Jump to content

User talk:Davidruben/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Regarding your writeup explaining Cite.php

David, thank you for the note you left on my Talk page, wherein you asked me to read your re-write explaining the Cite.php method for footnoting. Yes, it is certainly an improvement.

I,too, have worked up a re-write. Take a look at my storage sandbox at User:mbeychok/MRB's storage sandbox and go to section 3 in the Table of Contents. Let me know what you think of it.

Perhaps, we might collaborate on a merger of our two write-ups?? By the way, I am a retired chemical engineer and I live in Newport Beach, California, USA.- mbeychok 22:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

BI

I re-removed a political link. This is a rant against lawyers and very biased - more a poliitical link, under the guise of a legitimate report.
I left the UK report, but why do we need to have it listed twice? It already is in the source citations. Do we want to link to every single report? If you don't, it appears selective.molly bloom 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In the US, FDA says emergency contraceptive leads to "sex cults"

Regarding making emergency contraceptives available over the counter...

From "Newsday.com" --In the memo released by the FDA during the discovery process, Dr. Curtis Rosebraugh, an agency medical officer, wrote: "As an example, she [Dr. Janet Woodcock, deputy operations commissioner] stated that we could not anticipate, or prevent extreme promiscuous behaviors such as the medication taking on an 'urban legend' status that would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B."

Sex Cults! This is the 'science' on which the FDA is basing its decisions? But the FDA wants to approve silicone breast implants. Only in (Bush's) America. molly bloom 05:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Given that OTC ECP is not cheep here in UK (I think its around £12, ie approx £17 a single tablet) - partly I believe because the drug companies are required to invest some money in routine contraception educational measures and also (again I gather) they were not allowed to market the drug too cheeply for fear people might see this as a cheep alternative and so resort to using ECP as required rather than bother with routine contraception - then these would not be cheap "sex cults". Having never partaked in the "club scene", is ECP going tro have any impact on the already existing promiscus sexually-liberated society ? Just look at STD rates to see that people are not using condoms despite the risks of HIV. Here in UK it is not "freely" available off the shelf - it is a P medicine meaning pharmacist supply - the pharmacist needs check whether it is needed (i.e. not needed if period started that day !), and can advise the woman that it is not a routine contraceptive but rather for special circumstances. A similar approach in US would I hope ensure people (i.e. FDA) are reassured that there wont be people filling up the supermarket trolley with ECPs "just in case" or to stock up for the next "Sex cult" Tuesday-night meeting :-) David Ruben Talk 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting note. I think ECP should be available and affordable. The purpose of our government is not to dictate our private life. The factors behind this are purely political, and not scientific. In the US, they are the same people who want small government, except when it comes to our civil rights, privacy and private sexual decisions. But then, that is my personal opinion. Policy should not be based on whether some groups think a product will encourage extramarital sex or 'sex cults'. These are the same people who would ban the distribution of condoms, and sex education. I don't doubt that too many people do not use condoms, but prohibiting them in favor of 'teaching abstinence' is absurd...not to mention impractical and dangerous. In the US, there is huge controversy about pharmacists and even pharmacies refusing to dispense prescription birth control pills, because of their own religious beliefs.MollyBloom 04:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Acne

I did consider the points you raised before making my addition to this article. The Benzoyl peroxide article has a larger section that goes into more depth on this and other possible risks. I put a condensed version into the main acne article because I think it's possible that someone would only check the main article on acne before going out and buying over-the-counter products without checking the articles on those particular products. I don't think there's as much purpose in including side-effects of prescription drugs like antibiotics in articles other than their own, because the prescribing doctor would presumably want to discuss the side effects.

If you feel that even a condensed version of the appropriate precautions is too much for the main acne article and decide to remove it, then I won't really care too much seeing as it is already covered in the main Benzoyl peroxide article. I just figured that it might be a good idea to reinforce the importance of being careful, seeing how incredibly efficient this stuff is at bleaching things. I have the sexy bleached hair and ugly bleached bedsheets to prove it! (If only I had a digital camera to upload some pictures as examples for the Benzoyl peroxide article, lol!) --Icarus 03:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything you've said is true, and my case for including that bit as a courtesy to the reader is admittedly weak, which is why I wouldn't mind all that much if you or someone else did ultimately decide to remove it. I think it's short enough and likely enough to not be thought of as a side effect (as it's not actual physical harm) to be worth keeping, but time will tell if other editors think the mention in the main Benzoyl peroxide article is all that's called for. The box and/or an insert does have directions, warnings, etc. here in the US, to answer your question.
If only my formerly-blue sheets were pure white now! That would certainly be preferable to the tie-dye-gone-wrong look they're currently sporting!
Finally, and on a only somewhat related note, I noticed that your user page says that you're a doctor. So in case no one's told you this recently, on behalf of humanity, thank you. I, and many other people (as you undoubtedly know), owe a lot to the devotion and expertise of those in your profession. You doctors really are heroes. --Icarus 07:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

BI article

In response to your comments ---

And yes, I can carry over some of those edits to the other page. I appreciate your reverting back, since it seems appropriate to make any further changes on the off-line page, for now.molly bloom 03:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I would appreciate it if you would help mediate on this issue. Please come look at the discussion. The article should be split....I agree with that. But "Kasyrn" thinks there is no controversy and I fear he is going to try to allow Oliver to whitewash it. Dr. Zuckerman posted her comments. Oliver claims I don't have the 'expertise' to edit an article like this....although in fact, I do have a science and a law background, and had silicone implants myself. That led me to do a great deal of research in this area. I also quoted an article that was reviewed and edited by doctors at the Cleveland Clinic, which stated uncategorically that there are conflicting studies, and which quoted some of the same studies Oliver wants to delete as irrelevant.

Oliver tries to paint me as anti-science, and anti-doctors, in the same light as the 'anti-vaccinationists'. This is equally absurd. Had I been anti-science, I would not have spent the majority of my adult life in science. My legal education has been much later, as a second career. (Getting old is when you stop learning, I feel, so I just several times in my life for more education, and I read in depth on issues of interest.)

Oliver also has dismissed what Dr. Zuckerman says, and fought against keeping a link to her research project. He claims she is incompetent and a political hack. This is a portion of what Dr. Z had to say about it.

Last week, I testified on breast implants for the Health Committee of the Canadian Parliament. I was invited because I am an epidemiologist (post doctoral training at Yale Medical School) and internationally recognized expert on this topic. There are still many unanswered questions about the risks and benefits of breast implants, and much controversy. That's why the FDA and Health Canada are both unsure whether to approve silicone gel breast implants. Last week I also spoke at a Women's Health conference in Virginia, on a panel with a plastic surgeon. We talked about the risks and benefits and agreed on almost everything regarding breast implants. I have repeatedly added research data to this article, and Dr Oliver keeps removing it. I want this article to be accurate, but I have a fulltime job as the director of a research center and I don't think it is fair for me to have to keep putting back information that he removes for no scientific reason. He is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. I have taught at Yale and Vassar, and was the director of a major research project at Harvard. What research credentials does Dr Oliver have that entitles him to keep deleting my scientific additions to this article? (Dr. Zuckerman wrote this as can be seen from the history.)

Dr. Oliver, on the other hand, went to medical school at the University of South Alabama, which ranks about 100 in state medical schools. He is not an epidemiologist. He is not a researcher. I am not saying he is unqualified, but he has little room to suggest Zuckerman is not.

Oliver (and Kas, evidently believes him) insist there is NO controversy about implants. He insists it is all settled. Rob continually brings up the 1999 IOM review...Yet the Cleveland Clinic Dept of Plastic Surgery had this to say:

Since the 1999 IOM report, there have been other studies published with conflicting results...[In 2004] FDA scientists published a study with findings of more autoimmune disease among women with leaking breast implants compared to women with intact breast implants...More recently reported, in 2004, scientists at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) found an increase in reported connective-tissue diseases among those with breast implants, but also found that many of the women made errors in their self-reported diagnoses. They concluded that this area needed further study."

