User talk:WhatamIdoing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

/Archive 1

[edit] Hi there

I noticed your removal of some of the "how-to-ish" stuff in the Oral Allergy Syndrome page, but you inadvertently removed some cross-reaction information in the process (some substitutions were labeled as possible cross-reactions). I added them as a separate part at the bottom of the table, and can vouch for at least a few of them personally, as I have severe OAS to birch pollen and ragweed pollen, and have other cross-reactions to strawberry, pineapple, and we're pretty sure bean sprouts can be added to the list. I didn't want to step on any toes in doing it, but the information is important for people who have reactions to those items and are trying to figure out why, when they're not on any of the other lists. Thanks! Crazyhorse90^talk 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Saw you removed most of the external links from Diagnosis but left couple of them and wandered what criteria you based your removal on?

Thanks --75.56.197.224 (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.197.224 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your question on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That said ("Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services"), our link to Medical Diagnosis should not be removed as we offer free service with no pages that leads the user to purchase "my diagnosis-related software" (We do have retail product as well, however, there are no links from "en.diagnosispro.com" to "www.diagnosispro.com" as well as no purchase pages under the en sub-domain. Even subscription is not mandatory).

--75.56.197.224 (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The site in question allows anonymous users to input anything. For example, you could edit the definition for Extramedullary marrow and then cite your arbitrary definition in a Wikipedia article. For me, this is what makes that site unreliable as a source. Wikipedia benefits from/suffers from the same problem, which is what makes it unreliable as a definitive source, in the view of most educators. Antelan^talk 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Antelan, just as an FYI, our medical board community review and approve each and every suggestion. That's one of the reasons that most of DiagnosisPro's data is accurate and up to date.

--75.56.197.224 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the follow-up. I'll reconsider where I stand, taking into account both to WP policies and the additional facts you have presented. Antelan^talk 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, 75.56.197.224: if you'd told me which site you cared about, I could have given you a much more specific answer yesterday. Diagnosispro was removed because (1) (importantly) it does not meet the special requirements for open wikis (see #12) and (2) (minor) it doesn't seem to have any information about diagnosis. Of course, if you disagree, you can certainly propose its re-inclusion on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'll follow your advise and propose its re-inclusion on the talk page. Thanks, --75.56.197.224 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi -- thanks for opening a conversation with me about the DSM page. I added the globalization tag because, although in the intro it says it's an american thing, the tone is as thought it's almost univerally accepted. For example, in the "Use of the DSM" section, it says, "hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies require a 'five axis' DSM diagnosis of the patients that are seen." That's not actually true in the MAJORITY of countries in the World! The same sort of thing is true throughout the article... even the criticisms are from a "western" perspective. And, as far as I can tell, ALL of the references are from the United States (with perhaps one from England). That last fact, almost says it all, right ;-) Does that make any sense?

Re:DSM. The citation you say is from Spain, is from the Am. Journal of Psychiatry. That's my point. Even if it's used in Europe, or endorced by the UN, doesn't make it worldwide. That's what should be clear (speaking as a professional in psychology, and having worked in a number of places). I don't think the majority of cultures use it.

But, all your other points are very well taken. I appreciate it. I definately put the tag in the wrong place... where should it go?

And, I will certainly make more clear my reasoning in the discussion page in the future. Thanks greatly for your time.

B. Mistler 05:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rhabdo on GA

Hey, thought you'd like to know that rhabdomyolysis has been promoted to Good Article. Well done on your hard work.

For your work on assessing and improving medical articles, here is a Barnstar. JFW / t@lk 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, JFW, but let's not forget that you did the hard work, and I did the easy parts.

BTW, I'd just been thinking of rhabdo immediately before seeing your note (and today's changes, which all looked reasonable): This news story talks about statin-related metabolic problems. I can't find the actual article, but I wonder if it might give us new and interesting information for rhabdomyolysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The study in question is doi:10.1038/nbt1387. This was published online yesterday. Many people suspect that mitochondria play part in statin toxicity (PMID 12353945), yet the exact mechanism remains elusive. I'm really not sure whether the study results have any bearing on the rhabdo article, but it's worth watching. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LBAM page

thanks for your backup of my point regarding the external links in the light brown apple moth article. i'm still a reasonably new WP user and as an entomologist and being that it was one of my first articles, its sad to see it being dominated by political debate regarding the US eradication effort. I always envisaged it just being an informative article about the moth. cheers Goldfinger820 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that you had left a note on the talk page about it. Unfortunately, I think we have a radical political activist involved in this article. NPOV and verifiability standards don't seem as important to everyone. Oh, well: So far, I like the recent changes to this article, and I hope that moving the political mess to a separate article will keep normal readers from having to slog through the garbage about who filed which lawsuits when. (You know that in 20 years, the whole political mess will be reduced to a single paragraph: Pheromone spraying happened: nobody died, and the moth (did/didn't) continue to infest the area.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I totally agree that the generic "geographical" importance criteria are next to useless for medicine, and I find your proposed tailored assessment scale completely sensible. I'm sure it will be adopted swiftly. JFW | T@lk 06:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brassiere & Cancer

Nicely stated. Mattnad (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your question on the talk page, in case you didn't see it. --Jonathan108 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed it. I've been off-wiki all day. It's much too late to see if I can find that paper tonight. I don't know if it's online (at all): you might have to go to the nearest university's science library and read it on paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to lay my hands on it. (One of those weeks.) However, here's what I can tell you from memory: The paper considers bra-wearing as -- not exactly a cause, because they're not manipulating this behavior, but as a potential marker. The authors conclude that the amount of breast tissue is more important, and that (at least) most of the reason that bra-wearing women get somewhat more breast cancer is because bra-wearing women have more breast tissue and/or more fat in the breasts. What I can't tell you from memory is whether they report an increased risk of premenopausal cancer because they didn't have enough data to report on postmenopausal cancer, or if postmenopausal and/or lifetime risks turned out to be the same.

