User talk:Rustavo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Multiple Stubbing

What's wrong with triple-stubbing?

I don't think there's an absolute rule, but generally an article shouldn't be marked with multiple stub tags from the same general category - recently I've been restubbing a lot of articles marked with {{medicine-stub}} or the generally overused {{med-sign-stub}} to more specific subcategory stubs as listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. When I find articles marked with multiple subcategory stubs within medicine, I sometimes remove less specific ones. There's nothing wrong with putting them back though if you feel strongly that it's helpful to have a particular stub listed in multiple subcategories. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


(Thanks.)

[edit] A sense of futility

Ever feel like no matter how many times you roll the rock up the hill, it's gonna end up back at the bottom? Or is that just my pro-Big Brother mentality? MastCell Talk 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is time to ask for mediation. I've never done it though, and I'm not sure it will help. -Rustavo 02:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Option B (which I advocated to User:Dr.michael.benjamin) is to disengage for awhile, let him go to town, and then look at the finished product in a week or two to see what needs to be done to fix it. He obviously has more time on his hands and is a single-purpose editor, so trying to keep up with dozens of edits every hour is not really productive for those of us with other interests in the encyclopedia. Easier said than done of course. Mediation is not a bad idea either, and I'd gladly sign on. MastCell Talk 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we tried the waiting thing before, and after a few weeks he came back. We'd put a lot of work into incorporating the more valid parts of his reasoning into a well balanced criticism section, and he wiped it all out. He seems intent on replacing the basic structure of the whole section with a libertarian laundry list, and I'm afraid if we gave him a week at this point, the only feasible "fix" would be a complete revert or rewrite. I'm looking forward to writing a section that gives a fair account of the important FDA reforms and controversies of the past 10 years, but I don't want to see it all hacked up with gibberish. Obviously the fix-as-he-goes-along strategy is wasting my time though, and is probably counterproductive in getting him to move on - plus now he just straight up reverts my editing as soon as I do it. I say we give him a week alone with the criticism section before asking for mediation. We can use the "before" and "after" in making our case. -Rustavo 03:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Generic update: the criticism stuff just got forked into Criticism of the FDA. // 3R1C 06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank-you

Thanks for your feedback on the cerebral hypoxia article. I wasn't quite sure of how to use the pubmed citation format. Egfrank 12:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at the documentation on the citation template - it is a bit intimidating. I wonder if you might be able to fix one of the pub-med cites so I have an example to go by - or give me a link to an article with one. Many thanks, Egfrank 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The easiest way to do it is to use the Wikicite program - just enter the PubMed ID and it automatically fills out the template for you. -Rustavo 16:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curious development

So it turns out that our good "libertarian" friend User:Regulations is a sock puppet of User:Billy Ego, a proud self-proclaimed fascist who has just been banned by the Arbitration Committee. In light of this curious development, shall we re-examine the FDA articles? I'd propose deleting the criticism article as a POV fork, restoring a criticism section to the main article, and whittling it down in a manner that reflects Wikipedia's policies. What do you think? MastCell Talk 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. -Rustavo 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pathology

Yes, it was a bit of a resolution issue with the TOC, plus I don't see how that one small element can affect GA. ~ Giggy! Talk Contribs 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the last part, I just meant that the previous version looked OK to a reviewer as well as myself. I personally don't like a lot of blank space on the page. Thanks for the feedback. -Rustavo 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you, but could you post your message on my talk page please. My watchlist gets filled to quickly otherwise.~ Giggy! Talk Contribs 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether it was considered kosher to move whole conversations back and forth - is that the way these things are generally done? Do I leave a copy on my talk page? -RustavoTalk/Contribs 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Most people simply put a message on the other person's talk page. You can leave it on your page if you want, it's up to you. I don't, others do, your choice! The only thing that you SHOULD do is put a message, at least a notification, on the other talk page.~ Giggy! Talk Contribs 23:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rustavo for a wonderful job in the pathology and anatomical pathology pages. I am glad to see that good sense is back at Wikipedia. Emmanuelm 16:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:pathology stubs