(You can read the article on the discussion page.) Oliver's attitude reminds me of the real partisan hacks in "Quackwatch" who claim asbestos is safe. The guru there said that had the World Trade Center had more asbestos more people would have lived. The claim is utter nonsense, and architects and engineers have abundantly pointed that out. And unlike with silicone implants, there is NO medical controversy about the effects of inhaling asbestos fibers. In the US alone, 10,000 people die a year from asbestos related diseases,. My father was one of those - he died from mesothelioma. I will never forget talking to the surgeon as he came out of surgery - before he even had a chance to speak with my mother. He choked up, and could not initially get the words out. I can't imagine how a surgeon feels when seeing how helpless they are- no matter how much experience they have. My dad lived 5 months from the time of diagnosis. Yet there are still idiots claiming asbestos is safe. Of course, my dad is an 'anecdote' and for 50 years the asbestos manufacturers lied about the dangers.

Like Dr. Laub (the plastic surgeoin in Vermont), I believe that someday implants will be proven to be unsafe, unless there are significant improvements more than there are now. We need longer term studies of implants before they go on the market. That was one of the problems the FDA had - the lack of data about rupture and the effects of rupture. I spoke with an epidemiologist (not Zuckerman) who was involved in the FDA hearings. He said that there was not enough data presented to even develop a pattern of rupture.

Kasyrn (who is not a doctor, scientist or knowledgeable in the area) assumes there is no controversy, apparently listening to Rob, and wants to act as 'mediator'. It is clear to me where he is going with this. THat is not mediation. He also wants before and after pictures of breasts to show what implants 'look like' in the body. That seems ridiculous to me, as it has to others, so I am not sure what his interest is in all this.

I would appreciate it if you would help mediate in this. Dr. Zuckerman will be editing also, she told me. She is pretty angry about the whole thing, and I don't blame her. MollyBloom 05:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your commnet to 65.106.151.211

It might be of interest to you (or not), that this IP address is the general IP Domain for <a href="http://www.georgeschool.org">George School</a>, and in all likelyhood it's not just one person that's doing the vandalism.

Rob Oliver

You wondered why I thought Oliver was creating an advertisement when I first saw his edits.... Evidently this is not the first time this has happened with his editing: Other editors have requested he not use Wikopedia as an advertisement for his business, where he was adding spam links to Wikopedia:

Please stop adding spam links to your blog on Wikipedia. Blogs, especially new blogs with little content are not usually considered appropriate external links on Wikipedia, unless they are directly related to the article. As you can imagine if every plastic surgery related page had links to all of the plastic surgery related blogs out there, each page would have thousands of links at the bottom.
Also, adding links to your own website is inappropriate, and constitutes a conflict of interest and is also considered a form of vandalism. Presuming that you are Dr. Rob Oliver, I would encourage you to make efforts to improve the content of articles related to your profession here on Wikipedia, rather than attempt to use Wikipedia to drive traffic to your new website, which is a bannable offense, should the behavior continue. Glowimperial 16:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have little patience with this 'surgeon', and his poor professional ethics, if not overt slant on the studies and multiple reviews of those studies that he adds. I did not make this comment on the general article discussion, although I was tempted. To me, there is no doubt as to his motive. Regardless of my opinion on the matter, he again made a major edit, when it was highly unlikely that he did not see the comments in your revisions, and in the discussion page.

Oliver has not chosen to edit the article you provided. Instead, he ignores others' requests (not just mine, now) and makes major changes to the article without discussion or using the 'off-line' template. I know I have not yet made edits either to the offline article, but I will. We just got back today from an 8 hour trip to go pick up a puppy we had been waiting for for months. I must be out of my mind. Tonight he sits, too small to really bark, making noises like a gerbil and whining because we are not holding him but instead putting him in a puppy crate. Yes, I have my work cut out for me. But he is very cute.

Oh on another subject...the plastic surgeon & medical professor from Vermont is not the surgeon I was talking to you about. I do not know him, but the surgeon I spoke with does know him. If you 'google' Laub, you will find that he has a remarkable background, as does his father who is in the same area. He was correct about a photo I added, so I deleted that - it could indeed be misleading. Did you read that his sister had a similar experience as I have had, in becoming ill and after explant getting better? He also believes there is a systemic effect that will someday be proven. But unless there are major changes to funding and the political and business environment, I do not share that optimism. At the very least, I hope to help raise questions in whatever way I can. I have no interest in presenting one side only. I do think an article like this should accurately reflect the questions that still do exist. There are many plastic surgeons who do not glibly insist that silicone implants are safe. I also wonder about saline implants, as well. I am astonished at how many women have had health problems as a result of bacteria and fungus from defective valves or leaks in saline implants.molly bloom 03:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC) David, please read my response in the BI talk section to molly's complaint. As she was content to continue editing the main entry at her pleasure and ignore your side article for days, I took your recomendation and started to work on it there myself. Now she's furious over that. As far as the blog link, I encourage anyone to check it out for a "thrilling" expose on face-tranplants and pulsed EMF devices. Knowing more about the Wiki-world now, I wouldn't put in the links section even though it's not some blatant promotional device- RobDroliver 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

NYT article

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

This is worth reading. One of the problems with journals....and I think this is especially true of plastic surgery.molly bloom 12:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Actually the appropriate context is this[1] which is an editorial on how partisan vandalism is destroying Wikipedia's credibility & this blog discussion on people's frustrations with Wikipedia activists[2] which has the perfect distillation for Molly's M.O., "It’s a neat trick — they demand that I propose changes on the discussion page, ignore me, then when I go ahead and make those changes they revert them, all the while complaining to an admin that I should be banned from editing because I won’t “discuss” changes. The real issues is that these people WANT the page to be massively non-NPOV and resent any efforts to alter their “pet project.”Droliver 15:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Benign Lymphocytic Meningitis

"Benign Lymphocytic Meningitis" is what is now known as Lymphocytic Choriomeningitis (LCM). It is caused by an arenavirus.

You may well have been right to remove it from the article on meningitis as it is not a terribly common illness (although seroprevalence in the U.S. is apparently approximately 5%), it is usually self-limiting and morbidity is low (less than 1%).

I added this reference hoping that others more knowledgeable and up-to-date than myself might add to it. I thought it was a ground-breaking article - as far as I know it is one of the earliest articles providing a good overall review of the disease including the fact that it was caused by a virus and providing strong (though circumstantial) evidence that it is spread by rodents (which was later confirmed).

The article itself was, I believe, published in 1948 (although the date is not marked on my reprint).

Perhaps it would be better to have just a brief mention of it in the article on Meningitis and a more up-to-date reference or link??? Finally, I was unable to find an online copy of the article. I hope I have answered your qestions sufficiently. Cheers, John Hill 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

Interesting. The link therefore should be added to the Lymphocytic choriomeningitis article. However you probably should add (if known) when the name changed (otherwise the citation seems to make little immediate sense). I've ensured Lymphocytic choriomeningitis & Aseptic meningitis have cross-links to each other - therefore can you work the reference in ? David Ruben Talk 03:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, for that. I will have another think about it all and perhaps do something further when I have time. In the meantime, I have just added a link from the page on Meningitis to Lymphocytic choriomeningitis. Best wishes, John Hill 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

mental welfare commission for scotland

As you may have seen from the talk:National Health Service page the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland is not part of the NHS. It is rather an independent org set up by previous mental health law and whose remit was recently adjusted by the Mental Health (Care and treatment)(Scotland) Act 2003.


As http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/11/18547/29204 details:

Part 2 of the 2003 Act sets out provisions relating to the continued existence of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. The Commission will have: 

   *new duties to monitor the operation of the Act and to promote best practice;
   *specific powers and duties in relation to carrying out visits to patients, investigations, interviews and medical examinations, and to inspect records; and
   *powers and duties to publish information and guidance, and to give advice or bring matters to the attention of others in the mental health law system.

These powers and duties should enable the Commission to maintain and develop its vital role in protecting the rights of service users, and in promoting the effective operation of mental health law.

Schedule 1 of the Act sets out more detail on the membership, organisation and general powers of the Commission and makes provision for regulations to specify some matters in more detail, if necessary.


see also http://www.mwcscot.org.uk

--Ajvphilp 22:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Periodontal disease

Hi,

I am a general dentist who made some additions to the periodontitis entry. I see that you have deleted some passages from the editing. Are the passages scientifically questionable or not meeting wikipedia standards? I would be more comfortable if a dentist or specialist edited dental topics. There often is not too much of an overlap between medicine and dentistry.

