User talk:Preacherdoc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm delighted to discuss any topics of interest: drop me a note! Preacherdoc 05:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hello, Preacherdoc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Colin°Talk 17:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Non-epileptic seizures

I'm afraid I've felt it necessary to revert your changes to this article – I have, however, tried to clarify the narrow scope of the term. Hopefully the article is better as a result.

Your edit-comment "Not quite happy with the tone of this article; implies lots of non-seizure events are seizures" is perhaps more a complaint about the term Non-epileptic seizures (NES) than the article itself. You might like to follow the links given in the references (particularly the second one). It seems that the international medical community has found it difficult to come up with a term that is useful, doesn't cause offence and doesn't mislead. I think that a lot of doctors find it hard to accept the use of the word "seizure" for something that isn't a "seizure" according to their understanding of the word.

The term non-epileptic seizures is most widely used in literature that discusses misdiagnosis. In fact, one Wikipedian neurologist has said that really there are just psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, and misdiagnoses. It is more of a category than something you would be diagnosed with.

You are most welcome to discuss this further on my talk page or on Talk:Non-epileptic seizures. Regards, Colin°Talk 17:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I apologise if you found the term "quirky" offensive. It was not intended to be derogatory in any way. I was attempting to find a way of describing the temporal nature of your definition (i.e. that what something is, changes depending on when it occurred – which is highly unusual).

I am trying to stick to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability, not truth here. I believe I've found the best references from the highest authorities available to me. These people may be wrong, but that is not important to Wikipedia. Believe me, if I had found sources to support your position, I would have mentioned them – I am not a dishonest debater.

I hope you will continue to enrich Wikipedia with your medical knowlege. I have not found this discussion to be a waste of my time. Best wishes, Colin°Talk 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

(My replies to Colin are posted on the Talk:Non-epileptic seizures page. Preacherdoc 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] I dunno about 'myth'...

...since it does occur, but maybe not definable by class within statistical frequency. Angeline Jolie's publicist did make it publicly clear that her birth this week was scheduled to coincide with her brother's arrival in Namibia. Seems pretty 'posh' to me. --Kickstart70-T-C 04:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(Kickstart is referring to women choosing Caesarean section for convenience, the so-called "too posh to push" phenomenon).

Thanks for posting. In the UK there has been a groundswell of opinion that the phenomenon of caesarean sections chosen by the mother for her own convenience is increasing. These women are portrayed in the media as high-income or high social class, and there is a pejorative suggestion in the phrase "too posh to push" that these women choose this method because they consider attempting a vaginal birth to be somehow distasteful or undesirable. The BMJ refutes this nicely. However, it is certain that some mothers choose the option of a planned (but unnecessary) caesarean section because they find it convenient, or because it reduces the perceived risk of a painful, prolonged labour or an injured perineum. The small number of celebrities who choose this artificially inflate the profile of planned caesarean outwith the true incidence, which is small (the media hints that other women may be copying the celebrities; there is no evidence this is true).
Whatever we think of these women, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for judgments or criticism. I think that the phrase "too posh to push" is one that probably ought not to be included in Wikipedia. My first response was to expose the "myth". My second response is to remove the phrase entirely, but I will leave that decision to you. Preacherdoc 06:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Anatomical Terms

No offense taken at all. I think it would be great if the articles were merged. I wrote this as a learning experience and wanted to offer it for use on wikipedia. It sounds like you have the background and expertise to merge these articles into something useful. I'm interested in knowing what is inaccurate so I can learn from it. What mistakes did you find? Thank you for your feedback. Beth ohara 03:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Beth, I've replied on your talk pages. Preacherdoc 10:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dentin(e) discussion

Preacherdoc, I have replied to your comments on the talk page of the Dentin article (still currently under that name). I should emphasize that I truly don't care what spelling the article ends up with, only that it should a) be internally consistent, and more importantly, b) be consistent with the title. I apologize if my remarks come across as condescending... I was trying to reply in kind with your previous post. They are _not_ meant to insult. I'd appreciate your comments on the dentin(e) talk page.--Storkk 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And indeed you will find my reply on the discussion page of the dentin article.Preacherdoc 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I also did not mean to offend by my remarks. I really, truly, don't care one whit whether the article refers to dentine or dentin. What I do care (and care strongly) about, is that it is internally consistent. If whoever reverted my edits in the beginning--which started this discussion--had also moved the article to "Dentine", I would not have objected at all (regardless of whether or not it would have been in line with the guidelines). I, unlike you, cannot claim ANY dentistry knowledge whatsoever... I can, however claim some linguistics knowledge, and must admit that I was slightly incensed by your reply: in both BE and AE, "-in" and "-ine" endings abound. This precipitated my arguably WP:NPA-violating comments. In summary, this message is: a) an apology for the above comments (though you have not asked for one); b) a clarification of my pov; and c) a notice that I think the whole discussion totally useless as long as the article is consistent. If I offended you, please accept my humble appo-logies (with full intent to reference Black Adder). In friendship and comradeship-in-arms ( ;-) ) NB: this is copied verbatim from the Talk:Dentin page --Storkk 02:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An(a)esthetist

Thanks for your message about the above. I don't know if you saw my comment on the anesthetic awareness talk page, regarding the reasoning behind the changes. They were: a) The article is called anesthetic awareness. b) The first major contributions used "anesthesia" and, finally, before I changed the spelling, there were 39 spellings of anesthetist/anesthesiologist/anesthetic as opposed to 31 spellings of anaesthetist/anaesthetic.

