User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 1

Oh, thanks for the uh ... thanks. =) I just spent a day last September and got a decent article put together. Maybe I'll get back into article writing again. Also, this page might be of some help to you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm sorry for the late answer! You're idea is fantastic. I'd use it myself as well. I think your man is Betacommand. Please contact him and let me know when you have something ready. Thank you in advance! NCurse _work 19:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference stating that self-contained classrooms are not provided in the mainstream school? From what I have heard, it is provided in the mainstream school. Mainstreaming is the practice of educating students with special needs in regular classes during specific time periods based on their skills. Students with severe special needs are placed in self-contained classes but are mainstreamed in their other regular classes. Special needs students must be mainstreamed in the mainstream school. The only exception is if mainstreaming is IMPOSSIBLE, then they are placed in either a special school or receiving one to one instruction. --Nitsirk 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An individual student who never spends any time with nondisabled students is not considered mainstreamed, no matter what else is going on elsewhere in the school. Mainstreaming is a practice applied to individual students, not to buildings. Any given (large) school could simultaneously use full inclusion, partial inclusion, mainstreaming and segregation. The mere existence of mainstreaming elsewhere in the building does not means that any individual segregated student is being mainstreamed. WhatamIdoing 20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contained classes are for children with severe special needs in the mainstream school. This means they must also be with typically developing peers. For example, recess, cafeteria, assemblies, hallways, regular classes, etc. Otherwise what is the point of being in the mainstream school? If they cannot function in the mainstream school, they must be in a special school or receiving one to one instruction. --Nitsirk 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you missed my point. It is possible for a child with severe needs to attend a school which generally permits mainstreaming, but which does not allow that individual student to participate in any class with non-disabled students. For convenience, we might say that "the school" normally mainstreams appropriate students with disabilities (to differentiate it from a school which prefers the full inclusion model), but the fact is that it is not schools, but students who are mainstreamed or not. You could not justly tell my neighbor that her child is being mainstreamed because some other disabled child attends music class with non-disabled students in a completely different part of the same school building.

As for the point behind a segregated classroom in a supposedly mainstreaming school: In the U.S., having a government-run school which is exclusively for the use of disabled students is considered practically illegal under least restrictive environment rules. Placing a child in a segregated classroom in the corner of a regular school building is very easy, but you pretty much have to get a court order to place a child in a segregated facility. This may not be true elsewhere in the world, but it is -- in everyday practice -- true here. (The student may receive no obvious benefits in a wholly segregated classroom vs. a segregated school, but I hear from parents that they are less embarrassed by having their child attend the same school as their neighbors' kids. Perhaps making the parents (voters) happy is the only real point behind this policy.) WhatamIdoing 21:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HUH? What are you talking about? If my special needs child was being separated from the other children without special needs, I would be angry. Why don't the parents say something to the school? If they are separated, they might as well attend a special school. Why are they doing this? This is wrong and against the law. Which schools are doing this? I have never heard of this taking place in my school district. --Nitsirk 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an enormous number of US schools do this. How often do you see a nineteen-year-old with severe intellectual disabilities and severe behavioral problems in a regular high school classroom? Have you ever seen a disabled three-year-old child in a regular classroom? (Keep in mind that there are no regular public school classrooms for three year olds in the U.S.)

It would be cruel to take a child who is frightened by the noise and activity involved in a class of 25 kids and dump them in one simply because of an ideological commitment to mainstreaming and inclusion practices. These decisions must be made in the best interests of the individual student. And, yes, there are a number of parents who oppose segregation. That doesn't mean that it doesn't (or shouldn't) happen.

And -- this has very little to do with the Wikipedia article, which just needs to explain the four basic options (inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation, and exclusion) so that people can figure out what the differences are. WhatamIdoing 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation and exclusion is the same thing. So you didn't answer my question, why don't parents say something to the school if they are segregating their special needs child? --Nitsirk 00:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation means that you get to go to school with other disabled students. Exclusion means you are not even allowed to attend a school. You can not seriously mean to tell a student who is locked up in juvenile prison because of conduct disorder that his jailhouse studies are just the same as attending an all-day special ed class. Have you perhaps forgotten that there's rather more to disabilities than Down Syndrome and wheelchairs?

I don't know why more parents don't throw temper tantrums over this. Perhaps because it's fairly unusual? Perhaps it's because they care more about their individual student's needs than about ideology? Perhaps because they think a custom-tailored program is better for their child than a regular one-size-fits-most classroom? Perhaps it's because they had their say in a long legal process and lost?

Whatever the answer for their decisions, I consider it wholly irrelevant. It happens, and we document it here. Racism happens, too, and I don't pretend to be able to explain why people don't scream about that, either. WhatamIdoing 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is compulsory education which means that children are required to receive an education. It doesn't matter if the child was expelled from school; the school is still legally required to provide an education to the child. If they cannot attend school, they must be given one to one instruction. --Nitsirk 01:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: students under a certain age are required to receive an education. However, an expelled student -- or one who is in the hospital -- is still excluded from school. That's what the exclusion option is. An excluded student might not receive one-on-one instruction. Jailhouse classrooms often have 20 kids in them. WhatamIdoing 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But most often they will receive the one-on-one instruction if they are in the hospital. There are people who care about children. This would be interesting if we had a reference stating that there are schools that are violating the law. Why don't we just put the correct things (what should be done in schools) on wikipedia? And the violations against the law should be put in a different section? That way the people who read it wouldn't be offend it. --Nitsirk 11:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, because Wikipedia documents reality instead of fantasy. Two, because segregating specific disabled students into a self-contained classroom is not illegal.

Schools don't generally do this with kids who have any hope of functioning in a regular classroom. You will not find kids with Down syndrome or moderate dyslexia or mild autism spectrum disorder being segregated.

It is, however, an appropriate option for a small number of children. Picture a twelve year old with severe disabilities for a minute. He's very noisy. He's essentially nonverbal. He's frequently violent when frustrated. He has basically zero self-care skills and is still in diapers. His IEP has all but given up on reading and is focusing on teaching him not to run into the street. Would you dump that child in a classroom with 25 typical preteens? What benefit do you think that child would get from a normal classroom?

How about this student? She's 20 years old and has a severe metabolic disorder. She weighs sixty pounds and has never in her life sat up or rolled over, much less crawled or walked. She still drinks from a bottle and wears diapers. She can't hold her bottle or reach for a toy. She can't talk, although she cries and coos like a newborn baby. In fact, she behaves like a one-month-old infant in almost every respect. Would you put that student into a normal classroom? Would you dump her in a 12th grade English class just because of her age? (This student lives not quite five miles from me: I'm not making this up.)

By U.S. federal law, disabled students are entitled to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. "Appropriate" is defined according to whether or not the child gets educational benefit. No educational benefit from being in the regular classroom means that it's inappropriate. Inappropriate means illegal. If full-time segregation in a special classroom at a regular school is appropriate, then the school is allowed to do it. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but these are the facts. WhatamIdoing 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have any references stating that special needs students are allowed to be segregated in a special education classroom. I don't know where you get your infomation from but it is definitely wrong. The law states that special needs students MUST be with students without special needs in the mainstream school. That's reality. When schools violate the law, that's something that should be mentioned in the article but it should not be stated like what they did was right. That's what I meant. When schools segregate special needs students in the mainstream school completely, that is not a fact. That is a violation of the law. This should be mentioned in the article. It is wrong to say that is right. How can you say that in an article that it is right to do this? It's a violation of the law. I mean we should put in a separate section about how schools are violating the law. I didn't mean to put their violations into a good thing. That's not what I meant. --Nitsirk 20:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a severely disabled student into a full-time, self-contained special needs classroom IS NOT ILLEGAL in the U.S. See for example the (federal) U.S. Department of Education's own website, which says "In elementary and secondary schools, disabled students may be assigned to separate facilities or courses of special education only when this placement is necessary to provide equal educational opportunity to them."[1] This statement, by the way, includes sending a disabled student to an entirely different school, not just putting them in a special classroom at the neighborhood school.

I don't care what your moral views on this subject are. I don't really care what the laws are in your country. I'm just telling you that it's done, and done legally, here in the U.S. One of the reasons that the concept of mainstreaming in education is important is because the mainstreaming approach reduces the number of kids who spend their entire day away from typical kids.

Oh, and if you're curious, the U.S. Department of Education said ten years ago that 22% of disabled students in this country were in segregated classrooms.[2] I think it is were actually illegal, then we wouldn't have more than one million disabled students in segregated classrooms. WhatamIdoing 05:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that the cost to send a special needs child to a special school can be expensive. I guess in this case it would be appropriate for a child with very severe special needs to be placed in the mainstream school to make the cost cheaper. I think we should say that in some cases where the cost of sending a child to a special school is impossible due to the expenses. Then it would be appropriate to place them in the mainstream school. But they cannot be with the other children due to their severe special needs. I was thinking about the other self-contained classes where children are placed there because they cannot function in the regular class. For this whole time, we were both talking about two different types of self-contained classrooms. Thanks so much for your patience. --Nitsirk 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering. Oftentimes your edits are only a minute apart? -- Samir 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samir,

Assessing some of them is really quite easy: Stubs are usually tagged as stubs already. Anything that's a dozen screenfuls is really too long to be a Start class. The harder ones I usually skip, actually. Note that I'm also usually assessing either the quality or the importance in any given edit. It's twice as many clicks in the end, but much simpler mentally.

I also work in tabs, so I typically open twenty or more articles at a time, scan through all of them (sometimes offline), and then assess them in a kind of leapfrog fashion. While the browser window is opening the first Talk page, I'm refreshing my memory about the next article. Then I flip back to the first tab to paste in my assessment and edit summary for that article. While it's closing and reloading the Talk page for the first article, I'm already editing the next one. It's efficient, if somewhat mind-numbing.

I've also accepted the fact that my assessment is not the One True Assessment™. I don't imagine that I mark things low importance when they're really high, or the other way around, but the difference between 'borderline low' and 'borderline mid' is pretty obscure sometimes. Sometimes I skip those and sometimes I figure that we'll agree more than 90% of the time, and that the rest will get cleaned up later.