Obesity, BTW, is a known risk factor for breast cancer even in cultures which do not use bras, and indeed before bras were invented, so it's been reasonably well established as an independent variable.

Finally, when you want to know what a researcher really thinks, it's often instructive to see what they're currently working on. These two authors have published literally dozens of papers that suggest breast cancer "starts" before birth, with the creation of breast-specific stem cells and exposure to hormones that promote their growth, but (later in life) not exposure to other (pregnancy-related) hormones that would cause proper terminal differentiation. They have subsequently ignored bras, even though surveys are so cheap, and their prestige so high, that funding is not likely to be an obstacle if they wanted to pursue this area. I think that's a reasonably good indication that they consider bras unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NCTM

Careful tossing around the insults. Jd2718 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your opinion on the proposed deletion of the fuzzy math article. Roseapple (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The picture you wanted cropped

Do you still need it cropped or is it ok as it is. I am sorry about the delay I have been busy, then sick for the last many days. if you need it done still I would be happy to comply. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have cropped that picture as you requested. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks great! WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human papillomavirus

In case you missed it, I asked you a question at Talk:Human_papillomavirus. NCdave (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have explained the removal of the link on the HPV talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency Medical Technician article

Any suggestions for areas that need improvement in the article from your review?
Thanks for the upgrade,
JPINFV (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I put my comments on the EMT talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal note

[edit] Infant Formula article

Thanks for contacting me about the Infant_Formula wiki. I became interested in the wiki because of the recent birth of my first-born son. I use wikipedia a lot, mostly as a technical reference, and was very suprised at the unusually negative tone of Infant_Formula. There was a lot more content about breastfeeding than there was about infant formula.

My concerns were increased when I saw that several contributors also Talk:Infant_Formula complained about the lack of NPOV]] on the page. I've expressed many concerns on the talk page.65.7.144.194 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summ read "Decreasing popularity: Please don't fact-tag section headings. Please also check the nearest ref: it may support more than one sentence." I had read the nearest reference - it directly contradicted the thrust of the first paragraph - saying the use of infant formula and breast feeding have both been increasing while the use of cows milk has been decreasing. With choices between ugly layout, wholesale deletion or leaving naive readers totally defenseless I went for ugly layout - I really couldn't think of a new section heading! :-( SmithBlue (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If an entire section needs help, there are all sorts of templates like {{Refimprovesect}} that are better suited to the task. You might like to look at the options at Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates

I basically define cow's milk, when it is being used as a substitute for breast milk, as being a kind of infant formula (for the under six months crowd, at least). If breast-feeding goes up, then other forms of feeding must go down: a baby only eats so much, after all. If you count milk as a solid food/non-formula, then I can see your point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking off the top of my hat on "If breast-feeding goes up, then other forms of feeding must go down" - Fomon data seems to be suggesting that more and more infants are always/sometimes/occasionally/"at least once?" being fed formula - So they count as formula babies and probably count as breast babies too. Maybe formula as % of total baby food is declining? But Fomol (to date as I read it) is saying something else. SmithBlue (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OMM lede

Thank you for your reply. I have left a reply and a request[1] for your further comment and consideration.--TheNautilus (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put the article on my watchlist. Let's see if we get any other responses first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pain

Would appreciate you separating items in your latest post on talk:pain into separate sections ( ==History of pain definitions== etc) so we can discuss each. I tried editing the lead of Pain some time ago - the beauty of the IASP definition is that is allows a simplified article in which there is some chance that some readers will 'get it that the human experience of pain is not a physiological event but a subjective experience in consciousness. However now may be a good time to give a more accurate, complex, inclusive account of pain. (An example of the complexity available - Some cultures ascribe pain to "the earth" - this adds another level to modern Western cultures ascribing pain to animals?) SmithBlue (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to you adding breaks if that makes things easier to edit. I dislike really long sections myself and have been known to add arbitrary breaks for my own convenience. I also want to give you a heads up that I've been off-wiki nearly all day, and except for a few minutes here and there probably won't be on-wiki again much until the weekend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I too edit in bursts and am in no hurry. SmithBlue (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is good news indeed - there are so many questions I have! The price of gold in a weeks time would be enough for now though. Yes working on P&N now makes much better sense. See you there. SmithBlue (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas what to do with the following: "Booy, for instance, differentiates between "real pain" and "imaginary pain". In his view "real pain"has a somatic cause, confirmed by a physician." Treatment of Chronic Pain: Possibilities, Limitations, and Long-Term Follow-up Chapter 19 The Limitations of the Behavioural Managemnet of Pain, N.H. Groenman, pg 156 [[2]]

SmithBlue (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A tough one. If we end up with a section on the difficulties/history/diversity of definitions, then it could go in there. Booy's model does not seem to be widely accepted now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour! About PETA and IASP: almost every well informed scientist will say that fishes and all vertebrates feel pain. The hard to tell line cases are among the invertebrates... Much of the current stuff in Pain article is to be revised. --Robert Daoust (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

On "Pain is defined by medical researchers as a subjective conscious experience." Yes I agree that this is the case - and yet also the other definitions can be seen as promoting/carrying a theory of "pain as physiological stimulation" that is now disproved by modern science. When someone has some spare interest and time a section on terminology seems necessary. Was Sherrington a "medical researcher"? or a physiologist? SmithBlue (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You have said that the concept of nociception-as-pain has been disproved by modern science. This is very important: No, it hasn't. Nociception and pain have been defined as non-overlapping. There's no proving going on here. Instead, there's a bunch of guys saying, look, we need to be able to talk about these things sensibly, so here's what I mean when I say "pain" and here's what I mean when I say "nociception."