From the manual of style:

Articles should use the same dialect throughout...
If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used...

IMO the article is confusing switching (between anaesthetist and anesthetist) and I am following the manual of style guidelines by: a)using the same spelling throughout and b)the one used by the first major contributor (and changing the spelling to the one used most commonly)

I am therefore reverting your changes in the interest of consistency but am more than happy to bring this to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Finally, I too am British and prefer anaesthetic/foetus/encyclopaedia (or even anǣsthetic?) and am doing this entirely out of a wish to be consistent. I am also doing my best not to be a dick, so am more than happy to have a discussion.

PS. Can we hold any further discussion on the anesthesia awareness talk page? All the best.Mmoneypenny 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My reply is on that talk page.
When people change my British spellings to American ones, I feel like I am being "corrected" when in fact I am not. This is precisely the kind of irritating habit which completely puts me off contributing to Wikipedia. Preacherdoc 10:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anasthesia

Thank your for your input on the talkpage. I am trying to understand the content dispute that resulted in a ridiculous edit war over this article that went on for days. Not being a medical practitioner myself it is taking a little while. Both sides seem to have a very strong agenda and seem unwilling to compromise. The middle ground would appear to be as you suggest to factually detail who provides anasthesia in various countries, either whithin that page or as a separate article. But I am at a loss as to how to persuade the various parties that this is the way forwards... WJBscribe 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and for getting involved. Don't give up on us! The facts (not the opinions or the agendas) are all that matters. The anaesthesia article also suffers from all sorts of users trying to claim who gave the first anaesthetic. We can really do without this. When I get a chance I will roll up my sleeves and get stuck in.Preacherdoc 14:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, once I have worked out the issues, I intend to create a draft copy of the page as I believe it should read to give fair coverage to the various providers of anasthaesia, without adopting any POV as to who does it better. I would appreciate your having a look at it before I propose it to the angry mob... I'll leave a link to it here once its done. WJBscribe 14:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Delighted to help. I still think a brand new article would be better. The main article tries to be faithful to too many subjects as it is; an overview with links to more detailed but separate articles would (IMHO) be more suitable.Preacherdoc 14:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is no longer protected from editing so I have changed it there. My version is somewhere in between the two versions that have been fought over. It would be really helpful if someone with some specialist knowledge had a look through the external links. I suspect they need heavy pruning. The relevant policy guideline is at WP:EL if you wish to consult it. Thanks, WJBscribe 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your rational comments on the anesthesia discusson page of 31 Jan. Facts and not rhetoric matter. Aestiva 15:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International biographies

YOU WROTE:

There are currently four figures carrying the name "O'Donnell" who do not have biographies in English (Guillermo; Joseph Heinrich; Karl and Maximilian Karl Lamoral), although they do have entries in other languages which are linked to this article.
Unfortunately I can't translate enough of these articles to provide English-language versions of them. If anyone can translate German or Spanish, could they possibly create Wiki articles for these figures in English? And does anyone know what "Graf von Tyrconnel" means? Preacherdoc 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"Graf von Tyrconnell" means Count of Tyrconnell, in German. Tricky 16:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

SO PLS NOTE:

I have added a new article, more detailed than the German one, and with a pic of Count (Graf) Maximilian Karl Lamoral O'Donnell von Tyrconnell. Enjoy. Seneschally 07:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! I had already spotted this; your new article is excellent. Preacherdoc 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lourdes

Thanks for deleting sceptism in Lourdes Medical Bureau. I happen to agree, but originally thought it a good place for that article, I now don't. There is currently a debate that the "sceptism" article should be included in Lourdes page, but I disagree because although there are sceptics of Lourdes - the user has included something with no relevance to Lourdes! Would appreciate your views on this by using the Lourdes discussion page. Thank you. Matt - London 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Matt, will do. Preacherdoc 12:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Preacherdoc - great addition, much appreciated. A well balanced article.

