User talk:Arcadian/Archive 1

Medicine

Please stop changing pharmacology-related templates to conform to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System, it is much harder to read and serves little purpose.

Also, please verify additions to medical articles before you make changes. For example, you added a stimulant template to the atomoxetine article, however it is NOT a stimulant; in fact the non-stimulant nature of atomoxetine has been its trademark feature since its approval.

--Prisonnet 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response here. --Arcadian 22:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be willing to discuss this issue through mediation. I have established a Mediation page for our dispute.

As I've stated on the dispute page, I am not opposed to a more formal taxonomy, my main concern is making the template as easy to read and understand as possible.

--Prisonnet 23:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were agreed that no more changes would be made until a decision was reached --Prisonnet 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your implication, but please clarify your claim in more detail on the mediation page, and I will be happy to address it there. --Arcadian 04:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: Guy 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkTroll 06:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

About the Mozart article

Thanks for all your work on it, but please do what you can to avoid redirects (e.g. [[symphony|symphonies]] instead of [[symphonies]]? Software doesn't support double redirects well, it's not very aesthetic, takes longer, etc ;) Appreciated! Schissel - bowl listen 19:39, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's just more important that we don't work on it at the same time, and I should have remembered how much work you'd been doing on it. We're both contributing. And to paraphrase Alfred Einstein, the Italian and German form of the symphony at that time differed mainly in the presence or absence of the minuet, and that was no real difference at all — until Mozart and Haydn came around, in his opinion. So that when the Prague sym 38 is also without a minuet it's not that much different in substance from sym 36 or 39( well, 39 - he likes 36 somewhat less. :) More recent musicologists, etc. probably disagree about Mozart and Haydn's total contribution to the form and its development, if not very much, I'm guessing; I have some reading to do. I've had some reading to do for awhile now. Erf.) Schissel - bowl listen 19:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 19:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Brahms list

I do think I see what you were trying to do with the Brahms compositions list by analogy with the list of K._x redirects. I'm not sure it's a great idea (yeah, grump grump grump :) I just think with both cases all those extra redirect pages take up extra space and bandwidth; Wiki is not paper yes but there's only so much space and bandwidth and it has to be paid for ) but I "get" it better than I did; and certainly shouldn't have flown off the handle which I have been doing too much of lately (generally). And your hard work in setting up the list is to be thanked — there's less of a confusing op # or w/o op # problem with Brahms than w Dvorak or Mozart (the main work w/o op #, if I remember, is not - ok, to my mind! - not so much the Hungarian Dances as the A major piano trio, of dubious but probable attribution. In my opinion probable. :) The organ fugues w/o op # — minor in length but not in quality, so I gather, must hear them, then repeatedly :). But that all distracts from the point: thanks! Schissel : bowl listen 11:43, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jacob Wrestling with the Angel

On Jacob Wrestling with the Angel, you wrote that the HBO version of Angels in America referenced the Gustave Doré version of the painting (see right). This is simply not true. When I uploaded the picture, I looked for the one used in the HBO version, and I found it here, but I have no idea who painted it. So instead I uploaded the Dore version. If you can identify that version, I'd be grateful. →Raul654 08:38, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re: The Corporation

Ha! I need to get away, though....I need my life back! lol.

But, yeah--I just went ahead and did the stub because (1) you put the link and (2) Freddie Perren's needed a page for quite some time now. The Jackson 5 article is one of the ones on my watchlist--I'm hoping to get it and/or The Temptations nominated for featured status.

Oh, btw, it's not The Corporation who are the subjects of Standing in the Shadows of Motown--it's The Funk Brothers. They might be mentioned and/or interviewed in there, though--I haven't seen it, so I wouldn't know. --b. Touch 01:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nabokov's Congeries

The following line you wrote seems to have an error

From "Eugene Onegin": A Sample translation from Ch.One, Stanzas I-YIII

should YIII, be VIII? I would change it myself but I don't know what it should be. Number 0 13:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm guessing that the Y should be a V, since that's the only roman numberal it looks like, will try to find out in the mean time. Number 0 08:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re:Romanization of Hebrew

This article on its own is a little confusing. There have been some comments on the talk page to the effect that an introductory sentence making it clear that this is about the Romanisation of Modern Hebrew would be helpful - if that is indeed the case (which isn't clear, so I haven't edited it). Thanks! --VivaEmilyDavies 17:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

magic world championship

Thanks for wikifying it in Fred Kaps and creating this little article. :) Mgm|^(talk) 13:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

My pleasure; I'm happy to help. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of United States Supreme Court cases

Hi. I've looked back at what I wrote when I reverted your revert, and I've realized that what I wrote probably sounded hostile. I didn't mean to do that and I apologize. I've looked over that issue some more and I'm planning to put up some more ideas about it, which I hope you'll look over. Thanks. — Mateo SA | talk 23:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kyoiku kanji

Hi, Arcadian! I put a comment on the discussion page for Kyoiku kanji. I understand you are the main guy there so, please, tell me what you think. I'll be glad if we find an agreement and make some changes together. Ben (talk) 07:14, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kanji, etc.

I really like the new template on these pages! By the way, I'm not an expert on the topic; I just saw the need for the article so I adapted the material from the French Wikipedia the best I could. Anyways, per your questions -- for pages like Roku (kanji), I don't want to express too strong an option, because I didn't work on those pages, but I'd lean towards keeping them in Wikipedia. Other characters (for example, A) have their own pages in Wikipedia. But for your other question, I agree with you that they're inconsistently linked, but I'm not sure what to recommend. One problem is that the page is already so long that it gets warnings when saved, so if more links are included, the problem will only get worse. I know this probably wasn't too helpful of a response, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Thanks for all your hard work on the pages, and I'm sure our paths will cross again soon. --Arcadian 13:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First: I am very happy that you liked the template! Then you made a strong argument by providing the links. There IS a lot of information that can be/should be on this kind of pages. As for the size of the pages, it doesn't matter (and anyway some [[ and ]]make just several kbs more). The size warning is a consideration for people with very slow connections and strange browsers. Most people here (my impression) think it's not really important, in fact many articles are much bigger. So, CU soon, when our paths will cross again. Ben (talk) 14:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Maccie D's

My point was about style, not the number of MacDonalds joints in the world. Everywhere being a figure of speach as well as a precise term meaning everywhere. Darn vague English. Still, no harm done, I've changed my vote anyway.

PS I'm Sunbird, not Sabine. I simply belong to Sabine! Sabine's Sunbird 02:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I've given it a start, and it's the best I can do at the moment. I'll try and do more later, but I had slated today to try and work on seabirds some more. Sabine's Sunbird 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity template

I had a discussion with Nateji77 on this very topic. My proposal was:

This page may be a user page mistakenly created as an article - because Wikipedia is an effort to create an encyclopedia, its content is restricted to materials that are appropriate for an encyclopedia, in which case this page may qualify for deletion as a vanity page. If the creator of this page is a new user, and would like to keep this information posted on Wikipedia, they can create an account (which only requires that you create an Username and password), and we will transfer the information in this article to that account. If you feel the page is notable, please discuss the matter on its talk page.

-- BD2412 ^thimkact 14:44, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DiseaseDisorder infobox

Hi Arcadian, well done for this template. I'm not sure about its use though. It presumes that every disease has causes and diagnostic tests that can be fitted on the space of one or two lines. It would impose a rather reductionist view on the Wikipedia medical articles, something I'd rather avoid. It is also open to all sorts of chaos, as can be seen on auditory processing disorder.

Without criticing you in any way, perhaps you should have discussed the use of the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathology before inserting it into articles of broad scope.

Finally, it has no referencing apparatus, and it therefore very hard to see what the origin is for incidenc/prevalence numbers. This is especially so in cases where there is regional variation (e.g. hepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma in Southeast Asia). JFW | T@lk 23:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Strong's Concordance

Hi Arcadian, I have a question for you about where you got some of your information on the article about Strong's concordance--I have a dispute about the number of words in the concordance. Thanks, Raymondofrish 20:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's one source: [1] (www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/CONINDEX.htm). --Arcadian 00:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arcadian, if you look more carefully on that site, you'll see that not all of those numbers are used. This is what I posted on the article's talk page: The article states that there are 5624 Greek words in the new testament, but I do not believe that this is accurate. Indeed there are 5624 Strong's numbers for the Greek, however, only words with the same root were numbered, so αγαπησεις appears the same as αγαπατε, for example--both are listed as Strong's #25 "αγαπαω". Even disregarding different stems for these words, however, there are not even 5624 root words, as numbers 3203-3302 are simply not used. See http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/STRINDEX.htm. I would love to change this to the proper number, but I'm not sure what it is. Raymondofrish 01:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Concerning template:DiseaseDisorder infobox:

Shall we move it to a shorter name?
In the boxes you placed, each one says "hypoglycemia"
Are we using ICD-9 codes (as you have done) or ICD-10 ones?

JFW | T@lk 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)

I cannot possibly imagine there would be restrictions of referencing to ICD-10 codes. There may be copyright issues on republishing the WHOLE list, which we may need to settle. All large health organisations use ICD-10 for coding, so I shouldn't think there would be a problem in using it.

