Jump to content

User talk:Davidruben/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Asthma and Chronic Dehydration 2

Dear David,

Thank you very much for your detailed and prompt response.

What I wrote in my contribution was based on reading the book ABC of Asthma Allergies and Lupus by Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, M.D. I found the book at Waterstone's but it is available from amazon.co.uk and the doctor's own website: www.watercure.com. Throughout the book the doctor frequently references his previous book, of a more general nature, entitled Your Body's Many Cries for Water, which is also widely available.

Dr. Batmanghelidj does not argue that asthma is the only symptom of dehydration, i.e. that any dehydrated individual should normally suffer from asthma. This is blatantly not true. What he simply argues is that asthmatics suffer the symptoms of asthma because they are dehydrated. In his words, our bodies have different forms of 'drought management'. When individuals are dehydrated, some suffer from asthma, others might suffer from fatigue, or a skin rash etc. His research into water began when he was imprisoned after the 1979 Iranian Revolution (for being a member of a prominent Iranian family) and he had to treat someone with a peptic ulcer. Water was all that was available to him, so he gave the man two glasses and he began to feel better. He went on to treat 3,000 patients in the same way before being released from prison and moving to America in 1982. You can read the rest of his biography at www.watercure.com. The reason why he doesn't show up on some of the lists could be that he died in November 2004. According to his biography: 'While in prison he conducted extensive research into the medicinal effects of water in preventing and relieving many painful degenerative diseases. Evin [Prison] proved an ideal “stress laboratory,” and despite his being offered an earlier release, Dr. B. chose to stay an extra four months in prison to complete his research into the relationship of dehydration and bleeding peptic ulcer disease. The report of his findings was published as the editorial of the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology in June 1983. The New York Times Science Watch reported this discovery on June 21, 1983.'

As you are the one responsible for the Wikipedia article on asthma I think it would be pertinent for you to at least have a look at books that I have mentioned, or the articles mentioned in the doctor's biography. The first book is filled with testimonies of people who have increased their water intake, and salt in due proportion, and their asthma has vanished. I am not a doctor or even a student of medicine so you would clearly understand a lot more from these writings than I would.

I mentioned in my previous letter that I have made remarkable improvement since following Dr.B's advice. That prompted me to mention the doctor and his work on Wikipedia so that other asthma sufferers such as myself who like to do research in their sickness can possibly benefit as well.

Please have a look into this. I look forward to your reply!

Best wishes,

Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by NWMLock (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Search at Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology (http://www.jcge.com) for "Batmanghelidj" failed identify single hit either as author (possible 1983 not on search database) or a term located anywhere in articles since. As per www.watercure.com - sorry not a reliable source as as one of the included review puts on Dr B's claims (http://www.watercure.com/bookreviews/article_day.html):

"Heartburn, arthritis, lupus, asthma, 'high cholesterol', high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer formation, hot flushes and menstrual problems, obesity, allergies, bulimia, chronic fatigue syndrome, ME, angina, lower back pain, gout, kidney stones, skin disorders, diabetes, fungal/yeast overgrowths, multiple sclerosis, allergies, migraine headaches, general aches and pains, morning sickness, depression, heavy/burdensome periods, colitis, dyspepsia, peptic ulcers.
All, in various ways, linked to a chronic state of dehydration?
World-renowned water expert Dr Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, in his latest bestseller, Water and Salt - Your Healers From Within, maintains that the above conditions are the body's many cries for water"