Mamounjo 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful questions and the multiple issues that you raised. I thought it best to copy this over to Talk:Periodontal disease where I could discuss at length the previous problems with the article's structuring, duplication of information, issues of fact/POV and finally the difficult balance of needing valuable knowledge from specialists yet also needing non-specialists to help copyedit articles into good general encyclopaedic entries. So please do feel free to comment back at Talk:Periodontal disease#Restructuring of article :-) Yours David Ruben Talk 02:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input regarding my question to Dr. Wolff. I appreciate the advice. btw, the article I was referring to was "Multiple Sclerosis." MedLink 17:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

NHS Project

I have optimistically launched Wikipedia:Wikiproject National Health Service - interested? - know anyone else who might be? - do please visit and comment/contribute if you wish --Smerus 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for participating in the Michael Woodruff peer review. As regards your suggestion, I'm trying to track down a photo of Woodruff. If you have access to one, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again!

There's a chance that comment was in the wrong place, it was intended for Wouterstomp. When I clicked his/her leave message link, it put the message here. If it doesn't apply, disregard it. Thanks! Cool3 19:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault, changed the link now :-) --WS 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oral contraceptive

David,

Good edit...I liked the way you divided the oral contraceptives page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbrown1998 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 May 2006

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

fraudster?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mucoid_plaque&diff=prev&oldid=54828334 Midgley 03:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions

do you have a bad disease?If you do,then hope you recover soon!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by tk111 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 May 2006 TK111
Thank you - (mostly) recovered now David Ruben Talk 03:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dihydrocodeine

Hi, thanks for the message about dihydrocodeine. I'm actually not very familiar with the analgesic use of dihydrocodeine (it's not used for that indication in Australia), and just took the BNF and Martindale statements of "similar potency" at face value. Might you be able to clarify it on the dihydrocodeine page? Cheers. -Techelf 00:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

tinea

hi! I'll be happy to link to your website but the doc in question is in word format and is not universal. maybe html would be better? Hfwd 03:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Drugbox

Thanks for all your improvements! --Arcadian 13:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit War Again on BI - large edits without discussion (on main on line article)

Would you please help with this article. I really don't mind making it more NPVO; I do mind massive blanks and changes that push the extreme other side by Rob Oliver. He is doing it again, without discussion, on the main online article. What can be done? Would you suggest something, please? Thanks.MollyBloom 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD external canvassing

If the respondents are all longterm users of Wikipedia there is not a great deal one can do. Brand-new voters, who turn up, register, and vote, are usually spotted with Special:Contributions, and it may be useful to leave a note under their vote saying: "Note for the closing admin: this user's third edit". The admin who closes the AFD will make a tally with and without these votes, and will generally delete if there is consensus to delete without those meatpuppets.

If the chaos becomes too severe, there is always WP:ANI. The bottom line is: we don't have policies against off-site incitement. The test case was a troll called User:Amalekite, who posted the names of Jewish Wikipedians offline. His block was extremely controversial at the time. JFW | T@lk 07:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rapid revert

Admins have a "rollback" button after each top-level edit. Clicking that will revert all the user's most recent contributions to the previous version. Someday experienced users like yourself may be able to apply for rollback privileges without becoming admins per se. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. For now therefore quickest to contact an admin... :-) David Ruben Talk 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Aditd

Hi, You and I have just both reverted spam from this user, and left a warning on his Talk page ... clearly, though, this chap's just spamming like mad ... assuming he carries on, do you know the appropriate procedure for reporting him and so on? Because I'm not sure ... (Also, incidentally, this talk page is huge; you might want to archive some of the discussions!) Thanks --JennyRad 19:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I've left a Final Warning on his page and will report him if he does anything else. Re archiving talk pages: WP:ARCHIVE appears to explain the pros and cons of the possible methods! Thanks. --JennyRad 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


(Re: user now blocked) Brilliant, thanks! --JennyRad 22:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Www.shoptogive.us

Good call on removing that link from the Cancer article. Doesn't look legit. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.shoptogive.us. Fan1967 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Metoclopramide/Milk fetishism

As a GP this may seem "nonsense" to you, but please read the milk fetishism article before reverting: it's very common and notable that Reglan/Metoclopramide is used for inducing lactation and mentioned on many other websites. This is sourced in the article too. --Anon! 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Response made at User talk:Anon! and thread started at Talk:Metoclopramide David Ruben Talk 08:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

birth control

"dd template. NB thi sarticle should NOT be added to this general schemeyet as still experimental devices)"

Could certainly go under its own "experimental" line, no? — Omegatron 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the talk page for the birth control template. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just offering my help in addition to what ever you wanted to do. I know you called "dibs" on that stuff, but I was just offering additional help. But I agree completely with you, lets see how this stuff pans out on talk before making anything new (I always enjoy coding more than arguing over content disputes, or simply writing content for that matter, so my ears perked at the opertunity).--Andrew c 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was being very tongue-in-cheek on your talk page - so yes would love to work with you on this (and fully share in kudos/glory etc). I have similar feelings towards programing vs content - I was torn between going into computer science or medicine :-) David Ruben Talk 02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Progesterone

It's actually a translation of the original comments into Italian. Looks like the page was fed into Babel Fish or something. Fascinating, tho' ... :) - Ali-oops✍ 23:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please watch

Please watch amygdala. Thank you. FranklinT 01:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes vs references

Hi David, welcome back from your break. I've always just used "references" because that seems to be the convention in scientific writing—having a reference section with full citations at the end of an article. I associate "footnotes" with, literally, footnotes on the bottom of each page in humanities-related articles (not necessarily containing full citations). WP:CITE doesn't really offer much insight into the issue, so I guess it doesn't really matter unless there's a need for footnotes and references in the same article. Cheers. -Techelf 09:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any policy on forcing a newline with comment tags for cite.php references, like you did on diabetes mellitus? I personally find the flowing format clearer, as one can see immediately which sentence is in which paragraph. JFW | T@lk 07:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


No, no policy, although other editors seemed to also prefer this at WP:Footnotes and its talk page. Purely personally, I prefer this appearance when viewed in edit mode as it makes the location of the links easier when scanning up & down the article (as I did when converting any non-template:cite xxx references to have the same consistant markup style or include link to full article using the provided 'url' parameter). I also (again purely personal pref) find it easier to keep tract of citation applying to a phrase or sentance coming after the punctuation. Diabetes management had this approach already applied, so I was just trying to be helpful whilst amending the citation markups. Feel free to remove if you wish - sob sob sob, seriously I don't mind :-) David Ruben Talk 19:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment

David

You criticised me for adding advertising material. The links provided were, in my opinion, neutrally based.

I was an academic and have several hundred articles and 56 books to my credit to date.

I regard the comment in Wikipedia as biased and anti-dietary supplements and alternative medicine in general. I do not think this provides for a balanced informed view.

For example melatonin entry is more balanced. Hoodia and Chitsoan isn’t. It may not confer all the claimed benefits but those benefits are actually dismissed without reference to a studies.

Please let me know which external links you object to because I would like to defend my actions.

Kind regards and thanks

Nick Taylor (published under Krish Bhaskar)

Nick Taylor1 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

DHEA

I thought that the section on DHEA should be kept separate.

And I see you have deleted the section on

7-Keto DHEA is a recently identified natural metabolite of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) which is both more effective and safer than DHEA because it does not convert itself into testosterone or estrogens in the body. In one word, 7-Keto DHEA possesses all the advantages of DHEA and - it is claimed - with none of the disadvantages.

Please note I have no interest in or connection with selling DHEA.

Now it seems to me that readers should want to know about this more advanced form of DHEA. For me it seems that this refined product forms part of the DHEA information. It is possible to add a separate entry but I would be against this.

That one external link provided the following information (refereces provided below):

• 7-Keto DHEA is structurally practically identical to DHEA, from which it is derived by an enzymatic conversion process taking place in the body. Professor Henry A. Lardy and his team have researched 7-Keto DHEA for ten years at the Institute of Research on Enzymes at the University of Wisconsin. Based on this research, Professor Lardy has obtained 9 patents for the uses of 7-Keto DHEA, for reinforcing and modulating the immune system, contributing to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and favoring weight loss.