Here's an example: I'm working with a protein. There's some debate over exactly how it functions. As a result, some people define the protein's domains (subsets) as -- we'll say "abcdefgh" and "ijklmnopqrstuvwxyz", and other people define the protein's domains as "abcdefghi" and "jklmnopqrstuvwxyz". It is absolutely impossible to scientifically prove one of these definitions "right". We might (if we cared, which we don't) be able to prove that the i in "abcdefghi" does something useful with respect to the g and the h, but that doesn't disprove the original "abcdefgh" definition. And in the meantime, when you talk to anyone about this protein domain, you just stop and ask them in the beginning what their definition is, so you know what to expect.

Do you understand the issue here? The science guys haven't proven anything at all by agreeing on how they are going to use this word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate having a rational editor to deal with. And yes I agree and no I dont (still). My agreement stems from "however a person percieves the world, no matter how they misuse concepts and language, their description of their world is necessarily one way of understanding existence". (I'm not saying you are wrong - I'm saying if Russians think alcohol is water and that water freezes at -20C(?) then that use/understnding of "water" needs to be included in WP as its a real world usage.)

Have put this into point form cause I am really interested in finding where we diverge (and maybe I've got this wrong and would like to know where):

1. Modern science has discovered (within the framework of modern physics) that pain, which has been experienced, spoken about and understood in many different ways for as long as language has existed, is a subjective, non-physiologically definable, event in consciousness. They can find no way to definitively indicate that someone is or is not experiencing pain. (Or the insurance companies are unusually slow on the uptake. Which would be very very unlikely.)
2. All/many/most of the other ways of speaking about pain are embedded in "world views"/models/theories/cosmologies that have understandings of pain that are contradicted by the science discovery (if we accept the framework of modern physics).

To elaborate here: All/many/most of the competing uses of "pain" are based on pain being an empirical physiological physical event or in some-other way have a basis outside modern physics.

(Please dont point out that experiential subjective consiousness is outside the realm of modern physics. Let's try to pretend that science addresses that which most concerns us.) Cut and reformat this post however you think will best illuminate my darkness. SmithBlue (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is in the first point: The researcher has said, "I have this idea about this phenomenon. I think, for certain purposes, it is convenient and even useful to discuss this part as being separate from that part. I'll call the first bit, which I can measure, "blarglefratz," and I'll call the second part, which is a mystery to me, "glibfrag." No, that's too complicated to spell -- I'll call the first bit "nociception" and the second bit "pain."

Merely putting labels on these parts does not tell us that this really truly is pain. There's no scientific test that results in a declaration of "Lo, and the universe doth demand of thee that thou namest this phenomenon pain." They have co-opted a widely used word to describe a very specific phenomenon -- one that overlaps with the common use, but is much narrower than the common use. Their decision to call this phenomenon pain doesn't mean that their definition of pain is the only valid definition. We must not present the researcher's definition as the definition of pain (even if the article mostly talks about that): instead, we present it consistently as their definition. Great-grandma's, or Aristotle's, or anyone else's is just as valid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And at the same time they have also shown us what pain is not - that a "painful stimuli" does not necessarily result in an experience of pain. That the experience of pain happens (or more accurately "is reported") even without obvious stimuli. Which puts some definitions/usages of pain into the disproved category of concepts - those which have been shown to be flawed/inconsistent by scientific investigation. "Sunrise" and "the effect of speed on a man" are two other concepts that have been redefined in line with scientific research. (Note here that I am gently backing away from "scientific discovery".)

Its fun being on the other side in this dialogue - too often I find myself arguing for inclusiveness with a skeptic who has gone far beyond the scientific method into righteousness. SmithBlue (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that the conversation is working for you. Again, scientists have not shown us what pain is not; they have merely said that some things commonly called pain by normal people do not fit within our specialized definition. The normal-people use is not disproved, flawed, or wrong in any way: it is merely not the same use as the scientific use of the word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they have also shown us that the models of pain communicated within normal usage are not internally consistent, that these models are self-contradictory, good at naming things as connected with the experience of pain but not successful at prediction or explanation. Goodnight for now. SmithBlue (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes: Lack of precision, wide-ranging and not tightly related concepts, and the divergence from the particular phenomena they want to study are why the experts agreed a different definition. My point is that their decision to call this phenomenon pain does not turn pain into that phenomenon. Here's another way of illustrating it: What is water? The answer depends on context. A chemist will tell you that it's a single molecule containing only two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. A farmer will tell you that it's the stuff that you find in the creek and that falls out of the sky when it rains. And a city slicker will tell you that it's the stuff that comes out of the kitchen sink when you open the tap. None of these are wrong. The chemist has not disproven the farmer's or the city dweller's idea. The chemist simply uses another definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You have shown me that any existing usage of pain is inherently valuable. Thanks. I thought I had rejected the sweeping tide of mono-optic sciencism but you have demonsrated that I have been swept away from an inclusive and complex view. SmithBlue (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. This week Ascending cholangitis was selected. Hope you can help…