Indeed yes. The discussions at WSS/P don't actually need to be formally closed as such (that's just bookkeeping, really): five days is up, consensus seems to be clearly to create. Let me know if I can help any further. Alai 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that - go ahead. The only real quibble with it seems to be slight ambiguity of scope, which shouldn't be any more of a problem than it is in the main Cat:Pathology. Sorry about the initial grumbling on my part, BTW :) Grutness...wha? 02:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lymphology

Perhaps "keep" should read "no consensus", but the end result is exactly the same: the status quo. All I can suggest is to resubmit the request in a few weeks and ensure that there is more input. I don't mean canvassing individual editors, which is frowned upon, but trying to get all editors who have an informed opinion on the subject to comment. Leaving a note at relevant projects, or on related article talk pages, would be the way to go. It's very difficult, even for far simpler subjects, to judge whether arguments over facts, rather than guidelines, are valid or not. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FTLD/FTD

Thank you for the well justified and needed correction of wording to the article on frontotemporal lobar degeneration. I couldn't agree more that it's important to keep pathological entities and clinical syndromes distinct. Also, I think it's important to keep the relevant information about the clinical entities thought to be caused by those pathologic processes in the article somehow. This is why I added some of the information you removed back to the article. Hopefully, this or something like it will seem a fair compromise. Cheers, sallison 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinusitis Biofilm Edits

The sum total of your edits gives a factually incorrect impression. I believe it so reduces the presentation of the subject matter that it constructively violates NPO. The only time that biofilms have not been found in tissue removed from patients with CS is when the mateial was not examined for them. Once you know what you are looking at, were you to do either freeze fracture samples or use a confocal microscope and the approperate stains, you would see them.

Almost ALL important pathogens form biofilms.

The fact that it may take a Grassley Act law suit to get medical schools to pay attention to how real "wild type" bacteria grow is just really really sad.

Plese reply by e-mail or on my talk page, which you guys did not bother to do when you made these edits. Truehawk 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a number of people have responded to your edits on the article talk page, which is the most appropriate location for such discussion. Regarding NPOV, it might be useful to re-read the section of the policy dealing with undue weight, which has been brought up regarding your edits on the article talk page. MastCell Talk 22:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of people responding to my edits, if I remember, was David Rubin, who has in the past e-mailed me when he was going to edit, Rustavo, and you MastCell? I think that you need to look into it further.Truehawk 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC) This is a more approperate venue for what I have to say to you, as you if I remember correctly said that there was no section about biofilms in your infectious disease textbook. There is not. Now WHY??

I am a metallurgist. Don't you think that it is preculiar that the vet, the waste water scientist and I know more about biofilms than you do?

Do you think that approperate or desirable?

And why is MastCell responding on Rustavo's page? Truehawk 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that you are right, and that the medical community has greatly underappreciated the role of biofilms in chronic sinusitis. However, Wikipedia is not the forum in which to make an original argument to that effect. There are plenty of other forums in which it would be more appropriate for to write at length about your personal theories regarding biofilms (might I suggest a free webhosting service?). One could synthesize any number of theories about the significance of the presence of biofilms on the mucosa of chronic sinusitis patients - they could be present as the result of an underlying immune deficiency, or they could be commensal organisms which are not harmful, but are able to grow on mucosa which has been damaged by previous inflammatory episodes from a completely different cause. In the absence of reliable published sources which directly discuss these hypotheses, it's not appropriate for any of us to inject our own favored one into the article.
I posted a summary of three studies, which you guys apparently either did not read, (David quoted mice to me once and now you don't know the material studied was from immune competent patients. Those details were in the articals if you read the references.) I also rephrased a sentance that orginally read something like. "The bacteria in the biofilms did not corrospond to interoperative cultures." To something like "The bacteia found in the biofilm did not corrospond to the bacteria cultured. etc" in an effort to make the mateial more accessible, and david hopped all over me for synthesize.

I am a metallurgist and I have seen biofilms on both pipes and native biological tissue. I think since you have seen fit to constructively delete what it took me a period of months to assemble, that YOU have a duty to do some research and rewrite the artical. I think that you and MastCell need to to do a bit of searching on "biofilm sinusitis" on Pubmed.gov and Biofilm modle. You need to learn what a Calgery Biofilm Device is, and Most important pathogens not only form biofilms, but are....Well you need to do the researh for yourself.