With the recent effort to tag several thousand articles, there's a lot of work to be done here, and I've only got a couple of days until my real life gets super busy again. Hope this helps explain my process. (I'd be happy to have you join in the task!) WhatamIdoing 00:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. It's a challenge getting through as many as you do. -- Samir 04:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Delighted to present you the barnstar for all the hard work you have done especially for the project assessment Countincr ( t@lk ) 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that they weren’t any disadvantages to mainstreaming. When did I say that? There are plenty of disadvantages to mainstreaming. Inclusive schools are better than mainstream schools. They teach children to learn together. Do mainstream schools do that? NO! They even stole the term inclusion and used it in their mainstreaming model. They added these "fake" inclusion classes to their model. Is that corrupt? YES!

If you are having problems, why don't you just talk to me instead of talking to Dekimasu? I feel very hurt that you don't even want to talk to me when you have a problem. --Nitsirk 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also, it says on the introduction that mainstreaming is the practice of educating students with special needs in regular classes during specific time periods based on their SKILLS. Therefore, in order to be in regular classes, special needs students must have skills! So how would they intefere with the education of students without special needs?

"Parents of students often fear that general education teachers do not have the training or the time to accommodate special needs students in a general education classroom setting. However, professional training and supportive services can usually mitigate these concerns."

This needs a reference. There is no reference to claim that this is true. --Nitsirk 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want a source that says "the fact that abilitism has a more direct connection to Latin grammar than ableism" I believe it, but I wonder if it is really notable, why is Latin grammar the metric for the "correctness" of a word? It seemed sort of nit-picking and pedantic, so I guess think there there should be a pedant's name to put behind it, otherwise it's original research and the whole section could go. You know? futurebird (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin is the primary source of English words (and of course we're talking about a specifically English word). But basically, I think we agree: it's kind of a random bit of trivia, even if it turns out to be accurate. I'll add a note to the Talk page in case anyone can come up with a source. (Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that someone's going to think a source that says "100K Google hits for ableism vs. 300 for abilitism: therefore people use ableism more frequently.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for rating this article, which was one of my first on WP. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your assessment that the Poliomyelitis article has a high importance. I stated this when it was a candidate for Feature Article (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Poliomyelitis). --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Dan Dassow. I've assessed a couple of hundred articles in the last few days, and after a while I start wondering whether my notions of importance line up at all with other people's. (Of course, when I get one wrong, then I hope someone will fix it!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of an article can be very subjective. Some questions you should consider when assigning importance include: Who is the audience of the article? Is the article of general interest or of interest to a select group of people? If the article were to be removed, would it be missed by a significant number of people? How would you defend your position if asked? Could you describe in a short sentence or two why you have assign a certain level of importance?

With regard to the Poliomyelitis article I consider it important since I have been personally affected. Would someone under forty years old who lives in a country not affected by polio consider it as important? I would suspect not unless they understood the historical significance of polio and how the development of the polio vaccine lead to other advancements in medicine. --Dan Dassow (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I removed the merge tags for vascular access steal syndrome and steal syndrome -- explanation is to be found on talk:steal syndrome.

With regard to merging I have two points that you may want to consider:

1. the merge tags should point to the same talk page -- see WP:Merge, specifically WP:Merge#Proposing_a_merger.
2. it is a courtesy to start the discussion when you propose a merge, i.e. why do you think a merge is warranted? What may speak against it? (It may not be evident why the merge is proposed.) Again, please refer to WP:Merge.

Thanks, Nephron  T|C 17:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nephron. I tagged those articles in the middle of an assessment run. I must have gotten distracted before I finished setting up a unified discussion. I apologize for the confusion. (I think your idea of turning steal syndrome into a normal disambiguation page is a good one.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the lack of a medical cat class to my attention. I'll be interested to see whether or not this is made more consistent with other cat classes. On a separate note, I was wondering who in the world you were (i.e., someone I already knew but under some other name) because of your remark about the addictive behavior until it occurred to me: I'd removed the busy tag from my talk page but not from my user page. That's fixed now. Anyway, that is a ridiculous number of unclassed medical articles that seriously need some organization. Doczilla (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on sorting out pulmonary hypertension. I was watching the edits and made a mental note to copyedit it back into shape when the anons were finished. You got there first :-) JFW | T@lk 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I have only a very basic knowledge of that area, and I'm kind of relieved to know that I didn't screw it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to say thanks, this for your editing on the Algolagnia page (some of what you may have done I may not have noticed as I can't remember exactly what the section you edited was like prior to your editing, and being a new user I don't know how to find this out - yet (I'm getting there though, slowly but surely!)) (but thanks anyway for the bit that I did notice!).
It is important to me that people get their facts straight on all issues, but it is even more important to me for personal reasons that algolagnia is better understood (yes I am an algolagniac - not that you asked, but I am offering this information because I now finally know that I do not have to be ashamed of my algolagnia, like I was for many years, and it is with the help of sites like Wikipedia - and their editors - who have helped me realise that I have no reason to be ashamed of it). Sorry if I'm ranting on, I have a tendency to do that, if I do it again just politely tell me to shut up. So thanks for your edit of the page, and I hope you are well. --Sweet algolagnia (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC) By the way, I know I've probably used too many italics in all of what I've just written here, but I'm just learning editing at the moment so am trying out new skills.[reply]

Actually, all I did on that article was to tag one sentence as needing a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I have now realised that, but I am glad you did that because I can now look into citing the source myself, when I have time to look into it. (I presume I can add the source myself? Yes, I know I can - I've just got to find the time to look into it, having not researched paraphilias that much myself, only insofar as that I know algolagnia is NOT one). --Sweet algolagnia (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a category Category:Martial arts therapy. There needs to be Category:Art therapy, which doesn't exist at the moment. Tyrenius (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Tyrenius above, that there needs to be something on Art Therapy. I used to have Art Therapy myself - for issues I need not mention here - and I agree that there needs to be a category for it. --Sweet algolagnia (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, if theres any way you could remove that dubious remark on "mainsreaming in education" for a week that would be great. I revised that section for my freshman college writting class and my teacher will be grading that soon. Afterwards, I could care less if the claim is there...in fact I will revise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.241.183 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No deal. If you want a good grade, then you find a good source. I refuse to be complicit in trying to pull the wool over your teacher's eyes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally confused by this remark. I cut and pasted a slightly more accurate description of Wyndzen's issues -- including a direct quote from her letter, instead of the mangled paraphrase that was on that page, and a source that actually contains a functional link instead of the nonfunctional APA link that was previously used -- from one of the other related pages. Are you perhaps wrongly blaming me for the billion edits that someone else made earlier? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, your edit was valid and a vast improvement. I don't know what went wrong, please accept my apologies. I have removed the warning from your talkpage as it was completely uncalled for. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Germanic New Medicine, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic New Medicine. Thank you. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all your hard assessment work, well done! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a medical context I've never heard anyone say "hydropenia" and when I've heard the word "dehydration" I've often heard my teachers say "... don't use that word."

To answer the question: I'd say they are really the same thing --but both are crap terms from a medical perspective.

It is more informative to talk about intravascular volume and sodium balance (hyponatremia and hypernatremia). Intravascular volume is a lot more important than (water) volume itself.

By "dehydration", most people mean total body water deficient -- but it can also refer to "low intravascular volume". Physiologically, low intravascular volume (which can manifest with low OR high total body water) and total body water deficient often manifest the same way --if you're looking at the vitals (hypotension and tachycardia -- in the extreme cardiovascular collapse)-- but the causes are quite different. Nephron  T|C 09:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you removed the Medicine Project tag? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, just realized it had been changed to a redirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to the Rhabdomyolysis article, your addition of 'Signs & Symptoms' is useful information. Cyclonenim (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think using PMIDs by themselves as references (as you did on hypocholesterolemia[3]) is probably not ideal. The quickest way to convert a PMID into a full reference is with Diberri's citation tool. JFW | T@lk 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about the non-idealness of a PMID for a reference, and I will bookmark the citation tool (and fix the ref on the page, if you haven't already). I'm also not certain that the ref itself is the ideal ref. There are a lot of possible sources for that information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will give it a try. You do agree though that what that annon wrote was not wikipedia matterial but more of a self promotion for their little theory. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've repaired at least most of it already. Actually, I have no opinion of the anon's edits; I didn't look at them. I just noticed that the awkward "not just based on the emotions of transwomen" sentence had mysteriously reappeared. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of medical articles like to know the area and level of education of their fellow editors. We also want to hear about your personal biases; disclosure is important in the medical literature. In my opinion, your personal profile is too short to be useful. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are correct, Emmanuelm. WP:COI is the only relevant policy, and unless you have a genuine concern that this editor has an actual conflict of interest she is at liberty to reveal whatever she pleases. Wikipedia is not "medical literature" - it is a general purpose encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sourcing of rhabdomyolysis. It is useful to have more sources than just the general review to support this section. However, I'm not sure if we should be using case reports as sources unless absolutely necessary; this is largely because case reports are open to numerous confounders, and are frequently disproven in later research. Let me know what you think. Obviously there are exceptions to this - I can think of at least one example.

The WP:MCOTW on rhabdomyolysis runs until next week. It seems nobody apart from us is paying any attention to the article. Have a look on Talk:Rhabdomyolysis where I have listed some useful sources (although CritCare2005, the Vanholder article and the AFP article should be sufficient for most sections). JFW | T@lk 07:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in general, but I have some reservations in practice. This is a rare condition: About 1 in 5000 people each year. There are dozens of potential causes, and direct effects from drugs of abuse are among the least likely causes. Statistically sound reviews basically aren't available. For example, a search on PubMed shows exactly four articles about rhabdomyolysis related to marijuana, and at least one of those is a physical trauma caused by sleeping while stoned, and another article is actually about MDMA-class drugs instead of marijuana.

We could cite a secondary source that names marijuana as a cause with no further information, but I suspect that all such secondary sources are relying (perhaps inappropriately) on the same three case reports. My thinking is that if the evidence is weak, we should at least provide the weak evidence so the (educated) reader can consider the strength of the evidence.