NCurse _work 16:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orthomolecular medicine RfC

Hi there, just a note to alert you to the fact that one of the editors of this article is now edit-warring to remove the sourced criticism that was agreed to in this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

Its no edit war on my side, changes were made to accommodate remarks on the talk page. But you are showing a bias in warning me and ignoring the 3RR violation already in place on the page, by someone else. You also don't make mention of the error introduced on the page that incorrectly referred to "NNT%" by the same person. The quote from BW is the best description I have seen on the page in plain English of NNT. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, I am not reverting. I am making changes to accommodate the comments and concerns of others from the discussion on the talk page. The raw number was first prosified, then the text was moved to a footnote, then the footnote was trimmed. Thats not a blind deletion or restoration. The deleter violated 3RR by deleting any changes I made. And introduced an error into the article by referring to "NNT%". I love legalspeak and statisticsspeak, but plain English serves the general reader. I don't see the reference as controversial at all. It uses the same NNT=100 as the other reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Hello, WhatamIdoing. On the Talk:The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition#Merge proposal, would you consider responding. I'd like to try to resolve the matter one way or the other. I would hope that a disambig for The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987) might meet your concern. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstreaming Reply

Sorry that my commment sounded whiny-but 'declining to teach fellow students' tends to be misconstrued as 'refusing to follow instructions'-that's what the teacher told me to do, I'm done with my work, and they they have 30 other students to worry about, they can't afford to have their time monopolized by a single student. So my options are to either act the role of a special education teacher (individuals whom I have a great deal of respect for, I certainly wouldn't have to patience to do their job) although I have no training, interest or aptitude in the area, or be docked participation points and be known as a jackass by the rest of the class though I'm one of the few students that doesn't snicker at them behind their backs. Meanwhile, the student being mainstreamed is recieving help from a somewhat resentful (not towards them) and generally impatient student who doesn't know how to best explain the assignment and help them complete it. Read this in the mindset that this was written calmly and in an attempt to explain how, if not properly implemented, mainstreaming, instead of improving educational opportunities, does everyone a diservice. I apologize that you had to respond to me on my talk page, I should have walked away for a moment and then revised what I had written.LeeRamsey (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

While it isn't a response to mainstreaming per se, there's a book by Charles J. Skyes entitled Dumbing Down our Kids: Why American Children feel good about themselves but can't read, write, or add" he cites a study in which gifted 6th & 8th graders made to help other students when working in group projects don't experience any benefits, but mainly feel used, resentful, and bored. If that sounds promising, I could type it out for you verbatim. It's a great book, in any case. As someone who outscored the district reading-placement exam since the first time that they took it in the 7th grade (earning a 1500*-translated as being at least equal to that of a college junior) yet had to read The Watsons go to Birmingham-1963 (written at a 5th grade level) in 9th grade English, it was a confirmation of every vague suspicion about the US educational system that I'd harbored since kindergarten. Namely that I shouldn't have Scientific American confiscated during 7th grade science class, considering that my other option was watching a video in which we learned, yet again, to refrigerate foods and cook them thoroughly. Otherwise, we could get food poisoning. Or maybe it was AIDS-all those videos sort of meshed together after a while.LeeRamsey (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basal Metabolic Rate

Greetings to whatamIdoing:

On the talk page for Basal Metabolic Rate you asked that a hyperlink be removed before further use of the page could proceed. I wasn't sure what hyperlink you were referring to? Also there have been various administrators who have reviewed the article periodically over the past couple of years but none until recently. What would be the things that need to happen to upgrade the content rating and usefulness rating? I have often included things that I have picked up from the library concerning controversies, metabolic conditions that affect basal metabolic rate such as diabetes, Crohns disease, etc. and the critque has been mixed.

I work in a long term care environment so I am aware of the thinking processes used by our dietician and there are many references to choose from to the build the case that we need to do more to individualize the projected or predicted bmr from an actual measurement using gas analysis particularly as this pertains to exercise metabolic measurement.

Its an interesting update on the old formula developed by Harris and Benedict which is being questioned by recent research. Newer formulas are surfacing and considering the weight management issues in the US, I think this is a relevant article because it proposes an important advancement in the thinking process of basal metabolic rate namely that the rate although close to the original predicted formulas actually changes for many reasons, and sometimes requires gas analysis in order to assist the practitioners and the clients to be more attentive to what strategies would alleviate health conditions caused by metabolic changes that are preventable with education and lifestyle choice?

Appreciate your feedback and congratulations on your many contributions to the body of knowledge being gathered! Sincerely, Bill BRileyPTA (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sections on studies

Hi, dont want to raise this on Infant formula as it has far wider reach. But, using Infant formula as an example, we have Section:Risks increased; "In studies, formula-feeding is associated with increased likelihood of the following conditions in infants:"

However this misrepresents the studies, (generalising here), as the studies will have gone to some trouble in their selection of the groups of babies. So, for example, they will not have compared groups of infants with mothers of widely differing health status. Nor will they have compared infants recieving formula in a famine area with infants recieving breastfeeding in a famine area. The studies (still generalising) are comparing equivalent groups of normal infants from "normal" environments.

And yet we present them as universally indicating risk to all infants irrespective of "normal environment" or "normal health".

I am wondering about the ethics of this as well as the accuracy of the information we supply. Hoping you can point out some major flaw that means we are doing alright. SmithBlue (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That section is in lousy shape, provides no actionable information, and in some cases is "supported" by journal articles that claim no difference or even the exact opposite. The only possible defense for it is that it's a "work in progress." I figure it will take most of a day to check all the sources and rework it.