Regarding your second point, I assumed that since you had posted dozens of times on Talk:Sinusitis, you would continue to follow the discussion there. Since several commentators seemed to agree that your edits were not in line with basic rules about content on Wikipedia, I felt confortable proceeding with the changes. I'll copy this conversation to your talk page to ensure you get it.-RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You, MastCell David and who else??? are these Several commentors? Just go look into it okay, Then come back and write a peice. And Yes there have been a half dozen review articals.

Per your kindly phrased request, I have read a review article on biofilms in chronic sinusitis by James Palmer and made appropriate changes to the biofilm section of Sinusitis. Please refer to my comments on Talk:Sinusitis.-RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re phrasing - thanks for your careful edit - the nature of biofilms and why they might be of importance in sinusitis is well phrased (without having to overly rehash what is already in biofilm). The paragraph is NPOV in tone and of appropriate weight in the article. No one disputes what a biofilm is, and the edit is careful to not to suggest that the role in sinusitis has reached general consensus, but equally that it is being looked at further - a good encyclopaedic edit. David Ruben Talk 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neoplasm Definition

The new definition of a neoplasm is too complicated in my opinion. The old definition (which I added) in essence says the same thing but in a more understandable manner for the non-science folk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porsch1909 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I didn't think it made sense to add another sentence defining neoplasm after the first definition. However, I like your phrase "proliferation of cells", and have included it in place of "growth" in the first line. "Uncontrolled" is not entirely accurate, since many neoplasms are benign and their growth is essentially self-controlled. Please sign & date your comments on talk pages in the future by typing four tieldes (~~~~). Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about not signing the comment. I'm new to editing pages on wikipedia. But I understand how a categorical definition of a neoplasm can be a grey area. Porsch1909 09:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US attorney controversy, election pressures

Care to take on writing a ~ three or four sentence "issues in brief" item on various items related to this? -- Cheers Yellowdesk 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • There's a draft outline on rewriting the "planning" section. You may be knowledgable about citable sources to know what's possible to say how the elections angle influenced early list-making. See the draft in progress at Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/sandbox. See also: Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#New_section_underway_in_sandbox.
  • This also brings to mind that a genuine, in-depth section on the elections angle, who contacted whom, who came forward later, perhaps even a US map of close states / congressional/Senate districts and comparison to allegedly pressured U.S. attorneys would be an interesting thing...if we can find citable sources. What do you think?
--- Yellowdesk 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MacPherson

see my page. DGG 03:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dilute Russell's viper venom time

Regarding your last edit to this particular article, it sounds like you and Jschowin may be more familiar with this subject than I am. However, what you claim to be the case is somewhat at odds with the cited reference. Nevertheless, I'd be more than willing to leave your edit uncontested as long as you supply a clear reference: a book, an article in a journal or even a web page. But, please don't leave it like it is now: so many Wikipedia article contain inaccuracies because people do not cite their sources. Besides, the way things stand now, it looks like we're saying the cited reference says something that is does not. --Jwinius 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm very pleased with your current explanation and reference. Thanks! --Jwinius 21:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
After reading over that document today, I felt inspired to create a new and related article: Ecarin clotting time. I'd be grateful if you could have a look at it and check to see if it makes sense. --Jwinius 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite. Now I can understand what I was actually trying to say! :-) --Jwinius 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for WP:ONCOLOGY

I am trying to gauge what the interest would be for a WP:ONCOLOGY category. This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standards of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles.

If this is something you are interested in, please sign underneath the relevant section at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Oncology

Regards, Djma12 (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

You deserve a barnstar. Axl 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
To Rustavo, for maintaining a neutral balance in the Lyme controversy. Axl 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Gross examination

I have nominated Gross examination, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gross examination. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. RkORToN 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad it seems to have survived the AfD - I've been away for a bit - but you're correct that it certainly needed some fleshing out. I've done a bit of work on it - hope you'll find it to be an improvement. RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)