• The main worry of certain DHEA disparagers is that it will partly convert itself into sex hormones such as testosterone and estrogens. This seems to be an obvious advantage for the healthy, looking to combat age-associated hormonal decline. Unfortunately, this means advising all those with a personal or a family history of hormonal-dependent cancer risk (prostate, breast, ovarian) against taking DHEA. This rules out the important part of the elderly, who would gain the most, from the benefit of supplementation. And some women badly support the side effects due to an increase of androgens which can be induced by DHEA (acne, facial hair). For these, 7-Keto DHEA is the ideal solution. Doses as high as 500 mg/kg have been administered to primates with no adverse effect being observed. This is equivalent to more than 100 times the recommended dose for a human being. A human toxicity study confirmed that in doses of 200 mg/day for 28 days, 7-Keto DHEA did not negatively affect biological blood and urine tests.

• Lardy has demonstrated that 7-Keto DHEA is around 2.5 times more powerful, milligramme for milligramme, than DHEA, and this with no side effects. In fact, 7-Keto DHEA, metabolized in the body from DHEA, may be responsible for most of the beneficial effects attributed to DHEA. 7-Keto DHEA is more effective than DHEA for improving memory, inducing thermogenesis and reinforcing or modulating the immune system.

• 7-Keto DHEA is without doubt the most effective supplement available for helping to lose weight durably and rapidly. Lardy's work demonstrates that taking 7-Keto DHEA significantly increases the liver production of thermogenetic enzymes as well as the production of the thyroid hormone T3 (without influencing either TSH or T4, and so with no negative impact on thyroid function) with, as a consequence, a sure but certain rise in basal metabolism. One double blind study was carried out on subjects taking 100 mg of 7-Keto DHEA twice a day for 8 weeks. During this study, the subjects absorbed 1,800 calories per day and exercised (moderately) 3 times 60 minutes per week. The supplemented subjects lost three kilos, whereas the controlled ones lost only one. At this dose, and during this length of time, 7-Keto DHEA caused no side effects. All those preoccupied with weight control should consider supplementation in 7-Keto DHEA.

• All those taking DHEA can take 7-Keto DHEA if they are willing to pay a little more for a more effective and safer supplement. Those who cannot take DHEA because of the risk of hormonal-dependent cancer can take 7-Keto DHEA. With men who excessively aromatize testosterone, taking DHEA can lead to a simultaneous and undesirable increase in estradiol, a typically feminine estrogen. Replacing DHEA with 7-Keto DHEA will avoid this. Those wishing to effectively control their weight over a long period of time should make 7-Keto DHEA one of their basic supplements. Where DHEA does not succeed, or not succeed enough, 7-Keto DHEA, an active and improved form, should be tried.

• Twenty-five to 50 mg per day is sufficient supplementation for the healthy, or in the case of an anti-aging programme. If you take 50 mg per day, it is preferable to divide the dose between two meals. Higher doses can be advised for limited periods.

And the following references: • Weeks C., Hardy H., Henwood S. Preclinical toxicology evaluation of 3-acetyl-7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone (7-Keto DHEA), FASEB J 1998;12:A4428. • Henwood S. M., Weeks C. E., Lardy H. An escalating dose oral gavage study of 3 beta-acetoxyandrost-5-ene, 17 dione (7-ox-DHEA acetate) in Rhesus monkeys. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun, 1999;254:120-3. • Davidson M. H., Weeks C. E., Lardy H., et al. Safety and endocrine effects of 3-acetyl-7-oxo DHEA (7-Keto DHEA) FASEB J 1998;12:A4429. • Colker et al., Double blind study evaluating the effect of exercise plus 3-acetyl-7-oxo dehydroepiandrosterone on body composition and the endocrine system in overweight adults. J. Exercise Physiology online, 1999;341:122-8. • Shi J., Lardy H. 3beta-hydroxyandrost-5-ene-7, 17 dione (7-Keto DHEA) improves memory in mice. FASEB J 1998;12:A4427. • Shi J., Schulze S., Lardy H. The effect of 7-oxo-DHEA acetate on memory in young and old C5577BL/6 mice. 2000;65(3):124-9. • Davidson M., Lardy H., et al. Safety and pharmacokinetic study with escalating doses of 3-acetyl-7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone in healthy male volunteers. Clin Invest Med. Vol23, n° 5, Oct 2000.

Nick Taylor1 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that they should merge as they co relate . the former is the cause of the latter

Harry Buncke

Scratch all of it. I couldn't keep up with you. You are FAST. Thanks for fixing it. Oliver does this all the time. He is also vandalizing article I am editing that have nothing to do with breast implants. But I think I can handle it,. I surely do not disrespect medical doctors, but I must admit that he is making me wonder about some of them. jgwlaw 05:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Drugbox

Hi David, you made some changes today to the drugbox template - getting rid of the red link if no image exists. This is great, but it has had the effect that some pages employing the use of the drugbox (e.g. aspirin) only show image2 and not image. Can you fix it?

Cheers Ben 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

So it does - however I had used amoxycillin as my test page for 2 images and that works - will look into this further.David Ruben Talk 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah Image.Aspirin-skeletal.svg does not exist, which explains why only the image2 is shown ! So not problem of the template but of image name chosen, phew :-) Now whatever happened to aspirin's line drawing ? I'll trawl back through the aspirin article's history... David Ruben Talk 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Aspirin-skeletal.svg exists! The same problem occurs at many drug pages (although not all - see cyclophosphamide for one not affected - I just checked chloramphenicol and there's a problem there.
Sorry if I've wrongly accused you! I just noticed this problem this afternoon. I thought you'd like to know either way.
Ben 16:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC).
So it does (drats) - funny using the search box on each page acts differently for different images. For Image:Aspirin-skeletal.svg it fails to launch into the page, but offers a link to jump to it. Whereas searching for Image:Amoxicillin.png jumps directly there. Could you have a look at pages you tested to see if this is a problem with .svg files rather than .png ? David Ruben Talk 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just had a look at chloramphenicol. Its first image is a PNG, so it doesn't seem that the SVG format is the root of the problem. I should also take the opportunity to say I've seen many of your contributions to WP over the past few months and I think you're a really good editor.
Best wishes
Ben 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC).
Thanks :-) I've copied the template coding for image display across to the template sandbox Template:Add code and displayed the chloramphenicol & cyclophosphamide templates it the sandbox's talk page Template talk:Add code which shows there is a problem of whether a png page is explicitly defined or via the PAGENAME variable. For now I'll revert back the Drugbox template and ask someone wiser than myself to spot my error. David Ruben Talk 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Apomorphine

Hi David,

Thanks for sorting out the references on Apomorphine, when I added my bit I didn't know how the references worked, hence my copy-pasting the existing ones and them all being "b"!

Thanks

Paul --PaulWicks 07:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

general tojo

you're welcome. Let me know if you want User:Davidruben to be protected. -- Chris 73 | Talk 18:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

No probs. I have had to block quite a few of his sockpuppets recently. Cheers TigerShark 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

GSL on the paracetamol article

As I'm not a practitioner i thought i'd consult before changing, but dont you think it would be more practical to list the legal status of paracetamol as "OTC" instead of GSL? searching for GSL on wikipedia redirects to OTC anyway -- jpiper 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No - OTC merely is the opposite of POM in that it is available from a counter without a prescription, it does not have to apply to products that undergo licensing process (so a cotton triangle bought to use as a sling is bought OTC but has required no licensing, similar might be sodium bicarbonate bought from a supermarket to add to bath water for a child irritated by the itch of chickenpox). OTC you see is not a legal term, but a descriptive one - is not applied to a medicine's packaging box. When we consider medicines obtained without a prescription, then being a medicinal product it must undergo a licensing process. The license granted is (if not POM) either that it may only be supplied under the supervision of a Pharmacist, P-medicines, or the more freely available category of GSL (General Sales List) - eg paracetamol sold at garages and supermarkets (who do not have in-store pharmacies). So a GSL is more widely available than a P, although both are OTCs, as is bleach which is not a drug at all. The terms POM, CD & P must legally be shown in the UK on the packaging (I'm not sure if 'GSL' is applied). Even GSL has restrictions imposed (eg number of tablets supplied in a pack and, in case of paracetamol, number of packs that may be sold at anyone time).