Strictly speaking, do you think the box needs at the top? I'm open to persuation either way, but many articles have images at the top that would be cluttered with a box. On the other hand: where else would we put it? JFW | T@lk 5 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Well done for adding more infoboxes. Would you mind also adding ICD-10 codes? The URL is here. JFW | T@lk 18:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks so much for placing the excellent InfoBox template on the epilepsy article. You should be aware, however, that many patients with epilepsy are coded via ICD-9 under 784.0, "Other convulsions." Is it possible to insert 784 into the template as well, or will this break it?

I am not familiar with ICD-10 at all, so I am concerned that it may have another convulsion category floating around (although this was one of the things people like me were hoping it would fix) - I'll look into it. --Ikkyu2 22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter

The duplicating of text is not vandalism, it is cause by people copying and pasting their text when they get an edit conflict on a section. As and admin you can help by protecting the page temporarily before fixing it. Have fun. ed g2s • talk 19:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MCOTF

Hi! Glad that you're interested in the MCOTF too! Feel free to tweak the directions on the page or make any suggestions on the talk page. And to nominate any articles as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Song infobox

FYI: Template:Song infobox, which you created, has been nominated for deletion at Templates for deletion by WB. BlankVerse ∅ 14:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your work on the first Wikipedia:Medicine Collaboration of the Week! I'm quite proud of how much the article improved, and I hope we remain an active force, improving medical articles on Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Law firms

Hi, Arcadian. It looks like you may have used outdated info. to edit List of law firms. The current rankings are at [1] (free registration required). I'll try to get to this, but feel free to edit in the meantime. Nelson Ricardo 17:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

TFD - Template:Ludwig van Beethoven

I am looking at resolving this particular item on TFD (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Ludwig_van_Beethoven). Rather than render non-admin summary jugement and interpret the commentary as it stands, I was wondering whether you would like to revise your input or leave it as it stands considering the comments made by User:EldKatt which appear to have been convincing for a couple of other people providing input and were made after you had provided your own input. Thanks for revisiting the TFD entry and considering the finality of your decision. Courtland 05:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biochemistry on WP:MCOTW

Hi! You showed support for Biochemistry, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Symptoms

Please do not put ICD boxes on pages just dealing with a symptom[2]. This creates confusion and adds very little information. JFW | T@lk 06:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please respond to my message before putting the box back? Ataxia is not a diagnosis, and even the ICD itself recognises this. I think that by putting ICD boxes on symptom pages we cause confusion. JFW | T@lk 20:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will be responding on the WikiProject. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new black

No prob. Bold is the new black. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please Advise

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm confused. You're an admin and spend time on the Cleveland pages. A wikipedian keeps moving, or deleting text, I add re the Metroparks on the Cleveland page to the Metro Cleveland page or oblivion. I don't want to get into a revert war, but several reservations are in, or cross, the city, and the Zoo is entirely inside the City. There's no reference to these otherwise, except in briefest passing. Why would references to these be dumped to the Metro page? I've already put these back only to have them dumped without comment. I thought that this space was a collaborative? MARussellPESE 15:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mille Grazie! Excellent advice. I was going to try to start a Metroparks page myself as time permitted.

FYI The Cleveland, Summit, Lorain and Lake Metroparks are each independant political subdivisions of the state, but generally serve Cuyahoga, Summit, Lorain and Lake counties respectively. They have taxing authority and their own sworn police forces (rangers). Each have robust conservation, education and preservation programs. The Cuyahoga Valley National Park is federal, but they all collaborate. Outdoorsy Clevelanders really have it good.

Thanks again, MARussellPESE 19:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Code

You've made a great template, Template:UnitedStatesCode. It uses FindLaw. I'm an attorney and I use and like Findlaw. On the other hand, Cornell's site is a lot cleaner, slicker, and more attractive to the common user & Wikipedian. So I'm looking into trying a Template that uses Cornell's site: Template:USCode. However, I'm not having much luck because I'm not good at this stuff. Can you give me some advice? You can answer here instead of my user page. --Mark Adler 21:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I'll respond at Template talk:UnitedStatesCode instead of here, to make it easier for people to follow the discussion in the future. --Arcadian 20:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme

I've simply removed it. This is rubbish. JFW | T@lk 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you've been working on some short articles on medical conditions. If you find yourself tagging those as stubs, may I suggest using {{med-stub}} instead of {{stub}}, which is deprecated? Even if you don't, stub-sorters will get to them before long, but you could cut out a middleman that way. For more info, see WikiProject Stub sorting and the list of stub types. Cheers! GTBacchus 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle infoboxes

Good job with the muscle infoboxes. These were badly needed. Just to let you know, there was already a page for the scalene muscles, so I redirected Scalenus anterior muscle, Scalenus posterior muscle, and Scalenus medius muscle to that page. I think it makes more sense to talk about the scalene muscles as a group. I gave each scalene muscle its own infobox on the scalene muscles page. —Brim 06:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hormone infobox

There are plenty of systemic mediators whose "hormonicity" is a bit of a grey area. I think you've made fair choices on that template. JFW | t@lk. 16:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hemorrhage merge

Pleased to make your acquaintance. I've finished the merge, per Talk:Intraparenchymal hemorrhage. However, this probably only should be a temporary merge, and once there's some significant content for Intraventricular hemorrhage, we could split them out onto two pages again. I just put a few sentences at Intra-axial_hematoma#Intraventricular_hemorrhages to get the ball rolling, but you might want to take a look at it when you get a chance. --Arcadian 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Good meeting you too. I had a look and added a small amount on intraventricular bleeds. You must have made a redirect from intraventricular hemorrhage, and I did one from intraventricular hematoma. You think we should remove the stub template?

Hey, question: do you know where I can find a page on conventions about the references section? e.g., whether to put the date after the name or at the end, whether to put the name of the article in quotes, whether to capitalize every word in the article name or just the first letter, etc? Anyway, thanks for the contributions. Peace, Delldot 23:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chemotherapy regimens

Well done on that page. I've added VAD. There are probably many more that I've forgotten for the moment. Oh, ECF is epirubicin-cisplatin-fluouracil (used for gastric and oesophageal cancer).

As for the infobox, it would be a good idea to group them according to mechanism of action. JFW | T@lk 08:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency department

I wonder if you would consider raising the profile of medicine on the web by supporting this article at Wikipedia:Article improvement drive. The emergency department is one of the most important ways by which the general public access medical care, yet the article if very basic. Good luck with your medical studies!--File Éireann 19:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== Nice addition in newborn screening== alteripse 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

d-TGA

Hi, wondering if you accidentally left off the end of your sentence in your comment on the d-TGA talk page...it seems to have been prematurely terminated...when it is an what? Thanks bcatt 19:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I was also wondering about the infobox...what is the ICD-9 for d-TGA? Same as l-TGA? bcatt 19:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Thalassemia

I think you should not have been so worried as to leave a note on my talk page. Good edit, btw. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.tan (talk • contribs)

Strep

You seem to be under the impression that Streptococcus pneumoniae and "pneumococcal pneumonia" are synonyms. They aren't. The first is the name of an organism. The second is the name of one of the many types of disease caused by that organism. - Nunh-huh 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Hi Arcadian, I must express my admiration at your unbelievably hard work at inserting infoboxes on so many pages. Your efforts at classification and organisation are doing a great deal to systematise the medical and scientific content on Wikipedia. My compliments. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balance Disorder

Thanks for deleting that bit. I didn't realise it was a student paper. It is good that you are checking that what is being written is reliable. Thanks again. Wallie 19:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CRH

How would you add information on the history of the discovery of CRH? Currently the only reference is to the publication of the structure, but there's nearly 30 years of work before that, including some that was relevant to a Nobel prize award. Rsaffran 11:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the Guillemin review that I cited in Releasing hormone. It will solve your problems. JFW | T@lk 12:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Retina

Hi, Arcadian. I've noticed that you've done a lot of work with templates and info boxes. Would you mind looking at the aforementioned template sometime and make any changes that you think are appropriate? I added Photoreceptor cell, Giant retinal ganglion cells, and Photosensitive ganglion cell to the template, but I was wondering if the template should someone make it clear that Cone cell and Rod cell fall under Photoreceptor cell, and that Giant retinal ganglion cells is a type of Photosensitive ganglion cell which is a type of Ganglion cell. I'm not sure exactly how to address those things, if at all. Edwardian 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Demkina

Hello, again. FYI: Your name has been invoked in a debate in Talk:Natasha Demkina in case you're interested in helping smooth things over. Edwardian 05:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I tried to help, but gave up since it appears to be a long-standing debate between two individuals that has spilled over into Wiki. Oh, well. Edwardian 23:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardian has run away from the matter. If you have any advice on this dispute, it could be used. The whole point of me getting involved in this dispute and bringing it to WP:RFC was specifically so that I could help the matter through the proper process, not get stuck in the middle of something I don't have any familiarity with. TIA, Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Run away" is decidely POV, but I agree with the gist of his suggestion. Edwardian 04:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Alex

Thanks! Really, even if I'm a pathologist, my present, main interest into wiki are horses and nature; I'm working mainly into it.wiki, and I come into en.wiki sometimes (Neuroma was mentioned into the Navicular disease article...). I think, my contributions to en.wiki will not be so many, since (as you can see ;-) ) my English is not so good. Nevertheless, I created two new categories into Commons (Normal Histology and Histopathology) and (when I'll can...) I'll upload there some microscopic pictures from my daily work. Take a look sometimes, just to see there is something useful.

Please: there is a template saying "Please, edit this bad English if you can" into en.wiki? I'll use it often!