Do you have thoughts about how to order it? I've been thinking about splitting the list: there are (just) a couple of widely agreed benefits to breastfeeding, and everything else is in the range of "rare risks" or "uncertain risks". So my recent thought is that we say X, Y, and Z are widely agreed, but any of the following might happen, at least in certain groups. Of course, anything that isn't actually supported by the listed ref just gets deleted. What do you think? Is there a more sensible way to go about this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Are rare risks would be notable?

Would still appreciate your view on "we present them as universally indicating risk to all infants irrespective of "normal environment" or "normal health"." SmithBlue (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate teacake, anyone?

Hi, WhatIamdoing.

Not opposed to the principle behind your recent edit to the Teacake article, though something will have to be done about "Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats, sometimes called chocolate teacakes"..!

To me, that's a somewhat cart-before-the-horse sentence, since "Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats" is a made-up-for-the-occasion (and therefore not very satisfactory) Wikipedia article title, not a genuine item of English-language vocabulary — Don't forget to buy some chocolate-coated marshmallow treats, Mum! (Sound likely to you?). The reality is the other way around: chocolate teacakes are sometimes called "chocolate-coated marshmallow treats" (but only on Wikipedia).

Chocolate teacakes are high on the news agenda in the UK today (see this item from the BBC) for example — though discussion of these commodities on the radio these morning had me confused, too, for a while: switched on to hear someone saying "but teacakes have a biscuit base" and thought "no, they don't: they're currant-bun-type things"... until the penny dropped when I realized they were talking about chocolate teacakes. -- Picapica (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wah!

I was just about to do that! You owe me +1 edit count. Do you have access to the full article? The line "Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan imaging of the brain gives clues to diagnosis but is nonspecific in distinguishing multiple sclerosis from PML" in the abstract suggests that PML can mimic MS or vice-versa (an interesting tidbit), but I'd be reluctant to add that fact without confirmation. WLU (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full article at home, and it's probably not worth a trip to the science library just for that.

So I owe you an edit count? Perhaps you'd like to halve the length of Leukemia#Treatment_options_for_leukemia_by_type for me. Or to create mini-summaries of the five named leukemias under the Leukemia#Classification]] section. Will that do? Or did you want something simpler? Assessing something at Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles should only take a few seconds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My god the Leukemia page looks a bit of a mess. I think Wolff has electronic access, TimVickers probably does (I think he's a professor). I've never assessed any medical articles, if I'm not too busy tomorrow I might take up one of these challenges. Leukemia looks well out my experience level, sounds perfect - I joyously edited a page on the history of Poland today and learned much. WLU (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you decide to join the fun at Leukemia, then you can see what I have in mind here. I probably should have read CLL's treatment section first, but I know just enough about CLL to know that the info was plausible, so I just shortened and wikilinked what was there. It would doubtless benefit from some references, which could be swiped from the CLL article. Perhaps I'll even remember to do it.  ;-)

We don't have to do it my way, of course, but I'd really appreciate having someone else involved. The article seems to be heavily watchlisted but not heavily edited, so I'd like to have another editor along, just so I don't feel lonely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it my turn or your turn to add information to this article? I don't want to step on your opportunity to advance your edit count... WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A core problem

I feel like I've just kicked over a rock during a discussion with io_io: we may be able to get him to focus on productive editing if we help him understand that verifiability, not truth, is the Wikipedia policy. When I mentioned this, he removed my post with a terse summary. He also seems to be using a "truth" approach elsewhere. I've tried to convince him that I'm sympathetic in theory, but respect policy too much in practice, but I don't think I've convinced him. Maybe you can. Antelan^talk 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment on his talk page almost two hours ago, and I almost added my support then, but I don't think that User:Io io editor wants to hear from me or respects my opinions. To be candid, I worried that agreeing with you might tend to make him/her less likely to take your policy-oriented position in good faith. After all, if any two editors agree with each other, then we obviously become an unstoppable cabal pushing a nefarious plan to discourage ignorant patients from making the right choice through posting all the verifiable information we have. It no longer seems possible for us to be merely an unrelated group of editors who would honestly be thrilled if s/he could source some of these claims. (Claims, to be fair, which s/he has very properly not attempted to include in Natalizumab due to a lack of said sources: it's just a lot of talk page exhortations to exclude or downplay what can be sourced so that the overall balance lines up with the editor's unsource-able POV.)

Natalizumab, BTW, is the only article on my watchlist that significantly involves this editor, but we've briefly crossed paths in other articles. Outside of neurology, the editor seems much more reasonable. See this, for example.

And that's bad news about the PPMS trials. It doesn't seem to have been published yet, but the press release (today) is here.[3] I'll add the ref to the MS therapies article in a minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, nice find on the source. Yes, I certainly appreciate what you've said, both about our shared hope (all 3 of us) about the future of the therapy, and about your approach (or thoughtful lack thereof) on his/her talk page. I was surprised at the response I got... I felt that I basically said "I want to agree with everything you have to say, and if you can back it with what is required by policy (sources), then I'll be the first to make the changes." I suppose I didn't expect to be rebuffed after expressing an agreement about the common cause. Ahh well, I guess the dictates of policy will continue to be the wedge on this issue (though, as io_io correctly surmised, I would 'demand' mainstream sources even if it weren't policy, so if policy weren't the wedge, something else would be). Antelan^talk 03:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Io io editor