Yeah right, sorry, fairly typical and frankly boringly naive fringe/pseudoscience. In fact worse than that, as outright dangerous and malicious (clearly there are examples where any of above conditions can be caused by really nasty or aggressive disorders that have no bearing on any dehydration, yet DrB's broad claims without any limiting qualifications suggest otherwise - hypercholesterolaemia is mostly genetically inherited, kidney stones where caused by hypercalcaemia secondary to parathyroid adenoma is completely divorced from normal hydration, likewise I really doubt any 4 year old with onset of type 1 diabetes is the sad out come of their parents dehydrating them etc).
In all seriousness, a single researcher making bold claims, who is ostracised by the wider scientific community who do not support their views, makes this a trivial minority viewpoint. As WP:NPOV policy sets out "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia". Now of course the refs I provided on your talk page indicate that hydration levels whether systemic or localised in airways, and use of humidification in treating asthma attacks have all been seriously looked at and some positive effects, but the claims made at www.watercures.com re Dr B for general hydration seem sort of thing that http://www.quackwatch.com might have reported upon, and indeed it has - see Some Notes on Dr. Batmanghelidj's Silly "Water Cure". David Ruben Talk 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Prostatitis page: summary of review literature and restructuring

Happy New Year, David. :) (note: I have changed my name from Skopp to Ratel).

  1. You made comments in this section of the Prostatitis talk page asking for a list of key studies (which were then supplied) in order to do a review of the subject. I presume you have been too busy to do that or simply decided the page content was fairly well balanced. Is that correct?
  2. I am still convinced the long page on "prostatitis" (a misnomer in the case of CPPS) is confusing, with too many sections and subsections, and would benefit from restructuring and the creation of separate pages for each area, or at the very least the removal of the CPPS section to its own, in depth page. You were the only editor to object to this going ahead, with this comment: "So, suggest keep this on hold for now, but in principle one might similarly split off other classification categories with this then just umbrella simple introduction." Do you still hold this view? ► RATEL ◄ 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, a good New Year to you too :-) No I had not forgotten (just on back-burning) so yes & no to your questions: I have indeed been too busy to have read through all the references that the various editors kindly sent me. I had also deferred until I had opportunity to talk to my local urologists whose views can be summarised by:
  1. Highly controversial (think I made his day, he laughed so much when I explained why I was asking) and largely because good clear evidence of effective treatment is lacking. So "uncertainty" or "developing topic" would perhaps be a fairer and more accurate assessment of the competing theories that were previously edit-warred-over.
  2. Always listens out for Nickel's views (author on several of the footnotes already used in the article) at the annual international urology conference and feels he probably has best understanding of this topic - so good to know article citing from at least one urology-respected author :-)
I will need in a quieter moment to restart reviewing the articles (I proceeded through the first few so slowly that frankly I retained no clearer ideas of overall consensus)... David Ruben Talk 04:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
J Curtis Nickel is a great source and is generally regarded as the world's leading prostatitis researcher. I've exchanged a few emails with him. So that's a great tip from yr uro friend. :) On the other issue, I'm still keen to break the page up a little from its current dog's breakfast complexity (numerous symptoms, etiology, diagnosis and treatment sections). BTW, this talk page is enormous. Want me to archive everything older than a month or two for you? ► RATEL ◄ 05:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've chopped at September which leaves prostatitis threads here for time being :-) David Ruben Talk 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear David, please watch and consider these current edits: A review article states that, "Prostatitis symptoms may increase a man's risk for benign prostate hypertrophy, lower urinary tract symptoms and prostate cancer." (PMID 18164907)ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 13:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Identify the subtype of prostatitis to which this refers. Acute bacterial prostatitis, for example, is a completely different animal to CPPS. ► RATEL ◄ 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Urologist Federico Guercini in a review article notes that his group searched for Chlamydia while other researchers (such as Dr. Anthony Schaeffer who is quoted below did not), and Guercini concluded that 34% of chronic “non-bacterial” prostatitis patients actually suffered from Chlamydia trachomatis infections. (PMID 17695413) Meanwhile, urologist Daniel Shoskes, has proposed an emerging pathogen, nanobacteria, as a potential cause of chronic prostatits/CPPS III, seeing patients improve from anti-nanobacteria therapy and suggesting that around 50% of CPPS III patients may be suffering from nanobacterial infection. (PMID: 15643213)ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 13:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 14:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the nanobacteria study to the section dealing with unculturable bacteria — even though it is a fringe, preliminary study that should not be on the page, since WP is not an exhaustive compendium of all research, especially not tiny preliminary studies. David should remove it if he thinks it is too arcane. I removed the Guercini study completely because it makes no reference to any such finding in the abstract (34% infected), and because several major, high powered studies have found contrary results. And I invite David to take a look at the poor quality of the Guercini abstract (PMID 17695413). ► RATEL ◄ 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear David, Please also consider this edit on the prostatitis page and consider watching what happens to it: Urologist J. Curtis Nickel, in talking about CPPS III acknowledges that, "Many researchers feel that the majority of patients with prostatitis do, in fact, have a microbial etiology for their disease, but that we are just not culturing the correct organism." And notes that new research into infection as a possible cause of chronic prostatitis of unknown etiology is ongoing based on the CPPS classification system. [1] ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you digging up 8 year old overview studies, that have no conclusion, and that have been outdated by later research? I quote the study's conclusion below:

Is chronic prostatitis an infectious disease? It can be appreciated that the etiologic basis of chronic prostatitis symptoms has been poorly understood. Unfortunately, the field still remains confusing. Evidence can be found in the research literature to support the traditional dogma (that approximately 5% of chronic prostatitis is an infectious disease), or the hypothesis that chronic prostatitis is an infectious disease (but we are just not culturing or identifying the organisms in the majority of cases), or the theory that chronic prostatitis does not represent an infectious disease at all (and any microorganisms we may identify are innocent bystanders or normal flora and are not associated with the symptomatology). Is chronic prostatitis an infectious disease? As we enter the 21st century, that question remains unanswered.

Nickel went on to co-author some landmark studies that effectively answer these questions. These landmark studies are cited in the WP page on prostatitis. In other words, RLM, why are you trying to insert all this inconsequential, low-qual and outdated material onto the page? ► RATEL ◄ 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, your absence on the Prostatitis page has meant a new outbreak of hostilities from the other editor, again trying to POV push with minor studies and misinterpreted studies. A pity you could not have followed up on this issue with the reading list I supplied....  :(. ► RATEL ◄ 03:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you expand on Ultram/Tramadol?

I saw that you responded to someone's question about opiates in Ultram. I posted a similar question, although in more depth. I'd appreciate it if you could answer that question for me, if you have any helpful information.

I am completely new to WP, so I really don't know what I'm doing. I HOPE that this post goes to your user page and not somewhere else. We will see. ;-)

In case you can't/don't want to find my OP under "Tramadol", I'll repost it here. I'm assuming you can send me a message with any answers or post them on the OP.

Thanks, David.



I have been researching this medication for years upon years, trying to decipher all of the available information. I'm trying to understand HOW IN THE WORLD Ultram (tramadol) is an "opiate". I see "proof" on both sides of the isle, some information proving that it is an opiate and some proving that it isn't. Personally, I do not believe that Ultram/Tramadol is an opiate, or derived from any form of opiate.

Now, from personal experience, as a chronic pain sufferer, and also having spoken with countless friends in my chronic pain online support group, NONE of us see, or rather feel (effects on the body, that is) that this medication is an opiate. The one and only time that I took it, I did not feel relief from pain at all, and having been on hydrocodone for years prior to starting the Ultram/Tramadol, could feel nothing from it (even at triple doses).

I understand that most internet information reports that Ultram/Tramadol "acts" as an opiate, but isn't actually an opiate. That in and of itself makes NO sense to me.

1. Can someone, provide me relative proof that this drug either is/is not an opiate? And I don't mean telling me "it's an opiate, because "so-and-so" says it is. (i.e. In the chemical breakdown; opium, or a derivative of it, is there.)

2. IF Ultram/Tramadol is an opiate, how can it be sold w/o a prescription over the internet? (And before you go there, I know it is being/can be done for a fact.)

3. IF it is an opiate, I understand that it is a synthetic form. How does this affect the medication?

4. What are the benefits/drawbacks with using synthetic opiates? Do synthetics not work as well, or do "naturally" derived chemical compounds work better? For Example: I was on hydrocodone for 6 yrs. and could feel when it hit my system. With the current medication that I am on, it is similar to Ultram, in that it is synthetic, and I never feel it hit my system. Why is that? (Note: This medication is for my chronic pain, NOT recreational/illicit drug use!)