The GSL to OTC redirect is in part because OTC is the overall topic and because wikipedia is not just UK-based, so OTC will/should compare differing non-prescrition regulatiry systems.

Licensed drug
OTCPrecription required
GSLPOMPOM(CD)

Hope this helps David Ruben Talk 17:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the information David.

I was aware that P, POM etc. existed, but thought GSL was just a synonym for OTC (I didn't realise that it was an umbrella term). I'll keep it in mind for future edits (Maybe I should add the BNF to my bedtime reading!) --jpiper 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Drugbox

I'd like to commend you on adding the scheduling parameters - they've made it incredibly easier to add this information. Fvasconcellos 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

user 24.191.56.163

Hi. User 24.191.56.163 appears to be adding spam links to the gynecomastia article. I've reported it to one of the administrators. - Cybergoth 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

® Marks

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I disagree with your use of ® in paracetamol.

If you start a phrase with "x is marketed as y" (or in this case "x is known as brand names y, z") then I see no reason for the ® mark to be used, as a brand name is implied, however, the sentence "drug x, most commonly known as y" would warrant a ® mark as a reader would be unsure if y is a brand name, a chemical name, or other.

Your "use ® for the first instance of the name" idea makes sense, but in my opinion it would become redundant in articles that illustrate a long list of brand names for a drug. Maybe a concrete policy should be drafted - jpiper 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Temporomandibular joint disorder revert warring

Hi, we've seem recently to have been revert-warring which is to be regretted. I am not clear why you disliked all or part of my edit, to I have started a discussion thread Talk:Temporomandibular joint disorder#Edit war re atypical symptoms.

To state as you did in an edit summary "Shame on you", was I believe, an ad hominem attack and failed to WP:Assume good faith. Of course neck/shoulder "are different parts of the anatomy" from upper or lower back. However, regional anatomy is not the only classification system one may use when listing symptoms & causes of disease. It seemed perfectly reasonable, to me, to classify pains in these areas together as non-localised musculoskeletal pain symptoms ('localised' referring to whether local to the TMJ itself, rather than whether pain is well circumscribed in any given area, and distinct from non-pain symptoms of limited opening or clicking sounds). As such they are intriguing - pain over a disordered joint seems obvious, but not pain some distance away. Such symptoms can not be intuitively guessed upon, but rather must be identified through clinical observation/research. These non-localised symptoms warrant explanation as to their mechanism, e.g. much as for earache being due to referred pain. Also this last point repeatedly deleted with your reverts to my overall edit.

I look forward to your comments on the article's talk page. David Ruben Talk 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


These arguments of yours belong on the talk page - where I have, and always do, make mine, if not entirely covered in the edit summary. I am copying these comments also to your talk page, so that you are sure to find them. You have been repeatedly deleting and obscuring the back pain symptom from the tmjd page, WITHOUT A SINGLE SOURCE TO ASSIST YOU. It is getting harder to assume good faith. It is long since time you got some sources for your repeated edits. You demanded I produce a source, and I immediately did, yet you continue to delete/obsure the fully sourced fact, while claiming to be an ignorant general practitioner (i.e."no dental training whatsoever" (talk at DavidRuben 23:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)) whose experience consists of little else than the six or so clients he sees a year seeking pain relief. (talk at DavidRuben 23:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)) pat8722 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Most importantly, lets keep the tmjd discussion on the tmjd talk page. We want all readers to have the full conversation available in one place for easy review and understanding. pat8722 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

David: perhaps you would like to comment here. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in again in what is not my personal problem, but in my view, it seems that Pat8722 is questioning/attacking your professional credibility over something as innocuous as how to order and list the symptoms of one disorder. Perhaps you could consider posting at WP:AN/I; that's one of the worst offenses I've seen here in a long time by a regular contributor. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 23:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree - WP:AN/I indicates related page for personal attacks of WP:PAIN - which in turn asks that a standard template warning must first be given. This so posted to talk page with my reasoning for objecting to claims of deleting (I only joined like-symptoms into a sentance) and further personal attacks. I see though that Dozenist just posted a significant extension to the symptoms of TMJ, listing symptoms into 3 main groups and giving very thorough citations as to existance of symptoms and possibly explanations as to why these symptoms occur in this condition. I think/hope content dispute of "simple list of 10" therefore in the past. David Ruben Talk 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

TMD

You are most welcome. I am glad to see you liked the edits. I hope they are an informative summary of signs and symptoms.

Concerning the refs, I have not personally made a decision in which I like more. It certainly can look a little messy/redudant to look at, but then again I like it that each ref holds all the info you would want. I guess if I see an example of what you are referring to and it works nicely, it may convince me more to see it your way. From a writer's perspective, it is just as easy to do it either way. My main concern is that we get accurate and cited information in the article, as I am sure you have noticed that can be a tricky thing. ;) The format of the citation is less of a concern.

Oh, and maybe we will run into each other on other articles. It would be nice to have a physician's help on some of these things. - Dozenist talk 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a still a problem with someone posting a list of symptoms in the article, despite that most of the information is already stated in paragraph format. Coincidentally, the reference for the list comes from an online copy of a book (which is not a problem by itself), but the book itself does not appear to have a reference section that demonstrates its research. Your comments would be welcomed. - Dozenist talk 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

stop vandalizing my talk page

False accusations are vandalism. Here's my response to what you placed on my talk page.pat8722 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:Civility means one should interret an accusation first as a misunderstanding. False accusations are only vandalsim if done in bad faith with effect of disrupting wikipedia, if a genuine mistake made then full appology should be and will be forthcoming.David Ruben Talk 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I now count 3 episodes of inciviity/personal attack towards myself - Talk:Temporomandibular_joint_disorder#comment_by_David_Ruben where you questioned anyone but a Dentist would treat TMJ and "anyone but a dentist would have deleted technical content on the basis of alleged personal experience", your edit summary comment and the subsequent posting to my talk page. So, official tag added above, I explain why I disagree with the allegations you posted and the continued personal attacks.