Note this and this comment. Based on how it is received, I may start a post at AN/I. Figured you'd be interested. WLU (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, looks like I'm going ahead. Will RFC/U instead, possibly tomorrow or Monday. In the meantime, I'll be building a case here. Feel free to add if you'd like, please separate into your own section though. WLU (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Mind if I steal your Health Canada link? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to share.  :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lattice degeneration and Retinal atrophy

Lattice Degeneration has been fixed & details have been clarified. Retinal atrophy is found in dogs as well as humans, and probably in other animals too. Thanks for bringing this to attention. EyeMD ^T|C 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disneyland Hotel (California)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your great work on merging trivia into the main article. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grief

I'm not sure I did as you suggest. The relevant diff (here is the difference between the two edits I reverted between), suggests that all I removed was multiple-user vandalism and that no edit such as that you mention was ever made. If I have misplaced the link, feel free to show me where you think I have made an error. Thank you. Bobo. 21:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't worry. Carefulness is vastly overrated in my opinion! Just one of these things that happens from time to time. All the best. Bobo. 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ganglia

Hello WhatamIdoing:

Thank you very much. That's a lot better.

It gives a general idea of what these things are. I suppose I have one or two of them but I can't recall ever seeing them.

If someone who knows how big these things are could add that, it would also be a help. For example, the size of a bean, of a grape, of a kumquat, of a lime, of a grapefruit, of a watermelon (I've probably covered the necessary range of sizes.)

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for visiting the page

I'd recently finished the article polyclonal response, and had requested for inline references. The request was not because I've taken the material directly from a source, but rather to the contrary, most of the matter is based on my memory, and not on recent reading.

Since, I was afraid that certain facts could be contested (in case my memory had failed me while writing the article), I had requested for inline references.

So, if you possess sufficient comfort with the subject, I request you to verify it for factual errors, or ask someone who you know to do so.

Thanks again.

Bye. Take care.

Regards.

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again

Thanks for the basic formatting that you did in the article on polyclonal response. However, I've modified the introductory paragraph from the last time you'd edited it. Kindly see if the current version is agreeable with you/your notions on the subject.

Yes, you were right about the recognition v/s internalization-issue regarding macrophages in the above article, and I have made changes accordingly. Please do make sure that they are satisfactory. Regarding the "identical paratope" issue, I realized my mistake after logging out, and made the required changes this morning (in India!).

Thanks for the encouragement.

Bye. Take care.

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (Last time around I'd forgotten to sign!)

[edit] Good luck on Talk:Keratoconus

If you're interested in the history, just read over the talk page and this sockpuppetry case and you'll have a pretty good idea of how we got here. The IP editor was convinced to come to the talk page and discuss their edits (after being blocked for repeated unsourced edits following several unsuccessful attempts to engage them). Despite our shared interest in reducing the apparent inaccuracies in the treatment section of the article, they proved to be rather prone to strange accusations and drove away BillC (talk · contribs) and myself. I'm still watching the article for signs of recurrent Boxer Wachler COI, but otherwise staying away. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's about what I expected. Thanks for the note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I would dismiss the user as a troll. I suspect they are well-intentioned, but hampered by their refusal to learn about WP, and by a tendency to view everything as some kind of personal attack. They are probably just frustrated, not trolling. But I could be wrong (and it's probably a moot point). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To be candid, I considered the possibility of brain damage neurologic limitations, but I think it's more likely to be willful. Frustration does not seem sufficient: frustrated people just go away after a while. IMO the only two plausible explanations are malice and incompetence, and I think the anon would be highly offended if I attributed his/her comments to invincible stupidity.

My primary point, however, was to communicate to other editors that I was not choosing to respond any longer, and that I did not think it useful for them to respond on my behalf. In achieving that goal, I think that my note will be successful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Now your doing it here also ! whast have I done to desrve this ? I onlyt asked some civil questions, and you can't answer them because 1) you know your wrong 2) you can't be bothered

I was told to come here and to discuss on the talk page and then I was called names and now there just more and more of it. I know you would rather people ot know what you guys get up to really ! its just a way to abuse people and have some sadistic power while doing it. What are you doing ?!

So you do know who bill is ???

[edit] A fresh start

Can we start a fresh ?

1) I don't know if you have KC or what your role is, can you please tell me what the structure is ?

2) I am like Lassie, trying hard to make you aware that there is more going on than you know off, please "talk" with me and then you will know he whole truth

Please, lets start again

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You see, not everyone wants to spend time tending to a personal page here, chatting (like I'm forced to do here), only because I am on-line enough already, and it will only get more and more if I start doing what you guys do and want me to do. I have a grand (real) life away from the net (and definitely wiki), which is far more important. However the truth is not getting out there (from wiki) due to the current editors showing what they want to show only and there is silence any other time to that, I have found. The word "corrupt" comes does come to mind.

[edit] Ventricular hypertrophy

Hi there! I've had a brief look at the Ventricular hypertrophy page and note that there is also a Left ventricular hypertrophy and a Right ventricular hypertrophy page - this is good. Ventricular hypertrophy is a finding we discover on tests, really. Patients rarely mention they have an "enlarged heart", and often do not understand the consequences (the physics of wall tension, Starling's curve, etc). Yet, it's not a disease of itself. It's a consequence of disease in some cases, and in others a consequence of athleticism. The article is not a bad effort, as it stands, but could do with some improvement. I shall make a note to that effect shortly but have to get ready for work right this second.