I know these are a lot of questions, but I've been doing research for a long time on this medication, and I do have a good source with which to provide information to update the article with a qualified resource, but before I do, I'd like to just know a few things. I haven't ever added to any article in WP before, and am a bit nervous/uninformed about how to do it. Any info on that would be much appreciated as well.

Many thanks for anyone that is willing to tackle my questions.

Mom2-4Kids (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Oops. I saw a strange formatting error, and forgot to check further back for vandalism. "Fightox"? How did I miss that? Thanks for spotting it. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I initially missed it too on reviewing your edit and had had closed the tab, then I reloaded the page when something momentarily glimsed continued to nag at me :-) David Ruben Talk 00:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Hi David. I saw you've been active in trying to build consensus at Talk:Acupuncture. As you probably saw, I blocked User:Mccready a few days ago for edit-warring there and on chiropractic. I wanted to get your thoughts about where to go from here.

I received a note from Jim Butler expressing frustration with Mccready's behavior after expiration of the block, and with a long-term pattern of disruption on these articles. At the same time, Jim recognized (as do I) that Mccready has made some good contributions as well. I do think it's discouraging that Mccready's first act after the block expired was to go back and reinsert an abbreviated version of the same edit that led to his block, and which clearly lacked consensus. I'm also troubled by his apparent pattern of rationalizing all of his past blocks by attacking the blocking admin's integrity, experience, etc.

My sense is that there is support in the community for taking a somewhat harder line in reducing the disruption surrounding many alt-med articles (the homeopathy probation being the canonical example). Here's what I'm thinking: since Mccready has made some good contributions in the past and most of his disruption takes the form of constant edit-warring and reverting, I'd propose that he be placed on 1RR. This would not ban him from making edits or discussing things on the talk page, but it would directly address the issue of edit-warring. Looking at the histories of both chiropractic and acupuncture, I see Mccready's edits being undone by a variety of other editors, and being reinserted by Mccready. Even where he's willing to compromise and reach consensus, he gets there by way of edit-warring (see this, for example). His tone with a new, uninvolved user coming to the article ("You have changed your story... you need to explain why you're confused") in the above example is hardly useful either.

I'm soliciting your thoughts on the matter because I'd prefer not to impose 1RR unilaterally. I think there would be general support for it, though history leads me to believe that Mccready himself will raise a stink and accuse me of being anti-science etc. I do think that 1RR will come the closest to addressing the major problem (constant reflexive edit-warring) while avoiding the "collateral" of a full-on block or topic ban. Your thoughts? MastCell Talk 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate MastCell's efforts here, and would like to emphasize that Mccready's tendentiousness goes well beyond acupuncture. David, if you only came across Mccready recently, please see earlier discussion of community ban at ANI, after which he left for a year and returned with old habits intact. Also see this, which epitomizes all that's been wrong with his approach since he started here. And of course his talk page. Maybe 1RR is the way to go, but I suspect he'll just keep making the same revert every 24-25 hours. regards, Jim Butler (t) 20:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