Of course, when we can find stronger evidence, then that's definitely what we should use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, I think the reviews presently listed as main sources have fairly comprehensive lists of toxic causes of rhabdomyolysis. As you have noted, initial case reports may later be shown to be erroneous - it wasn't the skunk causing the rhabdo, but the fact that someone was "down & out". What the reviews do is elevate a case report in reliability - reviews are generally produced by experts in the field who filter out the less plausible causes. JFW | T@lk 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for weeding out "support groups" from several medical articles. But beware, sometimes people get really passionate about "their" links, as recently seen on Talk:Devic's disease; some don't hesitate to become rather abusive. If you get stuck, feel free to involve other editors. JFW | T@lk 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I meant to post a warning for the WPMED group. I'm actually watching very few of these articles, so I'm not sure that I'll notice any reversions. Perhaps I should surf through the list again tomorrow and see what's happened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits in this vein to the Helminthic therapy page:FQ1513 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is littered with references to commercial products. This is a rare and valuable therapy, possibly, for those interested. I listed both of the only providers of this therapy so readers can go off and learn more. I am not favoring any one provider.

For instance, if this policy was followed to the letter drugs should only be listed by their chemical names, not their trade names. Think of infliximab for instance, or Humira.

So, following that reasoning would it be ok to list the providers by name, as with the drugs, just not provide a link to their sites?

Where one draws the line seems rather arbitrary. As to the links to the support groups, why the hell not? This is a source of information, why not link to discussion groups on this topic for people who want to learn more? Instead I could just write that Yahoo contains a group devoted to the subject if one wants to do more research, but not include the link?

If we are not allowed to list businesses or products should I devote the next year to deleting references to product names from Wikipedia? Will you?

Well, if you take a look at my contributions, you'll see that I've already deleted more than a hundred inappropriate links this month, so I'm clearly already involved in spam-removal on Wikipedia. If you'd like to undertake that task as well, then I encourage you to read the entire external links policy and also to connect with the group that deals with spam.

Even if you don't want to help with this project, I encourage you to read the external links policy. I am convinced that it will answer your questions and ease your concerns about arbitrariness. Sometimes commercial sites are appropriate. Articles about a large business often link to the main page of the corporate website, for example. With medical treatments in particular, external links to a commercial website often have bona fide encyclopedic content, including history, safety information, approved indications and so forth. What you won't find at the Humira website is something that says click here to pay nearly $4,000 for helminthic therapy in an underregulated clinic in Mexico -- which is exactly what I found on the HT page, and why I deleted that link. Please note that the remaining two links are links that I didn't even look at, and that further review may justify their removal, too.

FQ1513 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Actually the autoimmunetherapies site and the ovamed site do include a lot of encyclopedic content and the link you removed did not go directly to "click here to pay nearly $4,000 for helminthic therapy in an underregulated clinic in Mexico" So, on the basis of your reasoning the link was valid. It works just like the link to the producer and marketer of Humira, for instance. AS well he Helminthic therapy page is clear throughout, as are the sites I had linked to, that this is an experimental treatment.[reply]

It's not comparable. There's not a single page on the entire Humira website that will let you pay for anything. By contrast, the entire point behind the AutoimmuneTherapies.com website is to convince desperate patients that HT is worth $4,000 and a trip to Mexico.

The question you need to answer is this: What noncommercial value does this website provide that can't be reasonably included in the article? It's best to have information directly in the article, unless (like the Humira website) there's so much detailed information that it's not appropriate to include all of it. Can you identify any facts on this website that you think are valuable, but you really think are not appropriate to include in the actual article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for support groups: I don't know why the policy was set up that way. I just know that it is. You can read Talk:Devic's disease for some information, or just go directly to the external links policy and read the ban on "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET" for yourself. I believe that it's #11 on the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes sense, thanks for the clarification. Since my objective in working so hard on the helminthic therapy page is to make information accessible to people researching it would it be appropriate to provide links to the science pages hosted by Ovamed and Autoimmune Therapies? By the way, a single infusion of Humira or Tsybari or whatever often costs $4K, per month. They have a lot of it.FQ1513 (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those websites are ideal, because the websites exist to sell the product, and that means that the owners have no incentive to provide information which might be unfavorable. However, you might be able to get specific pages to squeak through. You'd be much better off using their information to find reputable sources to build the actual article, though. Wikipedia articles don't have to have any external links, after all.

(The editors at WP:V or WP:EL might be able to give you a more reliable answer, and you could certainly post a question on the policy talk pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the rhabdo page. I was wondering where those epidemiology edits and the collapsed building picture had come from!

I need to stop now, but if the mood strikes you there are still "pathophysiology" and "treatment" sections to write. There are no Cochrane reviews to base the "treatment" section on. For the pathophysiology section I was going to rely largely on Vanholder et al. They also give a good bunch of advice for real-life situations (like earthquakes) that should probably be included. JFW | T@lk 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you could review the end result, and adjust the {{WPMED}} status accordingly. JFW | T@lk 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JFW. I've upgraded it to B class. I like the way this article has shaped up, and I think it will clear a GA review easily. Would you like me to nominate it?

As for an FA review (which I know very little about), it may qualify or it may be very close. From reading the policy page, we might have to rephrase the bullet points under "Causes" to be grammatically parallel. FA reviewers might also want something more said about prognosis (although I'm not sure what to add: it just looks a little bare). Perhaps the lead could have a second paragraph that explains why it's important (e.g., it's a potentially deadly condition that can be difficult and expensive to treat).

I did some minor copyediting just now; please check my changes. Can you rephrase the Electrolytes subsection to have three shorter sentences instead of one short and one long sentence? I'd like a sentence that starts "Calcium levels initially tend to be low because..." (all the calcium got kidnapped by the phosphate), followed by a separate sentence about the calcium reappearing. I think it will be easier to parse that way, but I wasn't confident that it would be accurate if I did it myself.

Thanks again for your significant efforts on this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(crossed posted on my talk page)

I completely agree that not every study should be included, and that a general summary should suffice. Please be aware that I deleted a sentence that did not have scientific merit. I have no interest in the political debate. The sentence I deleted said this: "Early in development, from about 12-18 weeks gestation, there is a complete link from the periphery to the thalamus in the brain, and the fetus shows clear evidence of defensive reactions against tissue damage including hormonal and hemodynamic responses."

This sentence insinuates that fetal pain can occur in the 12th week, which is clearly editorializing because the study cited concludes: "Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age…" --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(cross posted on my talk page)

The assertion that "Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus" is a POV -- a point of view endorsed by many researchers, but still a point of view. Not everyone has that POV. I think it would be better to rephrase the sentence to indicate the undisputed facts: a fetus at 12-18 weeks gestation has a certain level of neurological development and some verified physical responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

However it is not my POV. It is an expert POV backed up by research. That's called science (or at least scientific discourse). --IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You'd left me a message about my questions on Pain and nociception. I think basically it needs a proofread, culling of OR and problematic claims, addition of sources and just a general look over by someone who is knowledgeable. When the question was raised, the two big contributors to the page had hit their limit of knowledge. I suppose my concerns still remain, but they're ongoing and can't really be addressed with a single response. Sorry! WLU (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice and nominated P&N on the medcollab page, thanks for the suggestion. WLU (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. I'll go vote for it. It may take a while to bubble up to the top of the list, but I think the outcome may be what we want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could not help noticing your highly prolific and welcome presence over the last few months. I can only presume you have a medical/paramedical background ? If so, why not add yourself to list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants and you can add the userbox template {{User WPMed}}:

I'm sure that at your current level of participation you are heading for an Admin nomination (if you would so wish), although I think you will first need rather wider experience (article/talk space edit numbers are fine), i.e. in the more back-of-office administration (with lower case "a") such as various deletions (XfD), dealing with conflicts (which sooner or later will occur) and, perhaps, Admin noticeboard WP:AN/I. If there are any particular queries you have on extending your current activities (or the above), then do ask :-) I note you have not activated your "E-mail this user" feature, but mine is active if you wish a more private discussion...

PS feel free to copy & paste your well deserved barnstar to your userpage :-) David Ruben ^Talk 13:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note. I have enjoyed most of the last few months, and in a couple of weeks I hope to have accomplished a major goal: getting all of the WPMED articles assessed for at least one parameter.

I don't really have any interest in being an administrator. Computers do not always seem deterministic when I'm in the room, and I'd rather not have the ability to screw up anything irreversibly. It is kind of you to suggest it, though. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These horrible lists (e.g. List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies‎) are probably going to survive AFD. Why people want to keep those lists is beyond me. In the meantime, I'm not sure of the merits of Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. For one thing, it needs to be renamed ("ailments" is a 19th century nonspecific and nonencyclopedic term), and I'm not sure about the place of articles where there are several possible etiologies but no definitive ones. JFW | T@lk 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your suspicion is correct. The user had 7 similarities with Jessica's other socks:

1. Attention to celebrities

2. Editing about New York area schools

3. Editing alternative education articles with a unique POV regarding her take on definitions of terms

4. Starting slowly with uncontroversial edits, but gradually becoming bolder and more disruptive

5. Filling user page with many "cheery" userboxes, making a myspace-esque mess

6. Username that is a backwards-spelled noun

7. (and this is the kicker) the user re-created Alternative Learning Program which had originally been created by another of Jessica's socks, deleted, created again by another sock, deleted, and created again by this one...

That's good enough for me. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I briefly restored Alternative Learning Program and put it on my watchlist. I don't think you can watchlist a redlink, and I don't want to leave it up for too long. I have a few of her other favorite articles there, Great Neck, New York, etc. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to be possible to add a redlink to your watchlist by editing the raw watchlist (follow the link to Special:Watchlist/raw). If a previous version was on your watchlist, then it ought to still be there (you ought to see the redlink at Special:Watchlist/edit). Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This Barnstar of Diligence is awarded to WhatamIdoing for swift recognition of one of Wikipedia's chronic puppetmasters, likely saving us all much potential floor scrubbing in the process! Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the tags relative to Project:Medicine for Good Samaritan Hospital (Suffern). I'm not familiar with listing articles by project yet and tagged it as I did hoping someone would come along and help, so thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy to do it. Assessing WPMED projects is my 'thing' at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since {{WPMED}} is scripted to place articles into Category:Unassessed-Class medicine articles and Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles whether or not there are class and importance parameters, I don't think it is absolutely necessary to include these. The WP 1.0 Bot uses the categories for assessments, and not the template itself. However, per your request, I will add the empty parameters from now on. --Scott Alter 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I forgot to notify you that I've put rhabdomyolysis up for peer review. I'd hope you could look at the final product and see if there are any major (or even minor) deficiencies. I'm quite keen to have this baby up as a good article and with some luck even as a featured article.