Cheers! Orinoco-w (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay - I have now done a review of the article and explained my reservations about the structure (I've proposed a cut-down structure from the disease list of headings), the missing elements and the references (the "ask-the-doctor" page stuff isn't needed when there are good books and journals out there). Please have a read and let me know what you think. I fear I've been to wordy or too critical but I wasn't entirely sure how best to phrase it all. Orinoco-w (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

My two cents:

WP:MEDMOS's suggested section orders do not apply: this is not a disease, a drug, or a notable case. Other parts of it may be useful here. I'd like to see some mention of the difference between antibodies against conformational epitopes vs non-conformational (aa sequence) epitopes. The schematic, of course, ignores conformational epitopes (which is okay: drawing that would not significantly add to comprehension). The image is beautiful, but large. Could it (easily, quickly, without a lot of extra effort) be made smaller by reducing the number of epitopes (say, delete a pair of reactive clones from the middle), or by re-arranging it to display vertically?

I think the article's recent expansion qualifies it for B class, so I've updated the status above. The next step is "GA", which requires successful completion of the WP:GA process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for upgrading the article on the quality scale. Following suggestions from a user, you and Orinoco-w, the gentleman (I suppose I guessed the gender right), I have made a few further changes. I've added a new image keeping in mind the concept of conformational epitope, and emphasized on the interesting and related concept of original antigenic sin.

You have made a mention of upgrading the article to "good article" status, which, in my understanding requires nomination from some one. Has some thing been done in this regard (I hope I'm not sounding audacious or desperate!)?

Thanks for suggestions and guidance. I hope you like the changes I've made.

Regards.

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Ventricular hypertrophy

Hi, actually I stumbled upon that article again today and saw the list. I'll have a look sometime soon, at the moment i'm mostly busy with exams. Happy editing, thanks for the message anyway. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkfarm on anthroposophical medicine

Can you clarify which of the links seems inappropriate on the discussion page? Thanks. Hgilbert (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have explained my general thinking on the article's talk page. Note that I'm not watching that page and so will not see any replies to my note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, were you replying to me or PBS on WT:Layout?

If me, we don't have to search far to find the problem: when the same material is discussed on two different pages, it makes more work for everyone. My position is that it gets worse if the two pages are in different categories, and attract different editors with different approaches to the same problems. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My last comment was about PBS's original issue: There is no need for WP:Layout to change "Notes and references" to "References and notes". There isn't even a need to discuss it: there are no active problems with this issue in any identified article. The desire to change ten thousand instances of "N&R" to "R&N" appears to be a solution in search of a problem, with the motivation being entirely "I like it the other way better."

My goal, BTW, is for that discussion to end without anyone spending any further time on it. (Of course, if there were ever a real problem, then I'd be happy to re-open it [at least long enough to suggest that the discussion be sent to another page, if another page were more appropriate].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad I asked. Let's try to wrap that one up. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zygomycosis

A few editors, including myself, have been working on this recently trying to get it to at least a solid B class article. However, we've recently merged two other articles and moved it to the zygomycosis name so it's looking a little messy. I was wondering if you could have any input in aiding us to fix the article? I'm sending this to a few editors of whom I'd really appreciate the input of. Thanks. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 12:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CIOMS/RUCAM scale

Thanks for helping me. If you want, I can email you the way it should be formatted. Please email me, then erase my email from this page. Put Wiki in the title, please. <EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED> ---Zizanie13 (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

A very unacademic doubt--what do the various +/- figures in the history pages besides the article/page-name indicate? Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a measure of the net change in the article length. -1 means that you removed (net) one character. +1 means that you added one character. Of course, Adding 100 and removing 100 in the same edit will result in a net change of zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Sorry, somehow I missed even this response of yours. That makes sense, now. Thanks a lot. —KetanPanchal^taLK 09:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Da Costa's syndrome

Check out User talk:Posturewriter#Persistent copyright issues and WP:COIN#Da Costa's syndrome take #2. Views would be appreciated. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banner-style reference requests disappear without individual tags

This is why this was a bad idea. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Microtia

• thanks for your comments. Yes, the HMO surgeon has done this but gave a referral but the UKHMO denied it twice so I"m hopeful that the third one will be a charm.  :) best regards SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major depression vs Clinical depression

As you seem to have contributed much to the WP:MEDMOS guideline I'd like to invite you to comment on the proposed move of the page Clinical depression to Major depression or Major depressive disorder. Any comment would be appreciated. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Menstrual cycle template

Thanks for the link to the Merck page discussing menstrual disorders. Template:Menstrual cycle currently links to the article menstrual disorder (through the title "Disorders"). I've added the conditions that currently do not have articles to the "menstrual disorder" article.

I also looked through Template:Diseases of the pelvis, genitals and breasts and found several articles on menstrual disorders that I had missed when making the menstrual cycle template. They were not in Category:Menstruation, so I added them to that category, and to the menstrual cycle template. There's enough of them I'm considering making a subcategory Category:Menstrual disorders. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DUE

Just an alert that I've finally responded to your suggestion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Hello !

Since you've taken part in a discussion about copytight violating external links, I wondered if you could give your opinion to my proposition here Wikipedia_talk:External_links#.22Safe_harbor.22_provision_and_EL. Thanks ! Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How Can You ?

How can you just come on the Keratoconus topic - do what you like - and then just go away ?? Saying "DFTT" it's such an easy thing to say - and very rude as well !! How do I complain about you ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.79.237 (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

I'd appreciate your input on this, since you are familiar with these problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's a bit late, but...