You need to study wikipedia: personal attack. I have said nothing "repeatedly, in bad faith, or with ... venom." I was asked to explain my reasoning, so I did. pat8722 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My previous posting was composed of two parts - a notice of content discussion on an article's talk page (to which I had posted for discussion to be held there). Secondly a complaint about the personal attack, which seemed best on your talk page - as this had attacked my credibility, I indicated my reasoning for grouping like conditions atypical musculoskeletal pains together - this was not done instead of holding content discussion on the article’s talk page.
You don't need to provide notice of discussion on talk pages! You just edit the talk page. If you were to have edited it and I didn't see it, then you would have cause for notifying me of such on my talk page!pat8722 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Given I was making a complaint about a personal attack regarding my involvement, seemed only gracious to indicate I had opened up a thread on the article's talk page about content issues.David Ruben Talk 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You alleged on my talk page " You have been repeatedly deleting and obscuring the back pain symptom from the tmjd page". Yet as, this edit shows, "backache" was not deleted, just I just joined upper-backache and lower-backache into one sentence – that is not deleting.
You deleted it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temporomandibular_joint_disorder&diff=52064002&oldid=52045411 for the proof of it. You also obscurred it, placing it behind "stiffness in the neck and shoulders" and by combining three different symptoms into one! BUT THIS DISCUSSION BELONGS ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE, NOT HERE.
Joining list items into a sentance is not "deleted it", as for "obscurring" that is subjective but I doubt many other editors would so agree.David Ruben Talk 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • re "It is long since time you got some sources for your repeated edits" - does one really need a source to change "* Upper backache * Lower backache" into a sentence as ".. upper or lower backache" ?
You hadn't been sourcing any of your edits. And yes, you need a source. See the discussion on the article's talk page. pat8722 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no requirement to source an editorial writing style of listing items as a bullet-pointed list as opposed to prose text. No claim was made for all of these having to occur simultaneously in the same patient and hence the word "or" rather than "and" - this is being disruptively pedantic and antagonistic.David Ruben Talk 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • re "You demanded I produce a source, and I immediately did, yet you continue to delete/obsure the fully sourced fact" - no information deleted, just collated together as a sentence.
You deleted it, per above. And you obscurred it, per above.pat8722 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • re "ignorant general practitioner (i.e."no dental training whatsoever" (talk at DavidRuben 23:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC))" - is a further personal attack. The wording I actually described myself was "a humble General Practitioner" and "Whilst we have no specialised knowledge and certainly do not have any dental equipment..." which is not that same as having no "training whatsoever". Similarly I have not been trained as an Endocrinologist specialist, yet majority of diabetics will be successfully managed exclusively by a Primary Care Multidisciplinary Team via General Practice in the UK and need never be seen by a hospital specialist. There is much I have not received training on - orthodontics, ophthalmic optician skills in precisely assessing vision and the writing out of a lens prescription, nor indeed of glass grinding to make a lens. Yet I can measure far-vision acuity, and recognise a child who only gets headaches sitting at the back of the class as needing to see their optician - so lack of training in a field to specialist level does not mean "ignorant".
I quoted you EXACTLY. Re-read your first paragraph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temporomandibular_joint_disorder in the section "comment by David Ruben" - you state "no dental training whatsoever". It's really strange that you take your own words about yourself as a personal attack.pat8722
The first paragraph reads :
re "I was held to provide a source on something pretty basic by one who represents himself as being a dentist" - Thanks for assuming good faith. I have never represented myself as a dentist, nor should it matter whether I was or was not (WP:AGF). My user page clearly indicates I am just a humble General Practitioner. In part, given the lack of availability of NHS dentists in the UK, GPs are often the first point of call for patients with dental problems. Whilst we have no specialised knowledge and certainly do not have any dental equipment, we can provide analgesia and/or antibiotics whilst patients wait to see their dentists (else just strong instruction to see their dentists and not assume that we nice GPs, without "nasty" dental drills/injections but no dental training whatsoever, can help them).
TMJD is something that not infrequently turns up (perhaps maximum of half-dozen cases each year), often after the patient has already seen their own dentist, been examined & X-rayed and informed that their teeth and gums are fine. So I am quite used to prescribing low-dose pain-modifying tricyclic antidepressants (Amitriptyline or Nortriptyline) for this, which often (?approx a third-half) seems to be sufficient to help settle the pain either completely or to such an extent that specialist referral is not desired. Of the remainder, I very readily refer to maxillo-facial surgeons (I guess about 25% of referees find their problem resolves in the 2-3 months it often takes to get an appointment). So I guess (I admit without any hard evidence) that most cases of TMJD in the UK initially present to GPs.
I do not self-classify as having "no dental training whatsoever" rather of the patients assumptions ("not assume") that non-dental trained personal (we are not Dentists nor attended undergraduate Dental School) can help them. My self-commentary was stated first at the top of the paragraph, of GPs in general "have no specialised knowledge" - but if we had specialised knowledge in any given dicipline in medicine we would not be call a GP but a specialist in the relevant field (e.g. Cardiologist, Neurologist). We have generalised knowledge in all manner of medical/surgical disciplines, and as doctors "generalised knowledge" is not that of the general public, but on a foundation of medical training and as a GP on additonal GP vocational training. None of this states or implies I have indicated I have no knowledge at all, just of having had no formal specialist dental training, and thus "ignorant" is a personal attack (PS non-Doctors/non-Dentists are also allowed to edit dental topics in wikipedia, yet they are not "ignorant" for not working in this field). David Ruben Talk 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • re "whose experience consists of little else than the six or so clients he sees a year seeking pain relief" - is further personal attack as to my credibility. Yes this is significant experience, ("Facial pain is a relatively frequent cause of presentation to both general medical and dental practitioners" PMID 16113700) - but "relative" does not mean huge “frequency”, and certainly is not dissimilar to the number of patients who present with new onset of chest pain angina each year, certainly more than the number of cases of confirmed acute appendicitis. David Ruben Talk 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, what can we say if you take mere reference to the facts you state about yourself as insults? pat8722 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It was the choice of tone/phrasing "experience consists of little else than..." that is belittling and blatant breach of WP:Assume good faith - significant numbers of cases present to GPs (as per ref above), or are referred by dentists to see their GP for pain control in this disorder (as previously mentioned in discussion). Whilst I may or may not singularly be successful in managing a case, I can then draw upon the telephone advice of Maxillofacial surgeons and, in those cases that I or my colleagues have referred on to hospital-care, read the correspondence that outlines the management approach taken. Additionally (in UK at least) any patient directly referred by their dentist to Specialist Hospital care, will have copies of clinic correspondence sent to their registered GP - so we are "exposed" to the wisdom of specialists even for patients who we might not have initially seen ourselves. In this regards, GPs are aware (at least in UK) of all cases presenting to either themselves or having been referred by their dentist to see a specialist - thats considerable exposure of cases occuring, albeit the incidence numbers are not a great as many other problems (dental abscesses, broken teeth, asthma, pharyngitis etc etc). David Ruben Talk 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But mostly, keep your comments on the tmjd issues on the tmjd talk page, so as not confuse the readers of that page. If you decide you want to try to personally attack me again, please first read wikipedia: personal attack and wikipedia: vandalism, as I have in no way violated wikipedia: personal attack. {Cite the line of the policy if you believe I violated it). Even though your allegation that I violated wikipedia: personal attack is a personal attack, even that personal attack on me does not qualify as a personal attack under the wikipedia: personal attack policy, but it does qualify as vandalism under the wikipedia: vandalism policy. So stop vandalizing my talk page by pretending I have violated a policy I have not.pat8722 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Accusations made in good faith re breaches of the principles of wikipedia policy (rather than finding a specific phrase in a policy that solely & completely characterises your precise actions, false claims of deleting, and belittling my worth as either a wikipedian or practitioner fit to manage such cases) is not my reading of vandalsim. Certainly it is not willful misinterpreting or "pretending". Given your belittleling the recent further additon to the symptoms section of TMJD, which neatly grouped presentation of this condition into presenting symptoms and signs found on examination, your continued arguing over deleting the purity of your revert-protecting list, seems like trolling to me (but that is just a personal opinion and no, not specificaly banned by any WP policy I am aware of) and continuation of your "Gaming" with wikepdia rules and failure to work collaboratively with other editors (which is in breach and previously resulted in several user-blocks). David Ruben Talk 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypoxia (medical)

You may want to comment on High Altitude Sicness and hypoxia. My understanding is that HAPE and HACE are CO2 based not O2 based and that Hypoxia (medical) mountain sickness HAPE & HACE have it wrong. Can we get some medical input. see Please see discussion at Talk:Hypoxia (medical) Ex nihil 23:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Osgood-Schlatter

Hi, David; I do not have to hand a specific reference on the percentage needing surgical intervention. I will hunt it out and get back to you. My statement in the article was based on a personal experience of some years working in the field of orthopaedics; the number needing surgery is something less than 1%.--Anthony.bradbury 12:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Altitude

David: being essentially ignorant on the subject, although as you know being medically qualified, I thought I would discuss this here rather than in public. I have always been under the impression that high-altitude pulmonary oedema was caused by a specific combination of alveolar-cell hypoxia in an environment of low barometric pressure; the hypoxia causing a metabolic malfunction leading to oedema and the low external pressure magnifying the effect. Certainly pCO2 is irrelevant. Am I wrong?--Anthony.bradbury 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates to Uveitis Treatments . . . .

Hi David, thanks for correcting the additions I made to the treatment sections for Uveitis. I have Uveitis and those are the medicines I take, which work very well for me. I had noticed that under the treatment section on the Uveitis page the only items listed were "no magic fairy dust" and an experimential drug. So I took the liberty to add the drugs I was using to treat my Uveitis. You summed it up very well, again thank you.