Oh, and before I forget, Posturewriter (talk · contribs) has been working on Da Costa's syndrome. Presently I'm staying well clear of this topic (at least not without Kevlar underwear and a good dose of somesortofazepam), but I thought you'd like to know. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the peer review note on WPMED. I didn't know if it would be polite for me to be involved in the peer review process, since you named me as a recent editor. Basically, I think you should submit it for GA as soon as convenient. I think that GA is a given; it's a really good article.

I've been watching Da Costa's syndrome. I don't know what to do about it. I guess if you've got a hammer, then the whole world... What I really don't understand is why he's so determined that this needs to be in Wikipedia. He's already got his own website; why doesn't he post his story there? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I've edited rhabdomyolysis a lot since you make your last edit. Those edits need your close scrutiny - you are the most qualified because you worked on the article and are therefore up-to-date with the sources I cited. I don't think having worked on an article excludes you from commenting at WP:PR, which is pretty informal anyway.

Regarding Posturewriter... You are underestimating the appeal of Wikipedia as a promotional tool. If staffers from Congress and the Dutch Royal Family can remove information that is compromising to their bosses, then what about those who have interesting views and want the world to know about them (and buy their books)? JFW | T@lk 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sanity-checked every edit to Rhabdo since it was promoted to MCOTW. The only recent change that I even slightly disagreed with was when "...may lead to the development of a state called disseminated intravascular coagulation" (that's the current revision) got so wordy. If it seems okay to you, I'd reduce it to "...may lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation." I've also wondered whether the average reader would benefit from a tiny bit of information about DIC. Perhaps it should become "...may lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation, which can be fatal" or something like that?

Now that I can see my computer screen again, I've got 28 articles to assess (unless some nice person has added to my list in the last fifteen hours). Then perhaps I can figure out the official peer review system (if there is one). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read the article and posted my latest thoughts to this page. I also asked my husband (who is not properly considered a science geek) to read through it; he "thought it looked fine." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Thanks for your note] I'm sure I had an idea at the time. I'm afraid I don't remember now though. Dlohcierekim Deleted?

Thanks for brutally paring Free-running sleep. (I've fixed it a bit more - hope you don't mind.)

Perhaps you dare tackle Polyphasic sleep as well? Similarly a fad - a more dangerous one, I think. I've been moving the fad stuff further down the page but am too cowardly to remove a lot (blush). (P.S. Don't know why it's called a Psychology article?) --Hordaland (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on the free-running sleep article on my talkpage]. I've answered you there. --Hordaland (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I mean I answered you on Talk:Free-running sleep. Hordaland (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Ass-S-mint award
		I, delldot, hereby award Whatamidoing with the Ass-S-mint award for their tremendous work assessing medical articles. delldot talk 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juds/SOMPeople posting here. I hope that this is the best way to communicate with you. Thank you so much for the help and information regarding external links that you provided to the SOM article yesterday. It was only a few weeks ago that I finally realized that I could join here and possibly contribute something helpful. I did go to the policy page that you reference when I considered correcting the link that was placed by the article's original author. The three items, under links to avoid, that I used in making the decision to correct the original, broken link were 4, 7 and 11. 4:There isn't any intention to promote the website, just the information that has been gathered over the past eight years. 7:Joining is only required for posting. The information on the site is designed and dedicated to be openly and freely available to anyone. There are no fees involved. 11:I took this seriously when deciding to correct the link. Because the article was created over a year ago, I did not believe that it was unreasonable to think that it was an appropriate use of links. I understand that you need to delete the link. Again, much appreciation from someone with this disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOMPeople (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt and supportive reply. I would gladly follow any suggestions on how to make that link more compliant with the policies here. I will take your advice and create a detailed user page. However, I am not the author of the article, and therefore cannot follow your last suggestion. Juds

Hello WhatamIdoing, Thank you for your help. I have taken your suggestions and created my user page, as well as adding a note on the Talk Page for the article. Juds/SOMPeople SOMPeople (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I have left a reply and a request[4] for your further comment and consideration.--TheNautilus (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 [[5]]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NCurse _work 16:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[6] I'll add the ref to the MS therapies article in a minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ???

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

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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: [7] and [8]. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As you wish. [9]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I understand your point, but your explanation is exactly why I removed that information: We are not in the business of giving people practical advice about how to manage potential allergen exposures. "It's really useful to patients" (or physicians) is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. You might want to read this guideline for more information.

If we're going to keep that information, it needs to be in the context of an encyclopedic article, not a how-to page for patients. This means that we need to talk about the general concepts, with proper sources and explanatory text, not a bare list of "I personally react to the following..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was going through shoulder dystocia, and realized that almost all the obstetrics articles are in a very bad state. I've tried to make some improvements there. But, realized that a single person would not be able to make much difference. Also, considering the importance of the topics (in terms of how many users are likely to search for them), I thought that they better be improved. Also, if you might be interested, you may look into pancreas for the same reasons.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 10:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lyrl might be interested in helping with such a project. She proposed a task force (a mini-sub-WikiProject Medicine) on birth control recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks a lot. I'll definitely communicate with her. Would you be interested in looking into Pancreas or Lymphatic system and related articles? —KetanPanchal^taLK 05:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am happy to inform that the article has been promoted to the GA status. By the way, I have renamed it as Polyclonal B cell response as I thought that sounded more appropriate.

You might have not realized, but it was you who'd pointed out that the next step for a B-class article was GA, and without that may be I would've never really known how to improve the article. Also, thanks a lot for all the support, guidance, suggestions, and most important, the fantastic edits you'd made.

At least this time around I know the next step is the "A-class" status, but I might go a bit slow on that. But, I hope that with rigorous scrutiny of Dr. Cash, that will be less of a challenge.a

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 07:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I did what you asked; but I'm really deeply uncomfortable with the idea of creating these soft redirects. If the topic isn't enough to sustain an article, then I say create a redir page to a list which includes the topic and be done with it. What's the point of having a separate Wiktionary otherwise? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, that discussion over at Template talk:Tmbox#Accessibility is giving me a headache. Course, part of that could be that it's like 11:30 at night! Anyway, I just wanted to drop by and give you a thanks for alerting me to that discussion. I'm sensing we're going to get overruled, but it was worth a try, right?
Here, have some...

		Cookies!
		Does one need a reason to eat cookies? Hope you've got some milk, I'm fresh out. L'Aquatique[review]

L'Aquatique[review] 07:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookies. I think we're making some headway. The first reactions might have been a little thoughtless hasty, but people seemed to have gotten past their initial perceived inability to fix anything.

Obviously, if it's not actually a problem, then we don't need to fix it. I'd just like to know that it's not a problem instead of merely hoping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike through your inflammatory and erroneous rhetoric in this diff starting at "Recall, please" to the end. Your rhetoric is based on misinformation and is false. Bailey was never accused of anything of the sort, though your assumptions do illustrate the point of that satire. If you wish to engage in inflammatory rhetoric, you'll need to do that elsewhere. Your actions are making productive editing here difficult and are certainly huge violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. Thanks for contributing to the article, and I look forward to productive discussion with you. Jokestress (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second request for you to strike through your false claims about me. I hope we can resolve this between us. Thank you. Jokestress (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the improper structure on the Trismus page, I'm new to editing in wikipedia and was just trying to duplicate the format of some of the other pages I've seen.

Wouldn't mind your input here. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article has attracted a lot of edits from an anon editor who's from Hawaii. I've tried to keep the OR and POV material at bay, but I'll let you know if it gets out of control. Mattnad (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to your note) When you look at his/her additions (as you likely did), they bring in more detail than I've read in the current web-oriented sources. That's a sign of autobiography. In particular, I removed a defensive run-on sentence about Singer's academic training based on his multiple degree attempts: "Singer's educational background, therefore, includes trained in biology, anthropology, biochemistry, medicine, and medical humanities, although he resigned from each graduate program prior to receiving a PhD or MD degree." That said, I think a WP:COI warning might be premature. I'd say let's watch what they do.Mattnad (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're back. I reverted the recent edits - they were designed to place authors' work in a more positive light than NPOV would dictate. You seem more adept at the wiki thing. Care to add COI template to their talk page? Mattnad (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. There's a note on the anon's page and also on the article now. The article's tag can go as soon as we have either a good handful of COI-free days, or a response from the anon on the article's talk page that seems to indicate understanding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Of course, such an article has not been created. But, was thinking that may be some time in future, we can create such an article based on polyclonal B cell response. What do you say?

—KetanPanchal^taLK 11:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad idea, but it will be some time before I can invest much effort in article creation. I've committed to finishing off a moderately tedious admin task for WPMED.

Speaking of WPMED, if you wanted to take a look at Condom, I'm sure Lyrl would appreciate even two minutes of your time, just so she doesn't feel like she's the only person trying to improve that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your rhetoric a second time because it is a complete misstatement of what happened. No one accused Bailey of anything. The fact that you interpret the "two types" satire that way actually proves the point. I am asking you a third time to stop making this assertion that he was accused of anything. Jokestress (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You objected previously to my use of the word accused. I have struck all words that stem from the Latin accusare, even though I think that incestuous child rape is such a reprehensible crime that even to associate a person's name with it is, in fact, indirectly an accusation, no matter how carefully you create a "just as an example" context and how carefully you skirt the libel laws. Would you be happy if I wrote something similar about you on this page, just as an example? Or would you instantly claim protection under WP:BLP and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL?

You have removed my updated version as "misinformation". So what's your problem now? Do you think I should hold up your "deliberately offensive satire" as an excellent example of "fair comment" on an author and his minor children? (That option isn't available, you know.) Do you regret your past choices and wish people would quit bringing them up as an example of egregious personal attacks? I personally might cut you more slack if you made an unambiguous public apology, but at some level people have to live with the consequences of their actions. Do you now claim to have written nothing of the sort? Or that your actions haven't been publicly denounced by many people, including McCloskey? What, exactly, is the alleged "misinformation" in my comment?