--Alex brollo 05:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks for ICD-10 codes

The source I used was the 2003 version that I linked at the bottom of the page, but you're right, that was a typo; I just went back and looked at the page I got that from.

Oh, and you're welcome.--Rmky87 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox gridiron football person template

I don't know if you have it on your watchlist, but I summarized all of the optional and mandatory parameters on Template talk:Infobox gridiron football person ×Meegs 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complications of cataract surgery / Atonic pupil after cataract surgery

Hi, Arcadian. I suspect that Complications of cataract surgery is a recreation of material previously deleted due to copyright violations (i.e. Atonic pupil after cataract surgery, Atonic pupil after cataract surgery/Temp), but I have no way to verify this. Are you able to view the previously deleted articles and let me know how similar they are? I believe the new one may warrant a speedy delete if my suspicions are true. (FYI, the second listing from the top in the following link cites the violation: [3].) Thanks again for your help! - Edwardian 18:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the history for Atonic pupil after cataract surgery, and Complications of cataract surgery has exactly the same content as was speedied as copyvio previously, so I did a speedy delete, since it seems to meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. (However, this is the first time I've done a speedy delete, so if anybody feels I'm acting improperly, just let me know.) --Arcadian 19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it! BTW, I forgot to mention Complications of Cataract Surgery. - Edwardian 19:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got it -- that redirect page is now also deleted. --Arcadian 19:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PML

Hi. Thanks for adding some references to Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy! I expanded them from just PubMed numbers to full citations. However, right now they're not being used specifically for anything in the article itself, and I'd like to know what they actually say. Do you have access to the articles, or just the abstracts? If we're not citing any particular facts, I'm a little nervous about including something like "Sustained recovery of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy after treatment with IL-2" because that's just a single study - it would be misleading to give people the impression that IL-2 is a proven treatment. I have a long list of journal articles which I'm hoping to dig through soon, to make this a solider article. ←Hob 04:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks - I need to read up anyway. The eMedicine article looks really good, so probably we just want to cherry-pick its references and add a few more recent ones. As for HAART making PML worse, it's more specifically IRIS (immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome), an occasional complication of effective HAART, that's the problem; as far as I can tell, there's nothing about this on WP yet except in a disambiguation page, so I guess I'll put that on my list too. ←Hob 04:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox gridiron football person

If you know how, could you modify the template so that all of the identifiers in the left column line-up with the top row of their associated data in the right column? For example, on Jeff Garcia, I'd like college to line-up with Gavilan College. All of my attempts so far have failed, and now that it's deployed, fiddling with it makes me nervous ×Meegs 05:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it looks like I got it. I also made another big change - I remove the fixed-width constraint on the box. I noticed that if one of the parameters was a really long string (like a long birthplace or 5+ probowl years without a break), it would sometimes be fit into the box by breaking-up the left column into multiple lines, making a complete mess. With the new setup, it's up to the user to insert <BR>s to keep the box from growing ridiculously wide. That seems to be how it is with movie, album, and President boxes too, though. ×Meegs 11:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've both been deleting unused optional fields (Image, DraftedYear, DraftedRound, ProBowls, HOF) when they're not used, but I think it'd be better if we always left them in (with nothing after of the equals sign). This came to me when I copied your Marcel Shipp box to Eric Dickerson but forgot to restore the draft info fields. I think most people are like me and start boxes by stealing from another page. It's not that important, I guess. ×Meegs 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(more on User_talk:Meegs#Infobox)

About captions: User_talk:Meegs#Infobox ×Meegs 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out User_talk:Zzyzx11#NFL_logo and User_talk:Meegs#NFL_logo for a reason not to include your tiny logo in the box. ×Meegs 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Hi. Sorry for picking on you out of the blue from admins on at the minute, but could you help me with the pages: Gutslice and Cut Yourself. They're vanity articles written by a member of a non-notable band (under WP:Music) who only started up in June of this year. I have marked them for speedy deletion so many times now, but this boy keeps on removing my deletion notices, incessantly. I am sure that my call is right on its lack of notability, so it would be really helpful if you could call this one... Thanks, and sorry for this strange approach. Iinag 18:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok: thank you for your advice (and your revert on my user page). I apologise for pestering you; I had thought, since the article was self-promotion of a band who listed none of the music guidelines, it would have been a speedy delete. It was not out of a particular impulsion against the band; I just keep my eyes out for self-aggrandisement, and I dislike English bands who try to take advantage of the fact that the plurality of anglophone Wikipedians are probably North American to try to make themselves seem more significant than they actually are. I have listed the articles that I mentioned under AFD; thanks again for your advice. Iinag 20:32 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bifid rib, bifurcated rib, sternum bifidum

Have you studied the phenomenon of bifid rib and/or have you a bifid rib?... More details please ! dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 22:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hospital

Hi Arcadian. I noticed your creation of Template:Hospital. I'd like to suggest that instead of using a blank default value for {{{Founded}}}, the whole row of the table be made conditional on the presence of "Founded" using {{qif}}. I can help if you'd like some assistance. Mike Dillon 18:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I would email you if I could... JFW | T@lk 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section links in templates

I doubt adding links to individual sections of external links in templates is very useful. People will find the sections themselves and most pages have far more useful sections that could be added to the template as well besides clinical and treatment. --WS 22:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.

Thank you. I learn something everyday. Well, on the good days. :) --DocJohnny 22:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science Barnstar

On behalf of the Wikipedia community, Arcadian is hereby awarded The *E=MC²* Barnstar in recognition of your meritorious contributions, and in particular for the insightful creation of the new vaccines template. Ombudsman 07:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newborn Screening

I want to point out inconsistencies in the Newborn Screening article. In particular, please read the third paragrpah on the section "Expanded screening and expanded controversies" and compare:

1) "Cost to detect each case has risen dramatically" vs. "$Millions saved nationally by newborn screening per Delaware DPH" (external link). Also see page 94-95 of the linked ACMG report discussing cost effectiveness of Newborn Screening.

2) "1-in-a-million diseases" vs. "Perhaps one in 5,000 infants will be positive..." found in the Conditions and Disorders section. Look also at the full list of disorders where the rarest individual occurance is 1 in 100,000.

I can see including a section about the actual debate on NBS issues but the paragraph in question reads like pure opinion rather than objective debate. It is certainly not sourced by any facts and is directly contradicted by other sources listed in the remainder of the article.

Please review and consider a re-write. (anon, jan 4)

I agree. Response is here. But if you want to discuss it further, you may want to consider getting an account (see Wikipedia:Why create an account? for details). --Arcadian 01:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the thanks

If you like what I've been doing, you should also give props to User:Meegs and the rest of the gang over at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League.--Mike Selinker 04:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Props not necessary ;) My thoughts on the infobox are at User_talk:Meegs#databasefootball. ×Meegs 18:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and more ×Meegs 19:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newborn Screening

please see new post at Talk:Newborn screening (post by anon Jan 9th).

If you'd like, I'd be happy to talk about your concerns, but it's hard for me to do so while you're still an anon. --Arcadian 23:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Will consider becoming a user. In the meantime, I hope you and Alteripse will read my post and check the sources. I think it is more complete, objective and accurate than the current section on screening controversies. Whether I become a user or not, I believe the current paragraph should be changed. (post by anon Jan 9th)

WikiProject Neuroscience

Arcadian: We've run across each other before. I'm trying to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neuroscience. I know you do work on some neuro related articles. Would you care to join us over there? Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- I've signed up and I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the invitation. --Arcadian 05:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranula

Thank you so much for improving on the layout of the article!! Looks really nice. Oh! and also for the Mucocele article. -Dozenist talk 19:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physician status

Please consider putting the notification on your user page that you are a phycian. If uncomfortable with that, qualify that you are a student. As another physician you should expect to get feedback appropriate to a higher level of sophistication you deserve in comments from other medical professionals. Definately get yourself signed up in the doctor's mess through JFW's user pages. Steve Kd4ttc 22:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IANAD --Arcadian 22:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newborn Screening

No longer anon, would appreciate discussion regarding my proposed change to the Newborn Screening entry.--Pleidies 07:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Problems

JFW says I should address this to you:

While attempting to edit the ribavirin and viramidine articles I've noticed a problem the standard drug template which includes external links for things like CAS number, Pubchem, chemID and so on. The ChemID works fine because it plugs back to the http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/ database. However, the CAS# external links don't work because they attempt to plug the CAS# into the European ECB-ESIS database, and they naturally are not recognized. I think that the nih pubchem database would take CAS numbers, and would work fine if the link attempted that. So this CAS# external link needs to target to the NIH site. Sbharris 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This should really be addressed to Arcadian (talk • contribs), who has modified the template to allow these functionalities. He may have more information on why the ECB-ESIS databank was chosed over Pubchem. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Answered at Template_talk:Drugbox#Issue_with_link. --Arcadian 04:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prosencephalon template

YOU ROCK. I've been working toward a restructuring of the categories for the neuro-related articles. I was very pleased to see your prosencephalon template. If you make such changes, could you announce them to us over in Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience just so we're aware? Awesome job my friend. Are you/have you made others? Semiconscious · talk 01:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!!!! And you made an infobox. This is great! You have no idea how pleased I am right now. :) Semiconscious · talk 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's just a start, but hopefully we've got something to build on now. I've left a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neuroscience#Navigation_template. --Arcadian 01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammation types