Best JP

thanks

hi david, i know my technical skills are, er, lame. it *is* lazy of me not to learn how to cite in-line correctly etc., and count on another editor to fix for me instead, and i'm sorry if that has caused any annoyance. i will try to get better, but it isn't easy. (i couldn't even figure out how to make a userpage!). thanks again. c

Don't worry - there are mutliple skills for contributing - most important are provision of new ideas to improve articles by bringing in fresh perspectives or knowledge, then is engaging in discussion to help copllaborative improvement to articles. Technical stuff of wikistyling, using whatever the latest footnote fad system is (I've worked through 3 in the last year), hearing about tools & templates all take time. Later might come more administrative tasks, eg watching larger number of articles for the endless spamming of commercial or personal links or blog sites (one tends to get a little bit jaded after a while and risk loosing patience with yet another anon who starts adding multiple links to multiple pages - always good to pause, take a deep breath, think of WP:AGF, and then WP:NOT). Finally of course there are collaboratie communities, eg WP:CLINMED, vandal patrols etc. No one editor of course need aspire to do all things - thats the beauty of wikipedia - pick and choose where one feels one is best able to help out (I'm occasionally brave and launch into complex articles where multiple editors have accumulated large numbers of references that are poorly marked up in a variety of ways, and untangle the mess).
PS re user page, generally don't reveal anything that directly identifies you or your address, and limit the number of userboxes you select to show (e.g. languages spoken, country, profession...). Feel free copy from another user's user page if you wish (but polite to acknowledge any complex styling "Borrowed"). Generally a useful place to add links that you wish frequently to consult, eg Citation templates (Template:cite book, Template:cite journal, Template:cite newspaper, Template:cite web), collabortive communities, eg WP:CLINMED, or talk page of a major theme eg or Talk:Birth control. David Ruben Talk 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

citation number adjustment?

how do i get an url in brackets to display a number other than 1??? sorry in advance for such lame question... Cindery 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

and thanks for all advice above re editing, very nice of you. (didn't see before posting above question, not meant as response to that). Cindery 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


You don't get to select what is shown as the number of an inline link, if no alternative displayed text is given - it is autogenerated for one across a whole article. 

Hence: [http://www.one.com]] [http://www.test.com] [http://www.last.com]
Gives: [3]] [4] [5]

However if one adds alternative displayed text within the brackets by leaving a space, then this is displayed as the hyperlinked text and no number is shown: 

Hence: It is generally considered that [http://www.pepsi.com Pepsi] were...
Gives: It is generally considered that Pepsi were...

This appears very similar to internal wikilinks, except for the additional external-link icon, hence compare [http://www.pepsi.com Pepsi] with [[Pepsi]] which give Pepsi and Pepsi. The place for inline links with alternative displayed text is in reference/footnote/external-links sections when it is clear that links are going to be to outside sources, 

Hence: BBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk homepage]
Gives: BBC homepage

Note that without display-text, the autonumbered inline links is shown enclosed in square brackets and an external link-icon. Whereas with display-text, inline links are shown without square brackets but still an external-link icon.

This all gives a somewhat confusing appearance if inline links are mixed with a footnote system, notice the differences in format and number-sequence of the inline & footnote links (a good reason for using just a footnote system rather than the mixed mess) 

Hence: This occurs,<ref>one</ref> according to the Times[http://www.times/com]
        and the [http://www.mirror.com Mirror] papers, with salt<ref>salt</ref>
        pepper<ref>pepper</ref> but not Pepsi[http://pepsi.com]

This occurs,[1] according to the Times[6] and the Mirror papers, with salt[2] pepper[3] but not Pepsi[7]

  1. ^ one
  2. ^ salt
  3. ^ pepper

(the inline links appear as [4] and [5] as my first example a few lines up defined [1] [2] & [3] inline links for this page as a whole)


Much neater would have been: 

This occurs,<ref>one</ref> according to the Times<ref>[http://www.times/com The Times]</ref>
        and the Mirror<ref>[http://www.mirror.com The Mirror]</ref> papers, with salt<ref>salt</ref>
        pepper<ref>pepper</ref> but not Pepsi<ref>[http://pepsi.com Pepsi]</ref>

or, if one is being nice to other editors who will have to try and follow this in edit mode, use of html tags gives: 

This occurs,<!--
   --><ref>one</ref>
 according to the Times<!--
   --><ref>[http://www.times/com The Times]</ref>
 and the Mirror<!--
   --><ref>[http://www.mirror.com The Mirror]</ref>
 papers, with salt<!--
   --><ref>salt</ref>
 pepper<!--
   --><ref>pepper</ref>
 but not Pepsi<!--
   --><ref>[http://pepsi.com Pepsi]</ref>

These show as :

This occurs,[1] according to the Times[2] and the Mirror[3] papers, with salt[4] pepper[5] but not Pepsi[6]

David Ruben Talk 23:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just read you note of clarification. Thanks for the info. I'm a new user.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike@aafa (talk • contribs) 15:39, 1 August 2006

quinacrine article citations a mess...

i tried to add one (#6) but it kept coming up as "2". then i noticed there is a "7," and an "8," in article but not cited in refs. i still don't understand why 6 would come up as 2, though...if you have time, the refs on this page could use someone with more skill than me in sorting so they add up...

best, c

Ug - yes horrible. What is happening is that the links in the text are being auto numbered by teh combination of in-line links (the [1] and [2]), so that the first of the footnote links (in the code {ref|name}) then appears in the text as number [3]. The actual footnotes themselves (with backlink via code {note|name}) are being numbered in their own order, i.e. starting with (1). Hence link [3] in the article is pointing to (1) in the reference section.
This is a problem/bug of teh ref/note footnote system, and a further reason to dislike in-line links. Normally the footnote system in place (ref/note, cite.php, harvard manually-order) should not be changed by a new editor to the article (there being no policy as to which of teh many options must be used). However in this case clearly needs overhaul - I'll have a go. Look at the edit comparisons as I go, to see steps taken :-) David Ruben Talk 12:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah bear with me - due to vandalsim from an Anon, a block of a range of url addresses in place that is including the access I can get from here at work. So will retry later working from home & my own ISP. David Ruben Talk 12:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok - done. Coud not have inline links plus ref/note system in place with then manual numbers of the reference section (would have worked without the inline links I suppose). Easiest was to switch to new system of cite.php (see WP:Footnotes) as this correctly places the displayed list in order and correctly numbers. Also upgraded all inline links to full citations. That said, the QS section is very long and is in need of sub-section headers, but it needs a tweek in order to insert these at suitable places (see added tag and discussion thread started) David Ruben Talk 16:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks--wow, good job. agree section i added still needs clean-up. will try to make time.Cindery 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your input on footnotes, since I have long wondered what that was about... I simply never use it. Maybe you'd like to add footnotes under the "usage"-section, and explain this issue there?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK Attempted simple explanation. Whole system really not helped by metawiki's choice of 'ref' for the tags for use in Footnotes (with Reference sections not using anything but bulletted lists) David Ruben Talk 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

==ny times article on JAMA==

...i thought you might find this interesting. (i laughed when she said "i'm not the FBI." she's a fascinating character. and if the problem of susssing out *known* conflicts-of-interest is too much for ed of JAMA--who has rigorous standards/beliefs about this--how can the rest of us/mere "google-detectives" be expected to figure it out...? funny that the journals are one-upping each other re researching conflicts of interest. but i think that's good for doctors/patients--for the journals to compete to see who can give us the most unbiased info/have the most sterling reputation for this. sooo typical of academia, though, to have these kinds of contests for status...but better that they should police each other in a status contest over this than status contests over things which *do not* benefit us...?)Cindery 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/science/01prof.html?ex=1155355200&en=577a3db9f6d67627&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Raymond Gosling

Thanks for your work at Raymond Gosling. I've often wondered what he ended up doing after his early work on DNA. --JWSchmidt 01:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The unit (not all him personally of course, but very much with him taking active supervisory/supportive role) was involved in developing the doppler machines to measure heart, aorta, leg and cerebral blood flows. They devised a number of parameters to measure, obtained values for normal controls and then looked to see if useful as disease markers. Having developed the techniques, wide range of research into various applications, which involved collaboration with a number of people at the unit and in other hopsitals across UK & abroad. He was extremely supportive in prompting his team into researching the underlying biophysics, instrumentation and clinical applications generating large numbers of papers to diseminate knowledge. As a medical student doing an undergraduate intercollated degree I got fully involved in the work of the unit, anyone coming up with anything useful was quickly utilised within the Unit or by his wide network of associates - I quickly found myself introduced to doctors from the rest of Guy's (search PubMed for "Kirkham MCA" re Dr Fenella Kirkham's work on MCA autoregulation in cases of paediatric head trauma as one example) and also St Mary's Hospital (again paediatric ITU monitoring) - my computer program gained me author credit for various conference papers and poster presentations. Unfortunately trying to find web sources to quote from (WP:Cite to WP:Verify) is extremely hard (all of this was pre-web). The IEEE has a full article on his work at the unit, but by subscription only :-( David Ruben Talk 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User Brewhaha

Hi. I wonder if you could help User:Brewhaha@edmc.net. He's been adding articles to categories, some of them new and potentially vast. I've added a note on his talk page, but I'm a bit out of my depth. Hope my advice has been correct and friendly enough. Would appreciate if you could keep an eye on this. Cheers, Colin°Talk 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Medical Professionalism and IMAP copywrite laws

David,

Hello, thank you for your comments and interest on the topic of Medical Professionalism. I am the Director of Communications for the Institute on Medicine as a Profession and therefore have the right to copy the deffinition that we have for medical professionalism. It is, therefore, "in my words."