Dick's comment makes no sense when you delete my comment. I want it restored. I am -- because I'm apparently nicer to you than you ever were to Bailey or his children -- willing to post a version that is minimally offensive, but I am not willing to have it deleted, and have Dick's comment look like a massive overreaction, just to protect your tender feelings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I truly wish you could be calm and civil about this. If you wish to berate me with comments about my feelings and ability to be nice, I suggest you take up an email correspondence with me offsite. It doesn't belong here. I don't really care what you think about me, but I must insist that you conduct yourself with civility here. If you wish to be uncivil offsite, that is fine. I simply don't want you making stuff up and misrepresenting facts on Wikipedia, which you have been doing for about a year. Here is what I would suggest as a replacemment if you feel you must have that in there.

Recall, please, that one of the other participants accused Bailey of incestuous child rape, and (necessarily in that act) accused one of his young children of being a victim of such behavior. wrote "deliberately offensive satire" of Bailey's two-type taxonomy of transsexual children by using a direct quotation from Bailey's book to caption Bailey's adult son, to show that it's "science" when written about trans people, but "obscene" when written about non-trans people. She also mocked his two-type taxonomy with a sexualized caption under a photo of Bailey's adult daughter meant to crudely caricature Bailey's sexualization of trans children. She also used an offensive analogy to show that any groups of people can be divided into two sexual types, but that dividing trans children and adults into homosexuals and nonhomosexuals is not only unscientific but deeply offensive to their identities. "I just meant it to be a parody" is an inadequate protection. Think about the basic community standards of common decency. Think about how reviled she still is for that one-time lapse of judgment. So "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment" is unbelievable -- as in, I can't believe that saying he raped one of his children can be considered fair comment on a book or an author, and McCloskey agrees with me on this point. I would not, therefore, include this quotation unless you can limit "Nothing we have done" to indicate that this "nothing" does not really mean "nothing." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you wish to call me names and all that, please do so elsewhere. It is disruptive and unproductive. You will not make me feel bad by trying to "punish" me by insulting me, presenting me in a negative light, and what-not. There are places for civility, and places for incivility. Wikipedia demands calmness and civility for a reason, and if you wish to participate here, you need to abide by those rules, as do I. Thank you for working with me directly to resolve this. Jokestress (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't post that because it's wrong -- as in materially false on an objective point of fact. Drew and Kate were not adults in 2003. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are both in their 20s. How about teenage instead of adult? Jokestress (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we don't put your personal POV over my signature? What's wrong with this?

Recall, please, that one of the other participants accused wrote "deliberately offensive satire" about Bailey sodomizing his children. This is an accusation a character smear involving an extremely reprehensible felony, and IMO "I just meant it to be a parody" is an inadequate protection. Think about the basic community standards of common decency. Think about how reviled she still is for that one-time lapse of judgment. So "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment" is unbelievable -- as in, I can't believe that saying he raped one of his children, even as an "example", can be considered fair comment on a book or an author, and McCloskey agrees with me on this point. I would not, therefore, include this quotation unless you can limit "Nothing we have done" to indicate that this "nothing" does not really mean "nothing." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Take your time to think over your response. I'm off-Wiki for at least three hours.

(outdenting) This contains the same misinformation. The satire is not about Bailey "sodomizing his children." No one said "he raped one of his children." These are your own personal interpretations, which as I noted, say volumes about the point I was making. It's not a "character smear" unless you assume he did it. My "scientific" taxonomy allows for him not to have done it, and it makes no conclusions. The satire is about his sexualized taxonomy of us. Dividing trans children into homosexual and non-homosexual is as offensive and biased as dividing non-trans children into sodomized and non-sodomized. Of course, dividing trans children into sexualized categories is "science," but dividing non-trans children into sexualized categories is "obscene." How about this:

Recall, please, that one of the other participants accused Bailey of incestuous child rape, and (necessarily in that act) accused one of his young children of being a victim of such behavior. wrote "deliberately offensive satire" about Bailey's sexualized taxonomy of transsexual children, by suggesting a sodomized/non-sodomized taxonomy for his own children. This is an accusation of a extremely reprehensible felony, and "I just meant it to be a parody" is an inadequate protection. Think about the basic community standards of common decency. Think about how reviled she still is for that one-time lapse of judgment. So "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment" is unbelievable -- as in, I can't believe that saying he raped one of his children can be considered fair comment on a book or an author, and McCloskey agrees with me on this point. I would not, therefore, include this quotation unless you can limit "Nothing we have done" to indicate that this "nothing" does not really mean "nothing." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The strikethrus are the misinformation to which I object. Here is option 2 (simply striking through your misinformation):

Recall, please, that one of the other participants accused Bailey of incestuous child rape, and (necessarily in that act) accused one of his young children of being a victim of such behavior. This is an accusation of a extremely reprehensible felony, and "I just meant it to be a parody" is an inadequate protection. Think about the basic community standards of common decency. Think about how reviled she still is for that one-time lapse of judgment. So "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment" is unbelievable -- as in, I can't believe that saying he raped one of his children can be considered fair comment on a book or an author, and McCloskey agrees with me on this point. I would not, therefore, include this quotation unless you can limit "Nothing we have done" to indicate that this "nothing" does not really mean "nothing."

As you can see, I have no problem with your expressing your POV about my actions. I simply ask that you stop adding misinformation. Jokestress (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy it. "There are two types" means "Two types exist." This is pretty straightforward grammar. "There could be two types" means that one of the sets could have a null population. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misinterpretation based on decontextualizing the passage. I said right after that "I am absolutely certain Bailey's children fall into one of the two categories." So yes, two types exist, but the satire clearly states that they both fall in the same category. Your misinterpretation adds accusations which were not in the original. Jokestress (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that to be a clear statement that both kids are in the same category. You've designed an A/not-A dichotomy (a very poor way of proving your point, BTW), and the combination of A/not-A are always non-overlapping sets and the two sets always contains all items in the master set. Your statement that each kid fits into one of these sets is just a restatement of the mathematical certainty. If you'd meant to define one set as an empty set, then you needed to say something like "I am absolutely certain that both of Bailey's children fall into the same category" or, more clearly, "I am absolutely certain that both of Bailey's children fall into the non-sodomized category." That statement would leave us with just the issue of character assassination: having one's name associated with such a reprehensible crime, as if such a thing were even thinkable, is a classic character assassination. I believe that the line among old-school American politicians usually ran "Far be it from me to tell you that my opponent is a lying scoundrel who beats his wife and distresses the shop girls..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty straightforward grammar. Two categories exist. Bailey's children fall into one. A/not-A is the way Bailey's taxonomy is set up (homosexual male/not-homosexual male), hence the construction (which I agree is pretty poor). Your claim that this is some sort of apophasis is not borne out by the text. You have misread the text. There are no accusations. It is a rhetorical example of what he is doing, designed to show the odious and biased nature of his taxonomy of trans women (either homosexual or not-homosexual males). Jokestress (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your opinion. IMO, if you went to the grocery store and asked about the apples, and the clerk said, "There are two types over there on the shelf," then you'd reasonably expect to find two types, not one. I see no material difference between a statement that there two types of children in a household and two types of apples on a shelf. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your example, it would be more accurate if a clerk says: There are two types of apples: wormy and non-wormy. I am absolutely certain our apples over there fall into one of the two categories. An optimist would think they were non-wormy, and a pessimist would think they were wormy. Given that example, if you told the manager, "The clerk told me the apples are wormy," the clerk would take issue with that pessimistic interpretation. In either case, the introduction of worms as the organizing principle for apples is the issue, because it automatically creates an unsavory association between worms and apples, whether you are an optimist or a pessimist. It is not a matter of opinion. I have not and would not make that sort of accusation. I am asking you to strike through your erroneous and (to my knowledge) idiosyncratic interpretation. Thank you again for working with me directly on this. Jokestress (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point is that if the clerk said there were two kinds, I'd expect to find both kinds, no matter what the two kinds are. If only one kind was present, I'd expect the clerk to say "We only have wormy apples today." I don't think that this is an idiosyncratic interpretation of this class of statement. (Whether wormy apples are acceptable depends on my plans: A horse won't care about worms, and even wormy apples can be used for decorative purposes.)

But perhaps you would not mind if I put There are two kinds of children in the world: those User:Jokestress wants to rape, and those Jokestress doesn't on my user page, under a heading of ==Example of a dichotomy==? You seem to believe this type of statement would reliably be interpreted by every possible reader as meaning that all children are in the second group. Isn't that the argument that you're making here: that everyone (except me) always interprets a statement like this as being a perfectly acceptable, literally true, non-accusatory statement, with no negative effect of associating you with a reprehensible crime?

I do honestly expect the average political activist to know more about the manipulative techniques used in negative campaigns, but perhaps I'm overestimating your skills in that area.