(sorry Jim, edit conflict - this response to MastCell's points) Clear biting of a newcomer, and whilst subsequent rephrasing not bad, the prior edit making the article start off stating no scientific evidence for acupuncture just made for an awful version and seems cp,pletely to have missed my comments of the article needing to start of describing what it is, before critical assessments. Despite my personal scientific/conventional biases, his recent contributions have not helped make acupuncture a better article and in fact editors one might assume are pro-CAM have shown in comparison exemplary patience and detached dispationate NPOV. Unless Mccready "gets" the concept of articles needing to be descriptive before covering any associated range of POVs, and becoming an engaging editor to work with through politeness & super-civility, topic or outright ban, sadly, can not be far off.David Ruben Talk 20:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(response to Jim Butler) I agree with above points that he has made useful contributions but current focus on making a lead-in emphasise critiques at expense of at least some semblance of factual description/definition is disheartening at best and exhanges with other editors sour. MastCell has set out the range of community bans (which are of course distinct from blocks) which could be suggested. I presume, MastCell, this would need be by a WP:RfC process. As for whether 1RR simply bypassed by continuous 24-25hour edits, i think that would be seen as gaming the community ban and result in outright admin blocks of progressive durations. His correct response now, IMHO, should be a little humble-pie with a self-professed 1RR and super-civility which would be far more effective from his/the scientific POV (harder to argue against). For now I've made a gentle nudge of a hint on his talk page, and hope he will respond in the positive manner it was intended, else RFC to be started... David Ruben Talk 21:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that a formal RfC is necessary given the volume of feedback Mccready has received already via various processes. A 1RR would basically consist of me saying, "Don't revert more than once per 24 hours or you will be blocked" and posting it to WP:AN for comment. If Mccready feels that's unfair (which I suspect he will), then it can be discussed at WP:AN and if I'm off-base I'll withdraw it. I think a self-imposed 1RR would be the best possible response, and I hope your note has that effect. If it does not, then what do you think about imposing 1RR as I've outlined? I'll be happy to be the point person in terms of bringing this up on WP:AN etc. - I just wanted to see if you think the concept is reasonable as a last resort should he not be interested in self-restraint. MastCell Talk 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification re proceedure for 1RR ban, and concur entirely with your outline :-) David Ruben Talk 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mccready seems to be on the same page with regard to 1RR, which is encouraging ([2]). We'll see how things go from here. MastCell Talk 23:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that's going just great.[3][4][5][6][7][8]. --Jim Butler (t) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi David - you wrote at User talk:Mccready:

So both of you treat the other with really thick gloves whilst you rebuild your collaboration, stop stressing each other out, and take good care of yourselves - i.e. no wikistress burn outs please :-)[9]

David, I'm well past burnout around here, and your implications of false equivalence above and here don't help much in that regard. Any time two editors are in dispute, both must mea culpa, eh, regardless of conduct? No thanks. That's more of the mediocracy ethic on Jimbo's encyclopedia. Keep coddling problem editors if that's the kind of commmunity you want. I'm going to focus my energies offwiki where they're needed and appreciated. --Jim Butler (t) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the above seemed uncivil. It was not meant personally, and instead should be taken as a reflection of my frustration with WP's admins and leadership emphasizing process over content. I am not a perfect editor, but most editors seem to think I do OK, and I get along well with and mediate among folks across the spectrum from strongly skeptical to strongly pro-alt-med. In that light, think about how it feels for me to deal with another editor's chronic, bad edits and serial taunting, only to be told how much we both need to modify our behavior, and make nice, hold hands, and we'll all get ponies. Do you think it makes me really enthusiastic about editing WP?
Obviously the best thing for me to do is disengage now. I did respond[10] to Mccready's assertion that I had a COI, and perhaps even that was unwise. Actually, I think this whole project is misguided owing to the lack of expert oversight, so there's no reason for me to bitch about the arrangement of chairs on the ship's deck when I believe the whole thing is sinking. You're doing the best anyone realistically can within a dysfunctional system, and are to be commended for your efforts. regards, Jim Butler (t) 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No, offense taken - I'll email you a response. David Ruben Talk 03:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Adrenaline/Epinephrine

I'm starting to get the feeling that we're fighting against the tide on this one. The argument for epinephrine seems to be largely that MEDMOS says use INN. But if most folk (including medical and scientific) want it changed to another perfectly scientific (non-lay) term, then perhaps WP:IAR should be invoked.

There's a comparison with paracetamol/acetaminophen but I wonder if it is that similar. Most (non-medical) folk I know call it paracetamol (except Calpol, which appears to have won the brand war). Is the same in the US with acetaminophen or does one brand (Tylenol) dominate lay conversation?