I created this entry more to spur discussion as to what Medical Professionalism is. It seems there is a conspicuous lack of definition for the term. Feel free to amend my article and add any information that you and your group deem necessary in an effort to come to a conclusion on this field.

Thanks you for taking a moment to work with me. --Alwood 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - David, Thanks, I appreciate the help. And i appreciate your interest. Amanda (Alwood ) 14:25, 9 August 2006

Hypoxia (medical)

Dear David, Thanks for your welcome to wikipedia and for spotting my difficulty with efficiently formatting citations. I'll look into the information you sent and hopefully make a better job of it next time. Best wishes, Fibrosis 01:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

orthomolecular medicine

I saw your excellent comment in Talk:Carcinogenesis from January; you would likely be of assistance if you could lend your expertise and neutral eye to the orthomolecular medicine and megavitamin therapy pages. -- Cri du canard 07:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Template:Oral hypoglycemics

I think the consideration should be-- is it readable and clear? Meglitinides & Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors aren't related; so, I don't think they belong on the same line. You point-out that this makes the template longer. True-- but the template is better organized. The way it was before was inconsistent-- as one could have put together the Alpha-glucosidase inhibitor and the TZDs-- there are four of the 'em... the same number as if one combines the meglitinides & DPP-4 inhibitors. I like consistency and I think that shouldn't take a hit for space saving.

Wikipedia is primarily an electronic medium-- I think it should be formated for that medium... not for a potential paper version. As for potential DVD & CD versions-- I don't think it matters. Storing a newline character (\n) and carriage return (\r) is equivalent to storing a two dashes. If one does the comparison properly... one should count the spaces that preceed and follow the dashes-- the way you formated is actually less efficient as it is " -- " (4 characters) vs "\n\r" (which counts as two characters). That's my $0.02. Nephron  T|C 02:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite news template

Since I'm very ignorant of template syntax, I don't feel comfortable inserting the markup myself, but if you'd like to do it I can temporarily unlock the template so you can do it. But I don't want to do it if you're not on-line; drop me a line at my talk page to let me know that you're around, and I'll unlock the template. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection to semi-protected so you can make the edits. I'll try to keep an eye on it for a bit, but drop me another line when you're done so I can raise the drawbridge again. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me, and the drawbridge is back up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome - and thanks for making the change - the test areas are essential for me - as I tend to try and test rather than think through completely and implement :) --Trödel 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Myopia

Thanks, I appreciate the help! -AED 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Civility on User talk: Cindery

-Severa (!!!) 05:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake...

Hi, sorry I transiently messed up your talk page - I was trying to get the hang of some formatting by pinching your talk page heading, and I accidentally edited your page instead of mine. I am clearly not quite wiki-competent yet.Fibrosis 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on my user page! I'm starting to get the hang of things. I'll hopefully be able to make more of a contribution to the wikiproject you recommended towards the end of the year. Fibrosis 22:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

amniocentesis

David,

You deleted my comment that amniocentesis is not as reliable as it is made out to be.

Can I substantiate my claim? Yes I can. I am an accountant. I don't suppose find out about the amniocentis (amnio) of a large number of women. Nevertheless I know personally of two women for whom amnio proved impossible because of the position of the placenta. One of these women is my wife, and we are the parents of a (now three-year-old) boy with Down's Syndrome precisely because the amnio was impossible to carry out.

Although amnio is by all accounts very reliable, NONE of the literature I have seen points out that in a number of cases it is impossible to perform. This reduces the EFFECTIVE reliability significantly.

As a doctor, you no doubt have access to statistics which show how frequently it is impossible to carry out an amnio.

I think: (a) the fact that amnio may be impossible should be publicised when advising pregnant women of their choices; (b) reliability figures quoted should be "effective" reliability, rather than reliability of amnios actually performed.

Had we known that amnio could be impossible, we would have opted for a CVS test. Already having two healthy children, the slightly higher risk of miscarriage due to CVS would have been very acceptable to us.

Regards,

Bobby57 19:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Pre-eclampsia

Dear Dave,

I did not state that the steroids were for the treatment of pre-eclampsia but for the benefit of the fetus. The “fetus” is in utero in the mother, treating post delivery does not provide for the possibility of a positive patient outcome (patient being the fetus which at 24 to 34 weeks is viable). If you ask any mother, they would surely like to have the option to know about this treatment.

Also, a series is indicative of more than one; if you like you can edit and state that they are given every 12 hours along with any additional information. It’s your call there. My point is from a patient’s right to know, a patients access to information. Post pre-mature delivery this information is of no of value.

I also note that the article does not state that this condition can be fatal to both mother and fetus. “It is the most common dangerous complication of pregnancy--impacting both the mother and the fetus.”

Davidruben wrote: (rv as link clearly describes, steroids are used in premature delivery "usually 24 to 34 weeks", not specifically needed for pre-eclampsia. Also link discusses giving just one vs several injections)

Removed edit: Steroid injections (Betametasane and Decadron)[8] may have to be requested by the mother or family as doctors may feel that delivery will come quickly and the steroid injections are given in a ‘’’ series over a 24 hour period.’’’ These injections will help the development and maturity of the fetal lungs.

So Doc, can you develop an edit that will meet your standards, that you can approve of or should I get a second opinion in my family of Docs? PEACE 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC) User:TalkAbout

Limited space in edit summary - what I was trying to indicate was that the steroids are given for imminent premature delivery, not specifically because of the underlying reason for the premature delivery. Similarly the article makes no mention of the requirement for SCBU monitoring of babies born prematurely or increased risks intracerebral haemorrhages - its not directly relevant to the article on pre-eclampsia (but vital in premature birth article).
I thought the phrasing was unencyclopaedic and duplicated information already given in the article ("In some cases women with preeclampsia or eclampsia can be stabilized temporarily with magnesium sulfate intravenously to forestall seizures while steroid injections are administered to promote fetal lung maturation").
Howver you highlight that there are indeed important consequences to the fetus for having an induced delivery occuring pre-term. I have therefore copied your posting and provided a full response and suggestion at Talk:Pre-eclampsia :-) David Ruben Talk 02:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

re Diabetic diet

Thank you for your work on the article I began on a diabetic diet. I appreciate having some one who is a qualified medical doctor do this, as I should tell you that I am not a doctor of medicine (my Ph.D. is in Psychology, and had more to do with the psychoses than it had to do with diabetes). However, as a Type One diabetic myself, I felt I had learnt a lot about the subject. ACEO 18:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks

for diplomacy, and especially for one month anniversary mention. Cindery 23:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite templates

I thought the use of cite templates was optional, and frankly I personally dislike the use of boldface. Furthermore, the way URLs are displayed (in the article title) is not how I personally like to format my references. But thanks for fixing cyproterone anyway... JFW | T@lk 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ one
  2. ^ The Times
  3. ^ The Mirror
  4. ^ salt
  5. ^ pepper
  6. ^ Pepsi
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davidruben/Archive_3&oldid=1061511547"