Perhaps you will be able to live with the version that I will post in a moment. I'll just quote some of the more egregious text and let the readers decide for themselves. It won't reflect your POV, but you can always post your own POV after it. I've about reached my limit for dealing with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes are great. Thank you again. And to your example above, yes! That is exactly the point. If you divide children into those two categories, anyone logical enough who can get past the emotional response will say there's not enough information there to make any conclusions. Of those who can't get past their emotional responses, the person who would concern me is someone who assumes the former, because that interpretation says much more about that person than it does about me. Once again, I very much appreciate your working with me on this to come to a resolution. Jokestress (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note since I thought you may be interested in this disussion. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your response to my comment. Let's not bicker. We're friends after all. We just don't want to be absorbed by FOOD is all. That's it. Really. – ClockworkSoul 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think that you're in any danger of a "takeover". I admit that I'm not very sympathetic to these concerns in the context of project banners; this is probably because I've had the opposite problem, with people repeatedly insisting that articles be tagged by WPMED even when they're outside the scope of the project. (This article, for example, which ultimately required the intervention of three WPMED members to convince one editor that a fountain in a park is not really within the scope of WPMED.) But projects are ultimately social groups, and the result is that an unwilling takeover is basically impossible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi What, this came up on the Science Refdesk. It was as much about men as about citations, I have a little tool to check history, I found this and I notice you identify as female - so I posted to that effect. I'm not taking any particular stance in the thread, but I did invoke your edit, I thought I should let you know. Regards! Franamax (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The discussion seems to have decoded the situation: I tagged that because it was added much later than the other symtpoms, and is not not supported either by the listed references or by any references that I could easily find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the welcome. This is sure a lot more fun then playing online game!! Slowly getting up to speed on how things work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you misunderstand the concept of WP:N and whether bald statements like "XYZ exists" see I can post a link on the web is a claim of notabiity worthy of an encyclopedic article. I could just as easily fashion an article on myself and point to my webpage as proof I exist - and now with your critiques, I'm peer-reviewed as well, so certainly worthy of note on Wikipedia, n'est pas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see six editors on your talk page that describe your actions as careless, disruptive, and inappropriate. Not one editor made a single supportive statement. If being "peer-reviewed" with the equivalent of a failing grade seems like a good thing to you, then I can only assume that you'd rather make a point or to get attention instead of to write an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I appreciate your work on trying to figure out and publish "best practices" on the Layout page. If, as some seem to suggest, all options are equally acceptable then there is no reason to have a guide. (It looks like you are going in the direction of using the various formats found in featured articles as the dividing line. I think that is a good idea.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say anything against consensus, &c. -- but Sandy's opinion on what goes into WP:LAYOUT is about a dozen times more important than anyone else's IMO. (Sandy is heavily involved in Featured Article work, and FA articles are actually required to conform with WP:LAYOUT because it's part of WP:MOS. For all the other articles, it's just a suggestion.) Christopher Parham almost always argues against recommending the most common practices, so his recent comments don't surprise me. He is particularly helpful with finding inconsistencies between guidelines, but I think he'd sometimes rather that the only guideline was Ignore All Rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be keeping busy, but I thought this article could benefit from your going through it. It's very short, so won't take much time. Actually my issue is that it kind of shows the whole cell pertussis vaccine in a "bad light", which has been phased out at least in the U.S. Though all the statistics have been quoted (like how rare the neurologic events are), but they are not prominent. I'm afraid some readers who might not have the patience to go through the entire article might get dissuaded to get their children immunized.

So, if you could please look into it...

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 16:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me. Perhaps it would be better to post this as a suggestion on the WPMED talk page. I'm probably not the best candidate for re-writing it, and it actually needs a lot more work than I can give it in the near future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. Well, I'd thought about it, and I feel even simply moving the section on acellular vaccine above the whole-cell vaccine would largely address my concern. I didn't do it myself as it shouldn't be constructed as POV-pushing. —KetanPanchal^taLK 06:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate your for adminship. I'm pretty impressed by your contributions, levelheadedness and willingness to help. Also, you do take initiative when required (as demonstrated by your efforts in improving the WPMED project and participation in the "reproductive health" subproject). So, you'd do complete justice to the job of improving and maintaining the quality of Wikipedia. All the best! —KetanPanchal^taLK 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy support! Go for it! The tools will make you an even more effective contributor. JFW | T@lk 10:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll jump on that bandwagon. I normally don't vote on RFAs and accordingly don't watch them. If you choose to accept, PLEASE let me know 'cause otherwise I probably won't see it and I definitely want to be able to add my support. WLU (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very kind of you all, and I'm truly flattered, but I don't actually want to bother with learning all the tools and processes. If you could be a "partial admin", then I'd sign up for that: I'd be happy to be able to semi-protect the occasional article, for example, or move pages over existing pages. It's a manageable learning curve, and I wouldn't mind being able to help out with the occasional bit of grunt work that way. But adminship seems to be an all-or-nothing deal, and I'm not sure that's a good choice for me. Additionally, my time and energy is more limited than usual for the next month, so now is certainly not the right time to expand my Wiki-commitments. I'm still struggling with finding enough time to finally get Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles emptied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read your reply :-( Will ask you two months from now ;-) Take care —KetanPanchal^taLK 06:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There' needs to be a userbox for people like us. Some sort of person leaning on a mop perhaps. WLU (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a userbox about "Wikipedians for Mini-Adminships" or something like that. (I like the mop.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{bing!} I notice you aren't a rollbacker, that's about the only other option that's any closer to adminship. Wikipedia:PEREN#Hierarchical_structures and Wikipedia:Limited administrators pretty much says a mini-admin won't ever happen. Sorry! Perhaps a userbox that's just the stick (for whacking vandals) or head (for deleting pages) of the mop. That's a userbox I'd wear with pride. "This user wants to whack vandals like an admin/This user want to delete pages like an admin." WLU (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True... but I don't actually do enough vandal fighting to make "undo" feel inefficient. I've got my (some hundreds of) watchlisted articles, but they are preferentially low-activity articles. I might review 25 mainspace edits on any given day, and undo just one or two. Now access, even temporarily, to the list of unwatched articles, just to find a hundred or so interesting-but-neglected medicine-related articles for my watchlist -- that might be fun. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm TfDing some more EL templates. These are ones that are clearly broken. Even though you may not be the original author, I thought you might want to know. The listing is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 28 --Selket ^Talk 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move Rw2009's comments to Talk:TeenScreen, where it belongs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving this to the proper place. I very much appreciate your helping me. :) Rw2009 (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that an unregistered user has been undoing many edits, all made by you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.56.200.202 In case you hadn't noticed it yourslef, I thought you should be alterted.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. It's probably the person who keeps spamming the Vocational school article with links to his/her favorite 'find a school' websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I made a major edit to the X-linked ichthyosis entry in response to your post on the Medical Genetics wikiproject. Let me know what you think. Medical geneticist (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing,

The following addition is being discussed at WP:MEDMOS: "Where possible, it is preferable to reference review articles or other secondary or tertiary sources instead of primary sources (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources)." I would appreciate if you could comment on both appropriateness and the content of the addition. Thank you Paul Gene (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've been slowly edit-warring with another editor. Just the two of us involved. It's a little article, Sense of time, which could become big and very interesting with time (no pun intended). If you don't want to involve yourself, that's ok. If you do, read and react to the present last sentence. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a note to WikiProject Neurology's talk page. Perhaps that will find someone that already knows about this. (The grammar's wrong in that sentence, BTW, and the external links are improperly formatted.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar is, as with most of what that editor writes, totally impossible. S/he made one correction as a concession to me (to shut me up?), about how we "perceive perception", wikilinked thus. :-) S/he also explained phrase for phrase what that sentence is supposed to mean. Unsuccessfully, IMO. If no one else steps in, I'll leave it alone for a coupla months, then redo it. (That sometimes works.) Thanks for your initiative - that may help. --Hordaland (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I put a note yesterday at Portal talk:Neuroscience. And I see today that you've jumped directly into the fray. (Could you have written such an impossible sentence, if you'd put your mind to it? I think I couldn't. It looks like some of the early attempts at translation-by-machine from another language.) --Hordaland (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't want to leave you hanging with no support at all. It would be great if a more knowledgeable person would appear -- but at least we'll fix the one sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was wise of you to tackle the language question only. I'd been trying to get answers about both grammar and content. Much too complicated. One thing at a time. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, you probably know this already, but there's a debate on the LeVay talk page that's becoming increasingly nasty. I wish you'd comment further, so that it doesn't become simply a dispute between me and one other person. C0h3n seems to be determined to remove one comment by LeVay simply because he doesn't approve of it. Skoojal (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the (small) paragraph here right or wrong in overall grammar? InternetHero (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you mind just saying something about me here. The users (one is a World of Warcraft player) and the others seemed to have put a lot of effort into this "rfc/U", but they completely take it out of context. Anyway, just read at least half of this page and you'll see why I had to get some admins/canvass. I tried following that flow-chart thing for Dispute Resolution, but I lost my patience in accordance to the clause in respect to seeking an admin. Anyway, this is what I mean. "Forgets" to emphasize that I sought help from 2 admins and didn't lose any courteousy. I you can, just try and give your opinion on me. P.S. Hordaland probably sought your help from my "disruption" because of this. InternetHero (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you removed the links to DiagnosisPro and emedicine under machine differential diagnosis in the Differential Diagnosis page and labeled them as spam.

I am the one who added DiagnosisPro several months ago. DiagnosisPro site is free, with no advertising or sponsorship. It is the only site (that I know of) that is specifically designed for differential diagnosis. Its content is contributed by users and then moderated and verified by the original authors based on standard medical literature. There are no other links to diagnosispro.com anywhere in Wikipedia so you should not consider it as spam.

Wikipedia content criteria mentions clearly: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia". I believe that this site is totally relevant to the subject and should be included in the page. Let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.83.110 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I consider any external link that exists primarily to promote the website in question to be spam. I also consider it to be disallowed under WP:ELNO rule #4. I furthermore find that it violates Important Point #3, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article."

Finally, as a person that is connected to the website in question, you personally should never add the link to any article because of your conflict of interest. Instead, you need to propose it on the article's talk page, and let someone else choose to add, or not add, the link for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whatiamdoing,

- I am not related to the site or its authors in anyway. I am a longtime user of DiagnosisPro (at least ten years) and sincerely believe that it's a great resource for clinicians (and relevant to the subject of machine differential diagnosis). That is why i added it to the page.

- How do you distinguish between "any external link that exists primarily to promote the website" and a "content-relevant external link"? (Wikipedia:"Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.")

- I have no objection about the placement under external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.83.110 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not the same person who proposed this in May? It doesn't actually change my opinion: It's a link to promote a website. It has no information directly about diagnoses. You can, of course, discuss this on the talk page with the other regular editors of that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is gross misconception in WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE. Bzuk, never wanted to replace References with Bibliography; and I have no interest in combining External links with the Referencing sections. The list that was provided describing our proposals and the information perpetuated though the WP:MOS serves almost no justice. You provide exceptional feedback to a lot of our proposals, but we need to finish the last leg of the rewrite: updating the sections concerning referencing, which has become badly out of date. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of these proposals are bad, and, more importantly, that LAYOUT has absolutely no business contradicting CITE when it comes to methods for organizing citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are they bad? How is Further reading and External links part of WP:CITE? I can understand that Bibliography currently crosses between the two, so that we need to centralize discussion. But please, simply stating your cynicism doesn't help; and it only shows a unreasonably aggressive attitude against change. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "Further reading" and "External links" should be included in CITE. I also don't think they should be included as a subsection of "References", for exactly the same reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited your user-page--- :-) P.S. How do you put a male user template?? I tried. InternetHero (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit my user page. In particular, please do not edit my user page to lower my level of English proficiency from an accurate statement (native speaker) to an inaccurate statement (only a near-native speaker).