There is some thought about reworking the inflammation page. I don't think all the organs of the body with -itis appended is really that useful in the article. How about an article which is a list of all names for various types of inflammation, and a general entry in the inflammation page about how the terminology of medicine uses -itis as a suffix? I mad a comment about this a while ago on the inflammation talk page. Kd4ttc 18:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done (List of types of inflammation) --Arcadian 18:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong illustration

You put in the wrong illustration at pulmonary vein, it shows the aorta. I guess it will be better if you corrected your typo than me removing the box. --Ekko 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching my error. I have identified and uploaded a more appropriate illustration from Gray's Anatomy (specifically, Gray504.png) and used it as a replacement. --Arcadian 16:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphoma & leukemia classification

I posted the following comment on the talk page of the lymphoma article:

Can Arcadian tell me why he/she included the leukemia classification to this lymphoma page? It is not even listed in the leukemia page! I vote for dividing the WHO classification into 4 parts in 4 distinct pages: leukemia, lymphoma, histocytic and mastocytic neoplasms. Only the relevant part of the classification should be listed in each page. Wiki links will lead to the other pages. Remember, Wikipedia is not a technical text, it is meant to be readable by all. Let me know what you think before I delete the non-lymphoma parts. Emmanuelm 14:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at Talk:Lymphoma. --Arcadian 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arcadia for reverting. I like the suggestion of JFW: The full list should be on hematological malignancy, and the lymphoma part can be copied over here. If you have time left, parts of this WHO classification are missing in the corresponding articles (e.g. Leukemia). Emmanuelm 18:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadian, please add email link to your user page

It looks like this : email Arcadian

have you seen...?

Some of us are trying to completely re-organize the neuroscience articles. We'd like to see them put together in small simple to digest categories with nav panes (like what you did at prosencephalon, but smaller groups). Anyway, you might also be interested in limbic system, template:limbic system, category:limbic system, and their respective talk pages. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 17:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superior epigastric vein better image?

You're doing a lot of great work. :) Is there a better image for the SEV? The image you added has the superficial epigastric vein... close but not quite. Nephron 16:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my error. I have removed that image. I tried looking for a more appropriate Gray's Anatomy image, but couldn't find one, so for now I added an external link to an image instead. --Arcadian 17:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gray's

I couldn't let this go any longer: you are kicking ass with those images from Gray's. Fantastic, excellent, superb job my friend. :) S e miconscious • talk 21:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! FYI, if you're interested in anatomy, there's a discussion beginning at Template talk:Arteries you might want to check out. --Arcadian 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox gridiron football person

Take a look at this exploit. Not too bad.

By the way, I haven't had any new ideas about the external links. I made three prototypes at User:Meegs/NFL Player Sandbox, but other than the lower left one (which I think is impossible if all of the links are optional parameters), I'm not crazy about any of them. Any thoughts? ×Meegs 05:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They exploit isn't too bad, but it limits the deep linking to the specific round, which isn't a huge problem, but I'd rather see a field like "DraftNotes" or something like that, which could handle odd cases like the supplemental drafts for the USFL and Bernie Kosar, etc. And I agree with your judgement on the infoboxes - I like the one in the lower left the best. --Arcadian 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think deep linking into the draft pages is a bad idea anyway (even if we had all the rounds of all the drafts) since there's probably more interest in the top of the article than at seeing that yes, indeed, such and such was picked 171st overall.
For Kosar, et al., we could make a something like a "DraftFreeform" parameter that accepts arbitrary text to appear next to the Draft row header, and could be used as a substitute for what we already have. It would have to be used in place of the "DraftedYear" and "DraftedRound" pair, since using both would result in two Draft-headed rows. The downside is the potential for misunderstanding and misuse. If this is what you had in mind, go ahead and implement it, or give me the word.
For the stats links, it's too bad the lower left one is impossible. I advocate sticking with what we've got and trying to encourage one link per box: ESPN / NFL / SI for active players, DF / PFR for retirees.

×Meegs 08:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gluteal Muscles

Hi, I notice you've taken the info-box's out of the Gluteal muscles page. Was that simply because they weren't formatting correctly? Or some other reason? There was a lot of good information in the boxes so it would be good to retain them, if the formatting can be fixed (which I'm sure it can be given a bit of time). Kcordina 13:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at Talk:Gluteal muscles. --Arcadian 15:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eloquent cortex

I found this article while working on dead-end pages. Is has been around for about 6 months. Could you look to see if it is salvageable or worthy of a redirect, otherwise I will put it up on AFD. MNewnham 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a borderline case, but I'd recommend keeping it. You might also want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. The phrase yielded 10,800 Google hits, but I can't find a single good definition of the term online apart from the Wikipedia page (I tried to find external links. But the uses of the term online are consistent with what is described at Eloquent cortex. --Arcadian 12:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

artery info boxes screw the endnotes

Hi,

Your edits are throwing off the endnote references. If you take a close look at the Great saphenous vein (GSV) article - and compare the pre- and post-infobox versions you'll notice the infobox breaks the references -- GSV version with endnotes correct vs. GSV version with endnote numbering broken. I think some more thought has to be put into how the infobox is done... or the references redone. A large number of the artery and vein articles are like that-- 'cause I've done a lot of editting on 'em.

I haven't found a good way to do the references-- where the numbering is automated-- aside from what you see in the GSV article. I find it loathsome to number the references by hand (something I've seen in other articles)-- not least 'cause it seems like a waste of time and second because I think the software ought to be able to do that... like any half decent reference manager in OpenOffice.org and MS-Word.

The problem with numbering the reference by hand is it is a total pain in the butt to insert a reference in the middle of an article... as it necessitates re-numbering half the references.

As for the scheme I've used-- I think the problem is it doesn't match the references to the numbering. If one re-uses a reference the numbering in the text doesn't match the reference number-- see the home hemodialysis article... if you want to know what I mean. I re-use some references in that article and the hyperlinks in the text jump to the first appearance of the reference in the references section. Nephron 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:

Is there a way to make the captions bolded in the infoboxes? I find bolding makes the text a bit easier to read-- such as in the CABG article, which has long descriptive captions. Nephron 21:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the footnote issue: I have removed the template for now. I have no objection to alterations to the template. I have left a more detailed response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. --Arcadian 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arcadian,

I found a solution to the problem. There is a more intelligent way to do references. I fixed the GSV article. The only question now is-- how do you adjust the size of figure? I think the figure is way too big. Nephron 07:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I don't understand why the same problem didn't appear in the article on the femoral vein. This version of the femoral vein article was basically the same as the GSV article-- yet didn't have the same problem. Strange. Nephron 08:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the research. There is an optional "Width" parameter that can be used to override the default. I have applied it to Great saphenous vein, choosing '80' for now, but feel free to adjust it as you desire. --Arcadian 13:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy Infoboxes - image sizes

re picture added to Submandibular gland, is there a way within infoboxes to adjust the size of the image used? Image:Gray602.png clearly should not be used at its full size, but the current sizing seems too small. I tried Gray602.png|300px| but I can't get this to work in an infoboxDavid Ruben ^Talk 15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. --Arcadian 15:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Thank-you

I appreciate your having taken the time to recognize my efforts, Arcadian.
Drphilharmonic 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comma Johanneum

Salve!

I've been working on the Comma Johanneum article, and I noticed that a while back you added a "see also" reference to Isaac Newton's An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. I have incorporated some of that article's information into the treatment of the Comma, and I dug around the website for the Newton manuscript collection for more. The Comma article isn't nearly "comprehensive" yet, and I'm sure in the factor-of-three expansion I added at least a few sentences which just don't make sense. If you'd like to re-read the page as it stands now, I'd be grateful.

Best wishes, Anville 08:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work. Much better than it was a week ago. You may want to consider submitting it for peer review. There could be a featured article in there. A quibble: leaving his approval in a sense "formal" -- this phrase confused me, since the word 'formal' seemed to emphasize Leo's approval, while the prior phrase de-emphasized it. Also, the phrase Following a publication practice still seen today seems unnecessary. --Arcadian 12:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree on the "formal" bit; I don't know the best way to convey what in forma specifica connotes. Perhaps "token" would be the better word. I shall hop on over and make a couple edits to reflect your points. Best, Anville 15:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After making said changes, I posted the article to peer review. Anville 16:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting tubule

Hello. I noticed that you are a participant in the WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. The article Connecting tubule has been nominated for deletion. As this is an anatomical subject I was hoping to get somebody within the project to adopt the article for expansion. I could find no way to add the article to this project. I hope you or your fellow particpants would consider adopting this article to love. James084 22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking pretty good now, thanks to User:Diberri's excellent contributions.. --Arcadian 20:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy stubs

Thanks for finding and tagging additional human anatomy stubs. May I suggest (since you are finding so many) that you take a look at the sub-categories of {{anatomy-stub}}, such as {{circulatory-stub}} which is used for articles about the circulatory system and {{neuroscience-stub}} which is used for articles about the anatomy as well as the physiology of the nervous system. These additional sub-category stubs were created to make it easier to find and sort stub articles so that {{anatomy-stub}} would not contain such a huge collection of varied articles. --EncycloPetey 05:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I will try. --Arcadian 20:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advice

Edward_Jenner in order to be a good article it needs references - I've not yet come to grips with handling refence within WP, there are some inline ones, but I wonder if you would offer advice or a demonstration, please? I think it owuld be nice if the article was at least a GA at 14th May whcih is the anniversary. By all means point me at something to read Midgley 12:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start is Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_cite_sources. Unfortunately, there are still a few different competing formats, so I can't tell you which one to use. --Arcadian 20:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strep throat image

I see you moved the image into the infobox. That's fine, but I'm just wondering ...