Thanks a lot! Thanks in particular for the absolutely amazing changes you had made to the article polyclonal response. When I noticed those changes (fairly late, considering I was on a trip for more than a week), I was really happy. You had made some changes that just impressed me so much—how well could you put what I wanted to say with precision, yet simplicity. I'm providing you with the links to those edits: [4] and [5]. By the way, now, I personally feel, the article is in much better shape, so I request you to view it as and when time permits.

Thanks a lot, again. (I really don't know how I can express it, but am immensely grateful an d impressed).

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 17:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, may I know how are you related to the subject of immunology? —KetanPanchal^taLK 12:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilson's

I have addressed your concerns. I hope you will be able to review the rest of the article, as otherwise no WP:MED people have responded to my request. I'm quite keen to have it up for WP:GAC after all the hard work I've put into it. That includes exchanging emails with Dr Walshe himself (who discovered penicillamine in 1956). JFW | T@lk 08:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this article, but I may be slow in getting through the rest of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, WhatamIdoing, for high-quality editorial input into numerous medical articles. JFW / T@lk 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work! I have acted on (most of) your recommendations, and the article is now up for WP:GAC. JFW | T@lk 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)‎: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please paste here the exact words that I posted on that page that say anything at all directly about you, instead of about the sources that you posted there. I'm sure it will be instructive to everyone who reads this talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. [6]

I see nothing in your preferred standard that says "Please write for experts" or "Please fill articles with exhaustive catalogs of POV-supporting publications, complete with the number of patients enrolled in the study and hair-splitting descriptions of their exact symptoms and medical histories."

Combining this with your repeated accusations that I am pushing POV (what POV would that be, I wonder), this comes across as a strong personal attack. If you did not mean so, you should at least be aware that this type of rhetoric causes the addressed user to feel that you did, and be more careful in the future. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I replied at my page. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Man, take it you never let go then. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning (2)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Da Costa's syndrome. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dropping a warning on a regular then getting blocked for a week. Excellent job Guido. Well, I guess this can be deleted. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Heading of threads as "Warning" is threatening behaviour and calling your a liar in edit summaries incivil. I've blocked user for 2nd time for edit warring for progressive time of 1 week, although I note user simultaneously posted a wikibreak notice until start of July. David Ruben ^Talk 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, David. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

GDB complained on his talk page that you reach 4RR vs his 2RR (I count 3 RR for him against 2 other editors). As I count it, you Edit 1, revert 1, revert 2 and questionable revert 3. GDB correctly noted that whilst last edit a different action, 3RR does note "in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." However your last edit was removing his WP:OVERTAGGING, which in itself "can be seen as disruptive" (although simple tag removal is not in itself normally exempt according to WP:3RR). That Aunt Entropy also was involved in reverting GDB edits means that GDB was acting against consensus and should have continued any discussion solely on the talk page, but please take care yourself - I think you should have posted a request for overtagging removal on the article's talk page or at WT:MED for another editor to have considered that final edit :-) David Ruben ^Talk 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, David. A warning is not a threat, so neither is the header. If I wanted to threaten someone, I would use the threat template and write threat as the header. And a false presentation of my complaint. I did not overtag either (and note that that is only an essay). Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

High WhatamIdoing, this is elena from NY, i added that .org Baby formula site because they have a high quality content about the subject, which i didnt want to copy and past in the article because it's their original content. thx

take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenafromny (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue this conversation on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Welcome back to Wikilife! Hope you noticed the small gift from me for the edits you made to the article. Thanks for all the support. Take care. —KetanPanchal^taLK 21:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It was very kind of you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I'd somehow missed your acknowledgment. I'd asked you (asking it again, you'd missed my query), how are you related to the field of immunology? If you'd think of that as a question way personal, you can of course skip that, and deserve my apology. Bye. Take care. —KetanPanchal^taLK 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Antonino Rizzuto

An article that you have been involved in editing, Antonino Rizzuto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonino Rizzuto. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mafia Expert (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Article does not meet criteria Wikipedia:BIO. Antonio Rizzuto is not a sufficiently notable person. His only feat is having been a family doctor of Totò Riina. Could be merged with the article about Riina, but not really necessary as it does not add anything substantial. - Mafia Expert (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WPMED/Genetics classifications

Hey, I just saw your note on the WP:Genetics page. I can work on helping classify some of them by importance for you. Also, feel free to contact me with any questions about specific pages, or leave a list of pages you would like looked at. Maybe we can work out some way to classify them together easily? Schu1321 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Once I get my usual computer resurrected (the pin in the power cord just snapped off, with half of it still stuck inside the plug), I may take you up on it.

While I'm online: There are still about 1,700 WPMED articles needing (a first-ever) assessment, and then everything will probably need a brief review. Generally, my rule of thumb is that "rare" genetic conditions are low priority for the WPMED project, and that anything more common than rare is probably "mid" (normal) priority. Of course, if a disease is interesting for reasons other than the number of people who have it, then it may get an upgrade.

Does WP:GENETICS have an assessment scale, or is it using the default? I re-wrote the priority/importance scale for WPMED a few months ago and think it much more helpful than the Wikipedia-wide version. The "quality" assessments are typically the same for all projects, so you can sometimes get a bot to auto-assess quality for you (that is, if WikiProject A has rated the quality for an article, you can get it copied to your project fairly easily.) Importance is much more complicated, I think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The last I checked the scale is still the default. Good luck with the power cord, those are some of the trickiest laptop malfunctions. Schu1321 (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We've ordered a new DC-in board. I should be back online reliably around the weekend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)