Userbox templates that indicate gender can be found at Category:Gender user templates. Generally, they're placed by adding {{User:UBX/male}} or other relevant links. Those that are in the Template namespace (file name starts with "Template:") just use the last part of the file name. For example, to place Template:User Male, you would simply type {{User Male}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I thought you were being modest and your level was number @ 1. I said earlier that you should be a level 4-5, but that was probably taken as an offence. I thought level 5 was the highest. :-) Anyway, can you give a comment here? I don't want this happening again. Thanks for the info. Cheers. InternetHero (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That template defaults to native, which is the highest level (6 not apparently having been implemented in practice). BTW, "User male" doesn't work inside of the Babel template; it needs to be a separate template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The charges at your RFC/U are serious ones, and your defense is rather informal. Do you feel like you understand the accusations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing thats possible is the canvassing part. The other stuff is nonsense. InternetHero (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO your conviction on the canvassing charge is not merely possible: it is certain. It's so obvious that your only hope there is to apologize for the error in your judgment and to promise never to do it again. Leaving the same note on forty (or so) editors' talk pages for the purpose of affecting a content dispute is a clear violation of CANVASS. In fact, I've never seen such an egregious violation, and I've seen editors get in trouble for far, far less.

The other charges are troubling. How, for example, do you explain the vandalism that you did two weeks ago? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your comment about the foreign references. Since you did mention that they could/probably should be translated, I would like to do so. I was wondering, considering the FA criteria etc, what would be the best way to do such? Could I just translate them within the reference note like this:

REFERENCES

1.Croatian John Smith (2007-10-09) "Croatian story". Retrieved on 2008-08-14. Translation - 3rd paragraph: The Croatian national team has played games sine 1909 and had its first international game against Indonesia. This was during the first world war and all further Croatian teams ceased to exist after this game.

Would that be acceptable or would I need to use inline citations (which I have already posted help for because I have absolutely no idea how they work even after reading all the help articles!) Please get back to me ASAP. THANKS! Domiy (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I hope you remember expressing concerns regarding category based WikiProject tagging by bots here. I made this FAQ list which tries to answer some of your concerns. Let me know if you have any questions . Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WhatamIdoing I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing: Why did you make your post to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L? That was over an editorial dispute that originated on WT:MOSNUM. I note that you haven’t participated recently on WT:MOSNUM (at least not for the last 1000 edits). I note that you haven’t been active whatsoever on Wikipedia:Requests for comment (going all the way back to 2005) either.

Notwithstanding your complete and total absence from these two key forums, I note you made this edit to add the word “most” in order to indicate that *most* RfCs are ended after 30 days (via a bot). Yet 30 days and one-and-a-half hours after the previous post on the RfC, you added this comment to it in which you agreed with a summary by Quilbert. Why? How is it that you would know about that RfC and the events on MOSNUM given your absolute inactivity on those forums? I note no entries in the history of your talk page from anyone I recognize—certainly not Quilbert. Have you been corresponding with someone via e-mail on this RfC? Is this sort of behind-the-scenes activity permitted of someone who hopes to be an administrator? If there is any on-the-record correspondence on this issue that can you direct my attention to? Why would you post a comment 30 days and one-and-a-half hours after the previous post and then, on that same day, amend the whole Wikipedia:Requests for comment projects page that *most* RfCs are deleted after 30 days? Greg L (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC about yourself is listed on the usual page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Approved pages_.28users.29, which is how I found it. (Were you unaware that this list exists? May I encourage you to choose one or more of the RfCs languishing there for lack of outside opinion, and give yours?) I didn't happen to look at the dates before endorsing Quilbert's view.

I endorsed Quilbert's views because I agree with the major points there: While you (like many other editors) sometimes make "unfortunate" remarks about other editors or their work, you do seem to be a good editor. I also believe that you also fight for the overall good of Wikipedia (as you see it, of course), and I think it likely that this RfC is primarily motivated by the content dispute instead of your actual behavior -- although the occasional snippy comment certainly opened the door for the RfC, and you might find it strategically useful to be polite.

I know nothing about Quilbert and have had no communication with him/her. As to your accusation that my recent endorsement at your RfC constitutes impermissible activity for "someone who hopes to be an administrator", I hope you will note that I have not only provided you with the true and accurate public source of my information on your RfC, but also that you will read this talk page and its archive more closely, so that you will notice that I have repeatedly and directly refused offers of nomination for adminship and therefore should not be considered "someone who hopes to be an administrator".

As for closing RfCs: It appears that RfC/Us are never closed by the bot. It is not necessary to wait exactly 30 days for a user RfC. You will find the (IMO inadequate) description of normal closing here. An RfC/U can be closed by any uninvolved editor, and I fully expect that a human will not count one belated and unelaborated endorsement as a significant barrier to closing it. Looking at the archive's history, User:Wizardman seems to do most of this. Perhaps you will ask him to archive yours. I state for the record that I do not intend for my belated endorsement to interfere with that process.

My recent change to WP:RFC, by the way, can be explained by a recent conversation on the talk page, which you will find here. Since the bot never closes RfC/Us, surely you will agree with me that only "most" RfCs are closed by the bot after 30 days. (The bot, BTW, appears to close RfCs 30 days after their start, not 30 days after the last comment.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• “…and you might find it strategically useful to be polite.” I see, you are alluding to something? On any RfC or ANI, I never endeavor to be “polite”, I simply try to tell it like it is while being A) civil, B) level-headed, and C) accurate. Now, what I still find to be highly significant is the following:

1. I can find no evidence that you’ve had anything to do with RfCs going back a long ways
2. I can find no evidence that you’ve had any involvement—ever—in the goings-on over at WT:MOSNUM
3. Yet, the very day I thoroughly roast an admin Ckatz at the bottom here, you have a sudden interest in an exceedingly long and tortuously laborious RfC that had languished for a month and then…
4. You take the time to post a comment there 30 days and 1.5 hours after the previous one.

Are you saying this behavior (reading through a month-old, lengthy RfC when your previous interest in RfCs has been slim to none) is purely normal and typical? That the timing of your sudden interest in this most remote of backwater issues is purely coincidental? That you focused on my RfC and none of the others on Wikipedia (?); not before and not since?

Do tell, have you ever heard of Ckatz? Given the entire history of your interests on Wikipedia over the years, your landing on my RfC is about as probable as stumbling across someone hiding deep on a Mandelbrot set. So *just pardon my all over the place* if I’m a bit skeptical of all of this.

…but then, that may be my fault; “my Intelligence Quotient is annoyingly low”  Greg L (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, when looking at whether or not WhatamIdoing regularly participates in RfC, did you take a look through his/her contributions? I see the following: [10] yours [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] in just the past week. WhatamIdoing is a very active RfC contributor. -- Mark Chovain 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed… extraordinarily active starting on the 26th. But I do see she has had periodic activity before then. So I will take back my claim that she has been non-existent on RfCs. Though I can’t prove there is a rat rotting in the ventilation system somewhere, the totality of this smells… *off*. I may be wrong. Like I said, just pardon my all over the place if I’m a bit skeptical of all of this. Accordingly, I’m not going to climb the Reichstag over it. Greg L (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on! Wikipedia is not a conspiracy against you. Those links I've provided show a participation on the 21st, 25th and 26th (in my time zone, which is ahead of most). You say above that you are able to be civil, yet after your claim that you "can find no evidence that [this user] had anything to do with RfCs going back a long ways" has been shown to be complete bunkum (did you even look?), you still won't accept WhatamIdoing's explanation. Just wipe off the humble pie and move on.

If you even looked at the view that s/he endorsed, it is clear that it is saying that the issue is more of a content dispute than an issue with user conduct. If s/he were out to cause you grief, wouldn't they have endorsed a more critical view, or provided one themselves? Sheesh!

If anything smells ripe here, it's your refusal to assume good faith, even in the face of strong supporting evidence. -- Mark Chovain 06:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I figured someone would weigh in here with one of those trite “you know, the whole universe isn’t all organized to conspire against Greg L”-things. Too easy to say. Getting all of Wikipedia organized against Greg L: not possible. Getting a single friend to rip someone you don’t like on Wikipedia: happens all the damed time. You know that (or at least should). And of course I looked at the edit histories. I examined thousands of edits on the revision history of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment and saw one single edit that WhatamIdoing made—to say *most* RfCs are deleted after 30 days. And then (same day) she posts a comment to a tediously long RfC 30 days and 1.5 hours after the previous post. And all this is only hours after I flame an administrator. Interesting. But I see that there are other RfC forums she has weighed in on, so I was wrong on that point. Still, the timing of things and the coincidences here are improbable and smell a bit too *ripe*. The presumption of good faith does not require the suspension of common sense. But I can “prove” nothing so I’m dropping it. I won’t be weighing in here again on this issue again. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a "looking in the wrong place" error. RfC/Us, like all subpages, are not actually part of the parent page and thus edits to them don't appear in the parent page's history. Greg, if you'd be paying a bit of attention, you might have noticed that my endorsement of a view at your RfC/U -- a view that you might recall having decided was actually favorable to you -- didn't turn up in the list, and that might have led you to suspect that no others did, either.

If you can calmly explain why you perceive my decision to endorse a favorable view at your RfC/U as an insult and an attack on you, I'd be happy to hear the story. Do you actually object to having outside editors agree that you're a good editor who was being unfairly targeted in a content dispute at MOSNUM? I see you admit here that you don't value politeness, so you can hardly be offended by someone else saying the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

What fascinating things I find in my inbox this morning:

RfC hanky panky
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:36 PM
From: "Greg L" <REMOVED>Add sender to Contacts
To: "WhatamIdoing" <REMOVED>

I have a awfully good idea why you made your edit when you did and at whose behest and via what channel of communication. If you would like me to go way-formal on this, I’d be perfectly pleased to do so. Go do the right thing please.