I'm new at adding images, so looked at several medical pages to find examples of accepted format. In most cases where an image is at the top of the page, it's just after the infobox rather than inside it. Could you point me in the direction of guidelines about this?

Also, is it possible to retain the thumbnail indicator when the image is inside the infobox? HMD 18:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tricky question, but I'll answer the best I can. For almost every other type of page on Wikipedia (movies, albums, countries, medicines, world leaders, chemicals, etc.) the first image appears within the infobox, not after it. However, the infobox for diseases is relatively new and undeveloped compared to these other categories. The template only dates back to June 5 2005, and the image field ony dates back to January 6 2006. Most of the discussions about it in the past have taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine and Template talk:Infobox Disease. So for the general case of how it should be handled, I'd recommend that you post a message there. For your specific case of strep throat, I have moved the image back out of the infobox to your original location. --Arcadian 20:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the infomative reply -- I wasn't really questioning your putting the image in the infobox; appearance-wise I don't think it makes much difference. It is better, though, I think, to have the thumbnail indicator -- Is it possible to have that inside the infobox? HMD 20:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a thumbnail indicator in the infobox (diff, example of use). --Arcadian 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be dense -- I still don't see the thumbnail indicator in your example of use. Could you just go ahead and put the image with thumbnail indicator inside the infobox. That way I'll be able to see how it works. HMD 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I don't really understand what you are asking for. I have reverted the change I made to Template:Infobox Disease, so everything is exactly back to the way you originally had it. Instead of discussing it here, I recommend that you post your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine or Template talk:Infobox Disease. I don't think I can provide you with what you are looking for, but it is more likely that you can find someone else who can if you post at one of those places. --Arcadian 21:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm asking is that you revert back to the first change you made -- putting the image inside the infobox -- with the thumbnail indicator included, if that's possible. HMD 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the image back into the infobox. I don't know how to provide the thumbnail indicator you are looking for. Please direct further requests to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine or Template talk:Infobox Disease, or Talk:Strep throat rather than here, to make it easier for future editors to follow these discussions. --Arcadian 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That you very much for your article cleanups and other contributions. They are noticed and appreciated!

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-02 23:20Z

You're welcome. Happy to be of service. --Arcadian 13:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICD-10

Dear Colleague,

WHO has given permission to present ICD-10 in wikipedia. However no publisher may change content or structure of the classifcation. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ICD-10_codes> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ICD-10_codes shows the basic structure of ICD-10 and was set to be able to access the full ICD through links. Unfortunately you have used a wrong chapter numbering (A-Z instead of roman numbering) changing the structure. Chapters in several cases do not correspond to the first character of the code. I was able to correct the titles of the chapters in part but the links have still to be reset.

Kind regards,

Robert Jakob

Medical Officer Classifications and Terminologies (CAT) Department of Measurement and Health Information Systems (MHI) Evidence and Information for Policy (EIP) World Health Organization 20, Avenue Appia 1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland web: <http://www.who.int/classifications>

I have renamed the pages listed at List of ICD-10 codes, so they now use the roman numerals. --Arcadian 10:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox gridiron football person

Since you're the creator of said infobox, I'm going to ask you this question:

How do we change the pixel size of the image in question in the infobox? Check out Bryan Barker. The image hurts my eyes. SushiGeek 00:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an optional "ImageWidth" field. The default is 200 when it is omitted. As an example, I set the width in Bryan Barker to 150. It still doesn't look perfect, but it's better. (The width of the source image is 75, so by using a multiple of 75, it looks a little better than it did before.) Hope this helps. --Arcadian 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I changed it to 85, and it looks even better. SushiGeek 01:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the DiseaseDisorder infobox

I would appreciate some tips on how to use the DiseaseDisorder infobox. Is there a tutorial somewhere? I tried to add the box to Infantile cortical hyperostosis, but the codes do not seem to link correctly. Thanks! --Rewster 07:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a first draft of a tutorial and put it at Template:Infobox_Disease, but if you have any further questions or suggestions, don't hesitate to ask. --Arcadian 23:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting that tutorial together! It will be very helpful. --Rewster 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best way to complete the infobox when an article, such as Nemaline myopathy, has three OMIM and three DBB references? (They list three types: autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, and Amish.) I also found two eMedicine articles; can I link to both in the box? Or might it be better to put them in an External links section? Regards, Rewster 19:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've populated Nemaline myopathy as an example of how to do this, and added an explanation at Template:Infobox_Disease. --Arcadian 21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting out the metacarpals -- sounds painful!

Good work on the metacarpal articles. It's not a thrilling job parsing that stuff out, but it's definitely appreciated. Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 00:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for all your categorizing, organizing, and infoboxing. Not the most glamorous work, but amazingly helpful! Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I feel honoured to get a Barnstar-- especially from you. At times, it seems you're everywhere-- meticulously adding ICD-10 codes, infoboxes and templates. Nephron 02:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

all that anatomy!

you must know a lot about anatomy. i've watched your new pages stuff, and you've done a lot of work. nice job. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

I was wondering if you might take a look at this link. Is it possible for an adminstrator to single-handedly remove the 38 redirect pages that are in place only to cover spelling errors or must it go to a vote? Thanks! -AED 06:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the policy is for extraneous redirects, so I'd rather it went to a vote, so there was a paper trail. (But if you can point me to a relevant policy, then I'd be happy to perform the necessary deletions. I'm not always up-to-date on policy, so I tend to be conservative about things like that.) --Arcadian 11:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I understand your concerns. I don't forsee any huge problem with letting them stay, but I may take them to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion eventually. -AED 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again! Vision loss currently redirects to Visual loss, but I would like to see it changed so Visual loss redirects to Vision loss. ("Vision loss" gets 2,800,000 hits on Google, whereas "Visual loss" only gets 508,000 hits.) This seems to be an uncontroversial move per Wikipedia:Requested moves and Help:Moving a page. Would you be willing to make this move for me? Thanks again! -AED 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overlooked this request the first time around. But it looks like Jfdwolff was able to take care of it. --Arcadian 11:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wood's glass & Wood's lamp

I relaise of course that the two subjects aren't the same (as I hope the merged article indicated), but as they're related it's surely better to have one decent article than two very short ones that are unlikely to be expanded? Redirects ensure that readers find what they're looking for. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Wood's lamp. --Arcadian 12:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award for you

I award you this barnstar for your outstanding work on the embryology template. Grouping many articles into an easily understood navigation pane ensures that all readers have access to the whole picture. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 12:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually prefer to merge small articles into a larger article (like I originally did with germ layers). However, you did such a great job with the navigation pane that I see no reason to undo the split. Great job!

Thank you so much! --Arcadian 11:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What do you think of Soiling? You did some work on Encopresis so maybe you could weigh in? I am relatively new and was trying to monitor new pages & found this one. Also if you have any advice for how you would have approached the same article that would be appreciated! Thanks, laurap414 23:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a quality article, but there are some good diagrams there that could be recycled into Encopresis or Fecal incontinence. --Arcadian 11:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll User

Hey I just went to any administrator in the list. But after reverting a vandalism edit from User:Puddlepants (User_talk:Puddlepants), I noticed looking through their contributions here. They have been nothing but vandalism, in fact not one of those edits appears to be useful. I was wondering if this user is blocked, or should be, he (or she) has hardly even been warned for the damage caused. Just hoped to help. Kyle sb 07:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct -- Puddlepants is a vandal, but a slow one (no edits in the last 48 hours, and very few edits before then.) I tend to be very conservative with blocks, reserving them for cases where a user has ignored several warnings, and is moving quickly. So for now I've just put another warning on his page. --Arcadian 11:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whaleto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute

I recall that you offered advice to John on his talk page on a couple of occasions. Whether you regard it as covering the current area of this RFC I'm uncertain. If you do, I wonder if you might sign the RFC, or comment on it? Midgley 18:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“Medicine” on MCOTW

After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavities

Keep it up on the cavities work! :) Vint 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Arcadian 01:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

Template for medical conditions

I didn't feel bold enough to make the edits. I should have made some, but quite a few were posted for discussion. I'm no medic and haven't been involved in enough "medical condition" articles to feel that I could impose my POV. Writing medical articles for Wikipedia is a challenge - the audience is so varied. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 17:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Even though you're not a medic, it's still valuable to have your input on medical pages. But if you're not comfortable making the edits, then of course the talk page is also fine. --Arcadian 11:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC in Ophthalmology

Would you mind taking a look at my note regarding Patricia Bath under the "Famous Ophthalmologists" section in Talk:Ophthalmology? Thanks! -AED 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one. I'd lean towards a keep, but a more sustainable solution might be to split it off into a new page, History of ophthalmology. Focus upon the advances rather than the personalities (though giving credit to the people involved), and arrange the achievements chronologically. Then, instead of trying to define some arbitrary criteria for inclusion on an unordered list, you could rely upon general principles of proportion to determine what merited inclusion. --Arcadian 11:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crigler-Najjar syndrome