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 12:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My impression (from UK side of the pond) is that in US brand names dominate doctor (and hence patient) usage far more than UK where strong moves for use of generic (partly out of good practice to know what is being prescribed and also financial of being prudent). So I gather Tylenol almost exclusive US used term compared to acetaminophen and far more so that UK Panadol::Paracetamol. I think MEDMOS use of correct technical term (with good redirects) is important and should have prevented ongoing debate in faviour of us all getting on with improving articles ("heart attack" is quite definitely the term used by doctors to their patients and "Myocardial infarction" is never used in clinical setting, likewise "chest infection" vs "lower respiratory tract infection" or "pneumonia" - might as well become Ask.com).
My clinical computer system follows INN and so all my UK patients would have generic prescriptions issued as Epinepherine. Clearly the article can not be named "adrenalin" (the US branded product) but "adrenaline" as such is not wrong, but I still feel "epinepherine" preferable. Finally as per BrE/AmE, the current substantive or longstanding version should remain. David Ruben Talk 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Drug names in non-main articles

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Drug names in non-main articles

Please share your UK experience. Colin°Talk 22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Guifannesin protocol for FM

I really don't know how to do this but...

As a person with Fibromyalgia - I've been taking methocarbamol (structurally related to guaifenesin, and produces guaifenesin in the body as a metabolite) for 3 years now and also NO salicylates (allergic since teens). I've experienced great relief and wish others could know. - diana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.209.214 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I glad you have found benefit. As an encyclopaedia though we need to source (WP:Verify) content from relaiable sources and personal experience does not meet that standard, so what is needed is to cite good studies from reliable peer-reviewed journals to verify what may be potentially useful observations from personal (but in themselves anecdotal) cases. Guifannesin protocol has interesting premise, and clearly some find benefit, but is it well supported by a range of high quality studies - no. Of course lack of evidence of effectiveness is not in itself evidence of lack of effect, but it does fail to support any assertions of effectiveness, safety etc. David Ruben Talk 01:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ombudsman

Hi David, did I misunderstand this conversation or is Ombudsman banned from Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes banned. Only requires one Admin to so inform him (as per my User talk:Ombudsman#Ban on Notice board for vaccine-related topics) under the terms of his indefinite probabtion, with this logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others#Log of blocks and bans. The AN/I is not speficially required, but it seemed prudent, and of the two other admins who dropped by, neither saw fit to imply I was wrong in my action or process, therefore seems admin action under ArbCom seems confirmed. 1) Criticism repeately removed against wishes of others and 2) addition to talk page was not the original from the project page but a rewording. Both disruptive and hence the ban. Breaches of a community ban would result in a block. David Ruben Talk 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I thought. Seemed pretty clear to me actually. I'm not sure he understands that though, as he's still editing there.[11] Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Had spotted that too and block imposed. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notice board for vaccine-related topics re whether revert back, it needs views of other editors to remain community consensus response. David Ruben Talk 03:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi David,

With all due respect, I think you were way out of line to call my comment "ungraceous", and you were very unwise to lift Ombudsman's ban.

My comment on his talk page was a genuine attempt to stop this from escalating. Most other users in my position would've just reverted his edits and reported him at AN/I. Instead, I gave him the benefit of doubt, left his edits intact, and explained to him the correct procedure for having a ban revoked. I thought this the least provocative way forward. His response to my friendly message — calling me "unwelcome" and accusing me of "blatant misrepresentations" — was characteristically uncivil and dishonest, but I think it's unfair of you to suggest I was "goading" him just because he responded so angrily. Do you honestly believe that when I see someone being disruptive I should go straight to AN/I instead of civilly trying to resolve the issue on their talk page?