---
This e-mail was sent by user "Greg L" on the English Wikipedia to user "WhatamIdoing". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. If this e-mail is objectionable or you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's EmailUser function, please read the following information:

The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

I really must remember to check my e-mail more often. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a note at WP:ACCESSIBILITY. I'm going to be traveling, and the change would need to be reflected on two other pages and included in the monthly update, so we've got to be sure about it (I left some questions), and get it updated elsewhere. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, there seems to have been a misunderstanding about my proposal. Now that I've clarified it, could take another look at the it? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; I did not attend closely enough. Thanks for the clarification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, I would appreciate any comments you might have on the discussion about my new proposal. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your reply. Thanks for your discussion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I have decided to close the discussion on the NOR talk page. If you wish to pursue discussion, we can do so on my user page User:Phenylalanine/NOR policy clarification proposal. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Florentino floro (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You edited Adrenal insufficiency today. I appreciate the change, works better. I would much appreciate if you could take a look at this one too ACTH stimulation test. Thanks Chrisgj (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at it so quick and I was surprised how much needed to be done. You are a very valuable administrator. I saw your recommendations and will work on getting them implemented and I'll let you know later when I've reworked it. My goal is to reach B assessment. Thanks for the C. By the way, I made the chart. Chrisgj (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been challenging Hypopituitary's (article recently reached GA) sources and lack of and though I show some sources don't at all support statements or a statement needs a source to back it up (the statement is way wrong so there won't be any source to find), the administrator overseeing it acts blind or something, calls what I'm saying, rhetoric. I'm wondering, why am I working so hard if the higher ratings are kept even when they are shown they should be taken back. The ratings and much more than that, the effort put into the better written articles, loose meaning if the standards are not upheld. If he's not holding up the standards, I wonder how many other administrators are also making up their own rules? Could there be wide spread corruption of undeserved high ratings being handed out? The wind is out of my sails. If anyone wants to tell me why I should keep putting my time and energy into Wikipedia, I'm listening. Chrisgj (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your most recent note. I'm not sure how you managed to get off on the wrong foot with JFW at Talk:Hypopituitarism; maybe it's just that you weren't feeling well. (I hope you're feeling better now, but if not -- The encyclopedia will be here next week, or next month, so take a break and take care of yourself.) Here's my take on the current issues on that talk page. Let me know if I missed anything critical or if you'd like a semi-official Third Opinion on any specific issue.

Tumors

Certainly your own experience is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. It's possible that you hear from very few people with pituitary tumors simply because they're the ones that least need an advocate or an explanation. ("I feel sick because I have cancer!" is something that most people can basically understand on their own.) It would be interesting to see whether any similar studies exist. It's entirely possible that different countries have different rates, particularly if you're comparing Spain to, say, China or India. The only way to attack this is to present another approximately-as-good source that comes to a different conclusion.

Ignoring WIkipedia for a moment, it sounds like increasing numbers of pituitary apoplexy and other forms of necrotic tissue damage are being identified, so that "most" may drop over time. (See, for example, the first ref in the article, PMID 17467517)

ADH

You (as you may have already realized by now) missed the relevant line in the BMJ ref. It says:

Under normal circumstances ADH release from the posterior pituitary is mainly influenced by changes in plasma osmolality. In cranial DI (Diabetes insipidus), lack of such a response results in large urinary volumes (greater than 3 l/day or 40 ml/kg/day) of low osmolality (less than 300 mOsmol/kg); ACTH deficiency can mask DI clinically, symptoms only becoming apparent on starting steroid replacement.

The last sentence in that paragraph is remarkably close to Hypopituitarism's "ADH deficiency may be masked if there is ACTH deficiency, with symptoms only appearing when cortisol has been replaced."

We might want to steal this ref for ACTH stimulation test: it just provides very basic information, but it's comprehensive review article in a major scientific journal, so it's a gold-plated reference and would lend some extra credibility to the article. I'm not above a bit of window dressing. Perhaps we could use it at Adrenal insufficiency as well.

By the way, if you're not familiar with BugMeNot.com's password database, I can recommend it as a way to avoid registering with a lot of free-but-register websites.

Ratings

As a significant contributor to the article, JFW gets no say in whether it's listed as a Good Article. Under the current scheme, Good Article is supposed to be a better-than-average B class article, except with an extra bit of administrative hassle. The Good Article designation represents the view of a single editor. The only requirements for this editor are that he (or she) (a) be logged in to Wikipedia and (b) not be significantly involved in editing or nominating the article. Don't take it too seriously. It's just one person's opinion.

Panhypopituitarism

On its face, "incomplete panhypopituitarism" is an oxymoron, but it seems to exist. Try googling the quoted phrase "partial panhypopituitarism" and you'll see what I mean. As to why that definition is ref'd to plain hypopituitarism instead of to the definition for panhypopituitarism in the same source, I couldn't begin to guess. A careless error? Misplaced ref? If you want, you can paste the correct link onto the article's talk page and ask JFW to fix it.

With all that out of the way: The reason to keep working at Wikipedia is that it's fun. When it quits being fun, you should quit editing for a while. I know: people tend to talk about their noble plan to educate the readers, and solve all the world's problems, and right great wrongs, and so forth, but you've got to live with your real life. If Wikipedia is screwing up your real life, take a break. Don't make a big announcement -- just take a break.

Wikipedia needs good, knowledgeable people, but there's no deadline. Whether any given article gets fixed this week or next -- or even this year or next -- is not a big deal. Take care of yourself first, and the articles later. If that means a full break, go for it. If it means dumping one page off your list for a while -- dump it. I've done it; it can make a world of difference in my outlook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you find the administrative tools useful in the work you do on Wikipedia? And would you be interested in undergoing a week in the spotlight to obtain them? If so, please let me know. I will need to do a thorough McCain-campaign-style vetting, of course, but barring any ongoing ethics probes or Bridge-To-Nowhere support, I'd be happy to nominate you. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, there are things I can't do, but so far it's not been much a problem.

I am really flattered by your confidence and your kindness, but the RfA process is not really an efficient alternative to solving one small problem a month, and I don't really have enough time and energy to deal with the "week in the spotlight" aspect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way, you must be an admin. Please accept MastCell's offer, and I will happily co-nominate. The "week in the spotlight" requires only a couple of edits. You are not a controversional editor with a particular interest in the Middle East, climate change or George W. Bush. JFW | T@lk 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh WhatamIdoing, there is a little craze over at RfA called being a "net positive" for the project. They don't assess whether you need the tools (most of them, unfortunately there would be some opposes) but rather how you would use them. Even if you only make one administrative edit per month, that's a net positive to this project. Run for adminship! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing...

With respect to this

1. Please don't talk to me like I'm a child, because I will treat you like a child in turn, and I daresay I'm better at it.
2. Please don't be overly hasty in archiving: it's authoritative, presumptuous, and necessarily assumes bad faith on the part of the other participants. not to mention that it sticks out in an ugly way.
3. Please take the time to discuss things. I'm not unreasonable, but there is no requirement (that I know of) to the effect that I have to do exactly what you say the first time you say it.

Thanks. --Ludwigs2 06:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chats on how to apply WP:WEIGHT have recently totaled some 50 k. There are no proposals for improving the policy. While most of this was started by innocent and inexperienced editors (presumably looking for the WP:NPOVN), chatting is not the purpose of the WT:NPOV policy talk page, as everyone except you seems to have agreed recently. Furthermore, your latest note at WT:NPOV there was to ask whether WP:NDA should be changed -- just as if the opinions of the editors at WP:NDA were utterly unimportant to such a proposal -- which is entirely off-topic.

I think that more than 50 k of non-improvement-oriented chat qualifies as taking time to discuss things. I continue to suggest that if you want to chat about how you might or might not apply WP:WEIGHT to even more hypothetical situations, that you do so at a page that is intended for chatting, such as the Village Pump. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not objecting to the suggestion, just the tone and manner in which you delivered it. take it as you will. --Ludwigs2 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the thought, but I was off on a bit of a break recently anyway. I'm just back (one hopes), and I thought "I wonder if Jessica has been up to anything since I've been away?" So, I look up Great Neck School District and find her footprints all over Tigereyes92's edit history. The same vaguely disruptive, clumsy prose style, the same obsessions with minor celebrities, alternative schools and New York state schools in particular. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... at Wikipedia talk:Policy/Procedure, and after we've put V0.7 to bed, I'll be happy to watchlist. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to start an RfC to add yet another discussion to the mix? My brain is seriously going to explode and I'll stop following any of it. MoS issues have taken over my editing time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will take them under advisement. A couple of questions; can you explain to me why a wikipedia site would not be considered a reliable source when many universities now permit it as a cited source? Also, I was wondering about the challenge of attempting to work with systems where the operation, research, and publications are not in English? I used French Wiki, for example because, reading Frennch, I could see that the information was both good and relevant. Given that the type of vehicle or its name that I was describing doesn't even exist in English, and no English language references were available for it, I found myself in a quandary. The vehicle is completely relevant to the article and requires substantiation other than a mere photo, but that seemed to be the only way to do it in this case. To be clear, I'm NOT moaning...I have really taken to this, and enjoy it, and am trying to be clear on rules, because Wikipedia is a little different in terms of style, etc. from most purely academic approaches and styles. I'm trying to get the most out of your advice, and I do value your feedback! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply in your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, and for an absolutely terrific referencing tool that I will use in other places, as well as here!!! I will get the references on the article sorted, and put it back up for re-evaluation later today. Thanks so much for your help! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I'm done, and even I think it's a much better article than what I had original sent for re-evaluation! I've sent the article back up for re-evaluation, and even if it isn't you doing the re-eval, I would really value your opinion. Your guidance on this has been a tremendous help, and greatly appreciated. Please feel free to look over anything else that I put up and provide suggestions. While I am still fairly new at Wikipedia, I have some experience in writing, and am looking forward to this as a 'hobby' of sorts. Eventually I will pick up on the 'Wiki' way of doing things! Cheers!!! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]