If you are interested, I edited the article on Crigler-Najjar syndrome you started, maybe you care to give some feedback? --Steven Fruitsmaak 00:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have done wonderful work, especially for someone so new to Wikipedia. I'd recommend taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions for ideas on how to structure headings, but overall, you are doing a great job. Probably the most important feedback I'd have is about the references. I tend to only use the "References" header when a link ties to a specific assertion in the article, and to otherwise use "External links". A good overview of using footnotes is available at Wikipedia:Footnotes. Thanks again for your hard work. --Arcadian 11:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette syndrome

Thanks for fixing the box! Sandy 00:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Pelvic floor and Pelvic diaphragm

Hi there. I recently put a merge tag on Pelvic floor and Pelvic diaphragm. I then thought to check the article histories and noticed that you only recently (April) created the Pelvic diaphragm article as a stub from Gray's Anatomy, so I thought I'd drop you a note to see if you would have the expertise to merge them. Thanks. Carcharoth 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MeSH E

You turned this into a redirect to a nonexistent page. Instead of deleting it, I have reverted to the version with content. I wanted to ask you first what purpose this page serves and whether this page should be deleted. Please answer on my talk page. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 21:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody deleted the page anyway; if you need it back, I can undelete it for you or move it to your userspace. Kusma (討論) 22:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was an error on my part, and I have no objection to its deletion. --Arcadian 22:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure :-) Kusma (討論) 22:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICD10 Tempate

The ICD10 template links now get redirected to a 'New Version' page on the WHO website.
I think addresses like this ;
http://www3.who.int/icd/vol1htm2003/ga00.htm#a03
Change to
http://www3.who.int/icd/currentversion/ga00.htm#a03
I am a newbie when it comes to Wikipedia , I didn't want to risk messing the template, so any help would be great. GameKeeper 21:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch! I have updated the template. --Arcadian 02:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinea versicolor

I note from the edit-history that you previous contributed significantly to Tinea versicolor. I have grouped together the topical treatments as there is no distinction, in the UK, as to which agents may be obtained over-the counter or on prescription. I have previously summarised advice obtained from the UK Institue of Dermatology on treatment into a protocol factsheet, however wikipedia policy is not to add links to ones own website (but other editors may of course). - Please have a look at the Talk:Tinea versicolor page and comment as appropriate. Thank you :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protein

Hi Arcadian, sorry I haven't had time to look at the template. I had a look at your recent updates and they look good, even if they strongly resemble Template:Drugbox =). Cheers. -Techelf 12:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Bible

Template:Bible has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the deletion -- it looks like it has been effectively superseded. --Arcadian 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonometry

Hi, Arcadian. I was wondering if you might put Tonometry on your watchlist for a short time. In short, 1) User:^DevelopAll recently added an external link for, and information about, a particular kind of tonometer (a Diaton transpalpebral tonometer whose webpage notes, "Powered by ^DevelopAll"), 2) another contributer added some information regarding the drawbacks about the instrument, 3) I reworded and formatted both contributions to fit Wiki guidelines on verifiability and NPOV, and 4) User:^DevelopAll has removed the "negative" information three times without comment. I suspect that User:^DevelopAll and User:69.22.199.91 might be one and the same in that User:69.22.199.91 has attempted to reinsert the linkspam that is ""Powered by ^DevelopAll". Thanks! -AED 22:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to my watchlist. --Arcadian 02:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomina Anatomica

Hi, Arcadian.

The Nomina Anatomica sometimes does give 2 names. Then there's no consensus. If you want to find out which name is preferred, you need to go to journals. Often the name given in anatomy textbooks is different to the name in surgical textbooks, and so on. It's not easy!

I would use the paper-based versions of the NA, which are in my university's library. I don't know of any online version that is reliable enough to be used as a source for wikipedia. - Richardcavell 23:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminologia Anatomica (TA) has replaced the NA, and preference (via committee vote) is the first word listed (in Latin). I got a hard copy of TA (and English translations) off Amazon, but the online medical dictionary at Mercksource (Dorland's I think) has them for free. --Mauvila 05:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snomed/ICD10

Hi, Arcadian.

I wanted to add the SNOMED classification to a page (the page on Gilbert's disease) and also to cause the ICD10 to link out the way the ICD9 does ... but couldn't find a way to do either. Is either possible?

Thanks,

Brian 17:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Sorry, I don't think I can help with the SNOMED, but I did add the ICD10 link to Gilbert's disease. --Arcadian 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

Here's a great external viewer for SNOMED http://gena.ontology.ims.u-tokyo.ac.jp:8081/mov/cgi-bin/movOntologyView.php?type=UMLS&target=C0017551&mode=search That particular link is for Gilbert's disease C0017551 in the SNOMED classification - which appears to be superceding ICD9 and ICD10. I was just trying to add in SNOMED and C0017551 into the Infobox_disease ...nice job on you update by the way (and educational to me as a reference on how to do it...I'm still a newbie here).

Thanks again,

Brian 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

We're glad to have you here! Thanks for the URL -- I was not familiar with that website. Currently, SNOMED is not one of the parameters available for the disease infobox. If you believe it should be added, leave a comment at Template talk:Infobox Disease, and we can discuss it in a forum with greater public visibility. --Arcadian 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I just did that (added a request for SNOMED in the template on the Template talk:Infobox Disease page). I also noticed that the external link I'd added wasn't necessary since it was in the infobox. Sorry for the revert, I thought it had been deleted accidently.

Thanks

Brian 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Gilbert's syndrome infobox now pictures Bilirubin

Please see my remarks on talk:Gilbert's syndrome#Disagreement with picture of Bilirubin molecule. Heathhunnicutt 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals

Wouldn't it be better for the article name to be diamine rather than diamines? That way, one could refer to a [[diamine]], or to multiple [[diamine]]s. You see? DS 20:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a close distinction there -- "diamine" by itself refers to a specific molecule, while "diamines" is refering to a family of molecules. But if want to reword the article or rename it, I won't object. --Arcadian 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Arcadian, thank you for the compliment. I just hope my contributions can be helpful. Fvasconcellos 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articular capsules and joint capsule

Referring to you as creator of Articular capsules - anatomy is not really my subj area: I suggest that Articular capsules should perhaps be merged into Joint capsule. They seem to be the same thing and I suspect "joint" is a more easily recognised term than "articular". I'm puzzled about the plural in the first title but that won't be an issue if it's merged into joint capsule. regards Nurg 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that proposal. --Arcadian 01:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation for Electron Transport Chain

Howdy! I'm not sure if you're aware, but User:Btarski filed a case with the Mediation Cabal regarding the article split at Electron Transport Chain. I took the case. I am going to spend a few hours reviewing the situation, and then I will post to the article talk page requesting comments, and we'll hammer out a compromise. Sound good? In the mean time, let me know if there is anything additional I should know. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I received a hostile and sarcastic email from Btarski on March 18th expressing his objections to my restoration of the diagram he deleted, so I'm happy to leave this in the hands of a mediator. If you want or need a copy of his email, let me know, but for the most part I'd prefer to let the edit history and talk page speak for themselves. I do want to point out though, that contrary to Btarski's claims, I do not believe I deleted any content when I split the 36 kilobyte article, so this may at least in part be due to a misunderstanding from a user relatively new to the editing process. If I am wrong and I did inadvertently delete content, I of course would have no objection to correcting that error. I am an eventualist, but I certainly concede that the beginnings and endings of the new articles became more awkward immediately after the split. --Arcadian 02:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Btarski has responded also, so I feel confident that this can be resolved quickly. He has requested to discuss some things offline, so I have invited him to e-mail me. Shortly, I will post a summary of the issue as I understand it to the article talk page and we can get things rolling. Take care --Aguerriero (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Btarski has responded to the compromise offer with a counter-offer. Please review and comment. Also, I have contacted Btarski and asked that he continue to take every opportunity to be civil and assume good faith in this matter. Aguerriero (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side note - how do you think the mediation went? Are you happy with the result, and with my methods? This was my first case, and even though non-admins are discouraged from taking cases involving admins, I decided to be bold. Any feedback you have would be appreciated. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your execution was quite skilled. --Arcadian 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch

Please watch amygdala. Thank you. Koalabyte 02:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi, Arcadian. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Tobinick and tell me if I'm way off base on this one. Thanks! -AED 00:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in the field, but it looks like a keep to me. --Arcadian 02:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plural article names

Recently, you seem to have been creating many articles with plural names, e.g. Palatal muscles. Please read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns; Wikipedia policy suggests that articles should usually have singular names. In the case of these articles in particular, which seem to be list-like, the article should either be named Palatal muscle (as a disambiguation page), or List of palatal muscles (as a list). You can always create a redirect from the plural page. Thank you. --ais523 13:27, 7 July 2006 (U T C)

Articles on groups of things are exceptions to the titles-are-always-singular rule. Since the article discusses the various muscles of the palate, Palatal muscles is a perfectly valid title (although I tend to prefer Muscles of the palate). --David Iberri (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has sent for the cabal!

A Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal request in which you are a participant has had an update! Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-09 Pharmacology Templates for more information and discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Template:Oral hypoglycemics

Arcadian, I have recently merged glyburide into glibenclamide, as glibenclamide is the INN. I intend to change Template:Oral hypoglycemics to reflect this, namely by changing {01-glyburide} to {01-glibenclamide (glyburide)}. If you object to this change, please let me know. Thank you, Fvasconcellos 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. And thanks again for adding all those images and infobox updates over the last few weeks. --Arcadian 01:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The elbow joint

Good work on splitting up the elbow joint article. You've split out some of the text into the articles entitled ulnar collateral ligament and radial collateral ligament. Please beware that other joints have ligaments which may also have these names. IIRC the condition called Gamekeeper's Thumb is a traumatic rupture of the ulnar collateral ligament of the thumb. Please consider retitling the articles "Ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow" and so on. Preacherdoc 14:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Preacherdoc[reply]

Thank you for your careful eye. I've turned Ulnar collateral ligament and Radial collateral ligament into disambiguation pages, and I've created the complimentary pages for the similarly-named ligaments of the wrist. For now I've used the parenthesis style of disambiguation, as in Ulnar collateral ligament (elbow), but if you want to rename the pages to something like Ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow, I would have no objection. --Arcadian 23:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine the way you've done it. Preacherdoc 07:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Preacherdoc.[reply]

Anatomy templates

Great job with Gray's Anatomy port. I think the current set of anatomy templates might could use a division, so that the text (attachments, branches of arteries, etc.) isn't hiding in the shadow of the Gray's diagram in the margin. I think diagrams are great in their current location, but maybe the crucial info should assume a more front-and-center position in the article. Of course, this is easy for me to say because I have no idea how to do wiki templates. --Mauvila 05:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to repay the compliment -- I appreciate the work you've done on the anatomy articles lately. Per changing the template format -- let's discuss this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine (let me know which one), so other users can more easily contribute to the discussion. I'm reluctant to implement large changes rapidly, because so many articles are affected, but I am very open to incremental improvement. --Arcadian 17:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will use the Anatomy project. --Mauvila 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hey there - you may remember me from the mediation on Electron Transport Chain. I hope all is going well there?

I am mediating another case right now, on the article Rainbow Gathering. Another mediator recommended that I ask for help from an admin on something, so I am asking you. The mediation has been rough, mostly due to anon edit wars on both the article and talk page, which include accusations of vandalism and other nastiness. Would you be willing to semi-protect the page during the mediation, so I can sort out and track who is doing what? If not, I understand - can't hurt to ask, right? Thanks --Aguerriero (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Arcadian 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your thanks

You're welcome :) I'm just curious... How did you notice? Aristiana 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your edits were on my watchlist, so I could see the pattern. --Arcadian 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neuroendorince tumors

Sure thing, it was a pleasure to consolidate everything I've learned on the topic.

Yes, I'll convert to better footnote formatting slowly. Meanwhile, at least those who are willing to dig can find out why I said what I said.

A question for you: in an article like this it seems like I could end up with double-square-brackets around half the words -- is there a Wikipedia guideline on that (excess / restraint)?

TH 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. But I wouldn't worry too much about overlinking at neuroendocrine tumors -- the article could support many more before it became distracting. --Arcadian 19:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)

What did you mean by: "added stub content just to get the ball rolling"?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear and more international in the language I used in my edit. "Get the ball rolling" is an American idiom, drawing an analogy between a process and static friction. It refers to the idea that once something is begun, it becomes easier to make further forward progress. --Arcadian 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself [4]

Other Admins contacted [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply

GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [10]

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. SixWallRoom 04:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request addition of ICD-10 codes

Could you please add ICD-10 codes for Hypertropia & hypotropia, along with some other related diagnoses on the page. Thanks a bunch!, in advance :-) EyeMD 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - done. --Arcadian 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton :-) BTW, Your talk page is frankly, quite huge and needs archival. EyeMD 03:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatopancreatic ampulla

Hi Arcadian, sorry to bug you. Is there a convention on naming in anatomy? Was wondering specifically wrt Hepatopancreatic ampulla. I do therapeutic endoscopy, and I've never heard the ampulla of Vater termed the hepatopancreatic ampulla. Realize that eponyms are falling out of favour, but this is one that is very commonly used. Pubmed shows all relevant citations referring to ampulla of Vater. I'm moving the entry, but please let me know if there's something I missed. Regards -- Samir धर्म 07:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to a_32/12127886 at Dorland's Medical Dictionary, the Terminologia Anatomica (TA) is "ampulla hepatopancreatica", and I believe the standard is to anglicize the TA. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy isn't too active (though it is more active than it was a few months ago), but it might be a good idea to raise the issue there to get more feedback. --Arcadian 07:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official TA names are all in Latin, but for the quasi-official names (i.e. those listed in TA English reference), some names are anglicized and some aren't (e.g. flexor digiti minimi brevis). I looked it up, and the quasi-official name is 'hepatopancreatic ampulla', but also listed as official but "less preferred" was the biliaropancreatic ampulla. The trend is to move away from eponyms, and medical school texts have virtually eliminated them from texts. For that reason, Wikipedia should probably do so as well, but continue to mention the eponyms as synonyms. Mauvila 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Urologicals

Arcadian, I've taken the liberty of italicizing Pygeum africanum and Serenoa repens on the template. Hope you don't mind. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 13:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - thanks. --Arcadian 17:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information

May you please protect Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information there is a edit war going on (72.177.68.38 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Anatomy stubs etc.

Is there any way we can get a list of stubs and templates to post on the anatomy project? It seems that the articles are under a whole variety of different stubs. Mauvila 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levonorgestrel

It appears Ayacop has beat me to it. I've added the image to the levonorgestrel page. Fvasconcellos 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Arcadian 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protein Infobox Template

The page Template:Protein, doesn't show all the parameters (such as molecular weight). Wouldn't it be better to have all the parameters shown on the front page, rather than everyone who wants to use it, having to look for examples on another page? --Username132 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could support adding new fields. I could see some complexities, though, so I'd recommend that you post a message about your proposal at Template talk:Protein, and then request comment at a couple places (like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Style guidelines.) Then if no one objects after a week or so, go ahead and add the field. (If you're not sure how to add the field to the template, I'd be happy to help.) You may also want to get feedback from User talk:Diberri. I rely upon his excellent tool to help create these infoboxes. It probably isn't realistic to expect that a new molecular weight field would be automatically populated by that tool, but perhaps he could add lines with unpopulated values to support the new field(s) you're proposing. --Arcadian 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names in anatomy

You aware of any official source for naming?

International Federation of Associations of Anatomists looked promising-- but it doesn't seem they have their catalogue online. I ask 'cause someone renamed 'peroneal artery' to 'fibular artery' --something I disagree with for a number of reasons (see Talk:Fibular_artery). AFAIK, fibular is not the prefered name-- but I wondered if there was some sort of "official" guide that this anonymous person knows about and I am unaware of. Any thoughts? Nephron T|C 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it in accordance with the preferred name of the Terminologia Anatomica (TA), which is the joint IFAA/FCAT (1998) standard for naming. And according to IFAA, fibular IS the preferred name and for good reason. While they say that peroneal is acceptable, it is not the preferred term. Peroneal is the Greek derived version of fibular (a Latin term). They used to call the fibula by its Greek version perone. But eventually, the Latin term fibula became the standard (tibia is also Latin). So fibularis, fibular artery are consistent with the bone, and thus the terms won the committee vote. But there is also a very practical reason for fibular artery, and that is because peroneal artery sounds very much like perineal artery, and this can lead to confusion in a clinical setting. So most modern textbooks eschew the peroneus designation all together. The English version of the TA publication can be purchased from Amazon, but I think Mercksource-Dorland's has the Latin TA versions. Mauvila 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Response at Talk:Fibular artery~~ I need to do a little more research before responding, but I wanted to let you know I got your message. --Arcadian 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chlormethiazole

Arcadian, I wonder if you could use your admin status to move chlormethiazole to clomethiazole, as the latter is the INN. Clomethiazole is presently a redirect to chlormethiazole, so I can't move it myself. PS: If this is an "illegal" bypass of WP:RQM, just tell me and I'll ask there, though I'd be eternally grateful if you could do it... :) Fvasconcellos 19:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it for you. Just created that redirect today :-) As a nice side-effect of the move, it now has an image! --WS 20:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was offline for most of yesterday. Thanks for taking care of that -- looks good. (The ATC was missing, so I added it.) --Arcadian 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changyong zibiao

Thank you for your encouragement. =) -- ran (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article

Cell nucleus

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject's current Collaboration of the Month article is cell nucleus.

Please help to improve this article to featured article status.

