really make much sense to me, nor, IMO, does it add much here (it could be of some in the helper T cell article) and I've removed it. The problem is that the diagram is really too simplistic. I think I understand what it is trying to say, but I'm pretty sure it will be very confusing to the uniformed reader. Here is a hypothetical thought process: "What do the arrows mean?, does it mean that the helper T cell becomes a macrophage and a B cell?? Why are some of the lines green?" You'll note that the Killer T-cell image above it is also very simple, but that it maintains a high degree of precision. I can offer you a few pointers if you'd like to improve the image. I'd be happy to discuss it otherwise. Best--DO11.10 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the image was hard for an uninformed reader to understand. I explained the green arrows and made it easier to correlate with the text, so I hope it's clear enough to remain in the article now. I'll also, sooner or later, explain the non-simplified image further. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit check

Hi Mikael, I'm sure it's on your watchlist, but just to be absolutely sure you saw it, can you sanity check this edit? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me, but I figure I'd defer to the more knowledgeable. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notification! It was a non-existent receptor. I made an own redirecting article on it, Alpha-1C adrenergic receptor, since it might be confusing to be redirected without any explanation. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha-1A adrenergic receptor

Just to let you know I have proposed this article be merged to Alpha-1A adrenergic receptor here. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. As long as the correlation is explained in the main article it's ok. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)