[edit] O'Donnell "Alternative" Arms

The so-called "alternative arms" are legitimate. But note: there are several variants of the original O'Donnell arms, bearing variations with a cross, registered in Dublin, Vienna, and Madrid. However, the "alternative" in question here belongs to O'Donnell of Trough, an offshoot of the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell, who descend from Toirdhealbhach an Fhiona, who died in 1423, and whose descendant Hugo O'Donnell, settled in Limerick, and died c. 1610. The arms are: Sable two lions rampant combatant, in chief a sinister hand appaumee, coupled at the wrist between two mullets, and in base a mullet all argent. The crest is: out of a ducal crest coronet or, a naked arm embowed grasping a dart all ppr. Motto: In Hoc Signo Vinces. The origins and pedigree of this family, who owned Trough (Truagh) Castle in County Clare, are documented in the College of Arms in London, and are also described in The Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry of Ireland, page 533, by Sir Bernard Burke (1958 ed.), available under call number IR 929725 B3 in the National Library of Ireland, Kildare Street, Dublin 2. It should be added that these variants are not "alternatives" as each differentiation belongs uniquely to an individual armiger and his direct inheriting descendant. They are not "clan" arms and cannot be legally used by anyone else. Seneschally 09:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Seneschally; your scholarship is, as always, superb.Preacherdoc 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concise remark of the Month

YesRefdoc 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

To Preacherdoc for his copious additions to pharmacology and anaesthetics articles. JFW / T@lk 00:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
To Preacherdoc for his copious additions to pharmacology and anaesthetics articles. JFW / T@lk 00:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jfdwolff! My very first Barnstar. Huzzah!Preacherdoc 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basilica of St. Pius X

Hello. I see no problem in merging or linking Basilica of St. Pius X as I had it with your much more detaied version on Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes. I added that for I could not find a reference for it as I was adding the page Visions of Jesus and Mary. I was not aware that your more detailed page existed. I have since edited Visions of Jesus and Mary to put a link to Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes. Please merge / link Basilica of St. Pius X into your page in a nice way. And it would be nice to mention in your page on Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes that it is one of the largest complexes that came about as a result of Visions of Jesus and Mary and link to the Visions of Jesus and Mary from there. Cheers!

The above was written by user User:History2007. Many thanks H2K7. I will give it my attention soon.Preacherdoc 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lourdes

I have left a reply in the articles talk page but I was surprised about your comments that the quotation of Bernadette is not in keeping with her other pronouncements, however I'm open to correction if you provide the refs. GoldenMeadows 22:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casino Royale (Concise remark of the month #2)

WP:AVTRIVIA. Alientraveller 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we seem to have lost that caller. Preacherdoc 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What? I give you a policy and you make some snide remark? Alientraveller 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the information isn't particularly important. All you have to do is link Bodyworlds in the plot summary. Alientraveller 20:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is half of a conversation which is also represented on Alientraveller's talk pages.Preacherdoc 20:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then. But you must understand WP:AVTRIVIA isn't just policy, it's simply logic about good structure and writing. Certainly any other editor would zap it on the spot. Secondly, it's not that important, you can just link it in the plot summary. There is certainly no cited information on why it's in the film: unlike say, discussing Craig or Green's approach to their roles. Alientraveller 21:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Casino Royale (2006 film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.
I'm not certain (since he didn't leave his name) but I believe the above post was made by User:Erik. Preacherdoc 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you really complaining about another editor disagreeing with your contribution? Maybe you should consider that your contribution wasn't encyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Alientraveller is aware of 3RR. I wasn't sure if you were. If you were aware of the rule, then I apologize for using the template. As for the "ominous" warning, Alientraveller is right about your contribution. It does not add any insight into the film. If you can find out why the Body Worlds exhibit was used in the film, then that would be encyclopedic for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Seen from my perspective, three attempts to post a reasonable point of information on the Casino Royale (2006 film) were immediately deleted, although in each case I modified the post to make it more suitable. That's enough. Read Alientraveller's talk page for my view on encyclopaedic content. I think that the fact that the Body Worlds exhibits were used stands alone as worthy of inclusion. I do not know (yet) why they were used; perhaps another contributor can supply that information. I speculate they were there to add a heightened sense of menace, although my speculation did not enter the article. These remarks have been slightly edited to resolve an edit conflict. Preacherdoc 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that Alientraveller was brusque, but I agree with his reason. I understand that you attempted to implement the content into the body of the article itself, but there are many elements that pop up in a film. Like Alientraveller mentioned, there can be a brief mention of the exhibit in the Plot, like there is a link to Skyfleet airliner. One can go into detail about anything in the background of a film, but it is more relevant to explain why this particular approach was taken -- to provide real-world context, basically. That's why I'm suggesting to find a citation for why the Body Worlds exhibit at the film -- perhaps it's thematic in a fashion, perhaps it was a contemporary note, et cetera. Please don't be distressed by conflicts with other editors -- that's a pretty normal occurrence on Wikipedia, though one tries to avoid them. (I do that myself by focusing on future films, of which there is less attention.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aidan rhyming trend

Hey, thanks for the note. Very much appreciated. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Thomas Clover

Updated DYK query On 2 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Thomas Clover, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My first DYK! Hurrah! Thanks, BorgQueen! Preacherdoc (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)