– Clockwork Soul 22:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MED

Hi,

The main page of WikiProject Medicine has been redesigned. Comments are welcome, and please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

want to expand transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

Hello Arcadian, Would like to expand the transmissible spongiform encephalopahies. Not sure exactly how yet but would like for you to be part of the dialogue. You posted to the Neurological Disorders page. Thanks Mike Hooten concord, NC mlhooten(at)gmail.com

I'd encourage you to (1) get an account, and then (2) be bold in improving Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. If you have any more specific questions, of course I'd be happy to answer (though you may also want to ask at Talk:Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine.) --Arcadian 05:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatic portal vein

Are you one of the Wikigods who can move articles to those that have more than a redirect? If so, could you move portal vein to hepatic portal vein so the concept of a portal vein can be addressed separately from its main instance? If you aren't one of these Wikigods, do you know any? Mauvila 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. --Arcadian 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thank you

A quick thank you for originating the Leopard syndrome article. As you can see I have worked hard on the expansion of it, and certainly appreciate the fact that it was here. Strange but true coincidence, the day you initiated the article is my birthday! I do happen to have been diagnosed with the condition in 1987 with the condition, my father was retro-diagnosed from me, and my daughter recieved a confirmed diagnosis from the test they have now.UnseemlyWeasel 20:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that my contribution was of use, and pleased that you've done so much to improve the article. Congratulations on getting the article promoted. --Arcadian 20:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psoriasis external link spam

Please comment here: Talk:Psoriasis#External_links. Thx. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TS Review

To Dwaipayanc, Xyzzy n, Wouterstomp, Wikipedical, TimVickers, Arcadian, NCurse, TedE, Jkelly: to all who have helped me develop the article Tourette syndrome, I was hoping you'd have a new look. Jkelly has checked the images, I've asked Tony to do a thorough copyedit to polish the prose when he has time, and I've completed the referencing and expanded the Screening section. I think I've done all I'm capable of, and would appreciate any new input you may have. Sandy 23:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject Votes

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject has recently opened two surveys that will help to decide the direction of the project. First, nominations are currently being accepted for the position of coordinator of the project. Second, votes and additional suggestions for the official title of that position are also being taken. As a member of the project, we hope that you'll drop by and voice your opinion. – Clockwork Soul 03:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work!

I don't know if I've ever mentioned it, but I wanted to thank you for your good work on the disease infoboxes! Cheers! -AED 04:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Arcadian 01:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bisphosphonates

Not sure if you've been following the Drugs talk, but I just WP:BOLDly "created" a navbox for bisphosphonates using the code from Template:Antiarrhythmic agents. In light of the excellent work you've done on drug navboxes and my complete ignorance of template syntax, I'd like you to have a look at it. Comments, criticism and raging accusations of plagiarism welcome :) Fvasconcellos 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Main response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Drugs#Bisphosphonates. --Arcadian 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Fvasconcellos 12:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray article

On the page of Galatasaray i saw a mistake but i cannot revert it becauce the page is under protection , in the Managerial area Yılmaz Gökdel was the manager in 1974-1975 season could you fix this?

http://www.webaslan.com/kulup/antrenor.php this is the official site of Galatasaray here it says that Gokdel is coach for the 74-75 season :)

Johnny200 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this has already been addressed. --Arcadian 01:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nervous Tissue Navigational template

Hi Arcadian, I noticed some of the recent expansions on Template:Nervous tissue. There are a lot of other things that could be inlcuded like Purkinje cells, Renshaw cells, etc. However I was wondering, how big can these templates get? Should they be as all-inclusive as possible or include only some key articles? Is there some guideline for this? My view is the bigger the better, but wanted to check before continuing to expand its scope. Nrets 01:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your additions. I don't believe there currently are specific guidelines. I tend to error in the side of inclusion, but then split up templates when they grow too big (as happened with the arteries template.) --Arcadian 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article‎

Adenosine triphosphate

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject's current Collaboration of the Month article is adenosine triphosphate.

Please help to improve this article to featured article status.

– Clockwork Soul 21:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting your opinion

Hi, Arcadian. There is a discussion regarding the possibility of merging the participants lists of the various medicine-related WikiProjects. Would you mind offering some input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Participants? Cheers! -AED 04:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Editing

Arcadian, Thank you for cleaning up the Elastic fiber article. It still needs more information and I hope to add soon. I tend to vomit a bunch of information into articles and talk pages and leave it for others to edit and clean up. I recently did the same in the Smooth Muscle article, and I would greatly appreciate any assistance. Thanks GetAgrippa 16:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alveolar process

Hi, it's good to see you again. I do not know why it took me this long to notice, but why did we move the article alveolar process to alveolar process of maxilla? The alveolar process is the bone holding the teeth in both the maxilla [11] and the mandible [12]. Maybe we can have separate articles of the processes on both arches, but I am a little skeptical since much of the information applies to both. - Dozenist talk 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TA specifies the maxilla in the name, but if you want to move it back to its previous name, I won't object. --Arcadian 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject

Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – Clockwork Soul 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of titin

Your revert of titin seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia, in that this change has been discussed for some time on the talk page. Please contribute your opinion to the discussion, in the hope that a proper consensus can be reached. Thanks. Notinasnaid 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are really certain that you want to put a 189,819 character word on that page, I won't stand in your way. I will refrain from editing that page for the next 12 months. Have fun. --Arcadian 04:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word does not belong on the page in full. Please discuss. --David Iberri (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking a position on whether the word belongs there. What I am asking is that Wikipedia procedures be observed. Notinasnaid 07:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a link to the discussion page to facilitate that process. --David Iberri (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter!

The October edition of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter has been released. You can read it by visiting the newsletter page. – Clockwork Soul 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese translation of crisis

Arcadian, I have looked at your entry on the Chinese translation of crisis a number of times. Each time I have thought how it could be cleaned up; each time I've drawn back because it's difficult to know where to even start. The problem is that the article as it stands is flawed from start to finish -- starting with the title.

The problem is not the 'Chinese translation of crisis'; it is the assignment of a false etymology to the Chinese word for 'crisis'. The title should really be, 'Etymology of the Chinese and Japanese word for crisis'.

(In one sense it is about the Chinese translation of crisis, in that weiji probably started life as an equivalent to the English word for 'crisis', but even there you are on rather shaky ground because it's quite likely that the word was invented by the Japanese -- which would have to be substantiated, of course).

So the start of the article, "While there is ambiguity present in any translation..." is somewhat off the track, as the problem is not one of translation but of etymology and word-building. Thus, "the translation of the Mandarin word weiji (危機) has proven particularly controversial" is also off the mark; the problem is the ex-post-facto assignment of a false etymology to weiji (危機).

The statement, "The controversy is mostly due to differing interpretations of how much optimism should be associated with the character 機", is also a rather strange approach to the issue. There is no 'sliding scale' of optimism in the interpretation of the character 機. The problem is that 機 has quite a few meanings, some of which bear no relation to 'opportunities', 'junctures', 'optimism', or anything of the sort. The error is not one of calibrating the amount of 'optimism' to be attributed to 機; it is the incorrect interpretation of 機 as meaning 'opportunity' in the word 危機.

That said, it is not actually incorrect to point out that 危機 happens to be made up of characters meaning 'danger' and 'opportunity', and using this fact to point up a lesson about crises. What is problematic is the assertion that word 危機 etymologically means 'danger + opportunity'. It doesn't. Etymologically, it means 'dangerous juncture'.

(I would like to add that the fanciful folk etymology that has taken root has its legitimate uses. It is ideal for pep talks and motivational lectures, and there is no particular reason to kill it off. The etymology yields a valid psychological insight into change as an opportunity, not just a threat. The only problem is that fortuitous combination of 'danger + opportunity', however appealing superficially, is not the actual etymology of the word.)

Finally, I would like to take issue with the word 'controversy'. I do not believe that any real controversy exists, outside the one you have conjured up in this article. This is a simple case of an erroneous etymology that has gained wide currency. The facts are clear and uncontroversial. What might conceivably be considered controversial is the fact that some people have correctly pointed out that this analysis misrepresents the etymology of the word 危機.

Bathrobe 02:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happily concede that you are much more knowledgable about the topic than I am, and I encourage you to be bold, and rewrite and/or rename the article as needed. If you feel the article cannot be redeemed, you may nominate it for deletion, and I will abstain from the vote. --Arcadian 02:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has already done it. Bathrobe 08:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

miller fisher syndrome

hello, i would like to suggest that miller fisher syndrome redirect to guillain-barre syndrome as this is a clinical variant and there's not much to write about to deserve a separate page. In addition, both conditions are of the same ICD-9 code and thus should be grouped together. thanks --Andrewr47 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Arcadian 12:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What test?

Huh? What's going on? --194.82.45.23 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This month's winner is proteasome!

Proteasome

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject's current Collaboration of the Month article is proteasome.

Please help to improve this article to featured article status. Last month's collaboration was adenosine triphosphate.

– Clockwork Soul 22:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image errors etc

Hi Arcadian! First I want to thank you for uploading images from Grey's. I'm a first year student (my final gross anatomy exam is on friday) and they've been a tremendous help in learning the material. I have a few things I wanted to ask you about:

Please, please, archive this talk page. It's 124kb and my browser slowed to a crawl when I tried to type this into the page directly (I had to use my sandbox to write it)
I'm trying to find ways to make my contributions to the wiki anatomy and embryology articles more efficient. I know about WP:Anatomy, but do you have any other ideas or specific areas you think are deficient on wikipedia?
I've been finding errors in the seer.cancer.gov images you uploaded, one trivial and one serious. I don't know what to do about them... I don't know anything about deleting images and wanted to ask you about it.
1. The trivial one is this image of the thigh extensors, where the rectus femoris muscle is drawn lying deep to the vastus lateralis and vastus medius. It actually lies anterior to these muscles... the vastus intermedius would appear to run between the V-shaped arch formed by the fibers of the lateralis and medius, but only once the rectus femoris has been removed.
2. The serious error is at brachioradialis, where the seer image shows the brachioradialis attaching to the medial epicondyle of the humerus and inserting on the ulna. Wrong! This appears to be an image of the flexor carpi ulnaris, though I haven't checked to make sure the insertion is right. There is an alternate image of the muscle from Grey's, but I don't like that it doesn't show the relative position of the thumb and doesn't have a medial-lateral label.

Thanks! Robotsintrouble 02:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]