You suggest that, because his last edit was not unconstructive, he should have been allowed to keep ignoring a community-imposed ban. This is, frankly, completely bizarre. There was a clear consensus at AN/I that Ombudsman's behaviour at the vaccination noticeboard was tendentious and he should be banned from editing that page. He responded by openly ignoring the ban, calling you "abusive", accusing me of "blatant misrepresentations", and suggesting that Arbcom had no right to place him on probation. Though his behaviour at the vaccine noticeboard was clearly disruptive, he still refuses to concede that he ever did anything wrong, and he has made it clear that he has no intention of modifying his behaviour. By lifting the ban, you've rewarded this approach and sent a clear message that he can continue to edit tendentiously, behave uncivilly towards other users, and ignore Arbcom and community-imposed bans. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to further muddy the waters, but there have been some conflicting interpretations of ArbCom remedies involving "articles" vs. "pages" recently. The leading current interpretation seems to be that if an ArbCom remedy specifically applies to "articles", then it only applies to article namespace. In other words, the user can freely edit disruptively or tendentiously in talkspace or projectspace outside the confines of the ArbCom remedy. I think this is an unfortunate loophole which has been predictably and reliably exploited, but there you have it. There has been some case-by-case and admin-to-admin variation in this interpretation. I still think the ban from editing a specific page was justified, and justifiable, given this particular editor's history and community support, but just a heads-up regarding an issue I've recently encountered with the letter of ArbCom decisions. MastCell Talk 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sideshow Bob Roberts, difficult situation:
  • I was in part being mindful of the issue of extent of probation as MastCell as commented above
  • so re extent into project space I think minor disagreement of views would be tolerable, but the out-and-out disruption and alteration of other's comments was clearly so disruptive as to require intervetion
  • I think intervening in that matter came under WP policies, although WP:IAR allows for prompt action if required and it can be justified.
  • but adding a link to a missing page on the list of vaccine topics seems not disruptive.
I did not mean to suggest that you had goaded him, but rather was suggesting a general future consideration by us all (on principle of don't feed the trolls). That said, I have not given an open door for further distruption, which should result in prompt and speedy action (already got blocked for 3 days). So if further disruption (and this can be loosey interpreted to cover incivility (outside of his talk page), revert warring below 3RR level and tenacious editing) then ban followed by progressive blocks is warranted. My suggestion of AN/I contact was more for myself than your own approach at helping here - if other, so far uninvolved, admins take action then that removes his predictable counter attack that "actions that you and your NHS cohorts have perpetrated" is "disruptive maelstrom of malicious behavior" "common in authoritarian cultural environments" - but I will happily act if required :-) David Ruben Talk 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair point, MastCell, but (as I've said) if Ombudsman thought he'd been unfairly banned, the appropriate response was not to openly ignore the ban and make a bunch of outrageous claims about everyone involved. David, please don't suggest that it's okay for Ombudsman to be uncivil and attack other editors as long as it's on his own talk page. It seems to me that you've responded to Ombudsman's insane personal attacks by saying "Okay, I'll lift the ban and I won't take any further action", which is exactly the response he was looking for. I think it's safe to say that his future behaviour towards admins and other users will reflect the lessons he's learned here. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Asthma

Sorry about that. It was a newly registered account that I thought was making a nonsense edit. Best wishes! Gwandoya (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis

Hi David,

Is Anaphylaxis on your watchlist? Would you mind looking it over if you haven't already? Someone made major changes. I'm dead tired and worried that I'll forget about it by tomorrow, so if you've got a minute, I'd be thrilled to be able to inflict that sanity check on you. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (Oh, and if you don't have time or interest, then please just leave me a note on my talk page to remind me about it. Thanks!)

Ok, reviewed and reverted. Bizzare use of "localised" and a term always used to imply a systemic reaction. It would be similar to saying "limited respirartory arrest" or "partial coma". David Ruben Talk 04:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I really appreciate it. I'm going back to bed now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryke Geerd Hamer / recent chg-es

Hi! I wonder why u deleted my "see also" link to Scientology, which is quite important, because of the similar (and highly disputed) approach, and because Hamer claims, that Scientology "stole" his therapy-concept... Thx... Bye... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - Scientology entry in "see also" section indeed had got dropped, sorry it was not intentional and I can only assume I lost it in a cut&paste when reordering the sections about. Indeed seems a reasonable "see also" extension :-) David Ruben Talk 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello David ! I do not see any relationship between that "new medecine" and scientology worth to be included in that article. We need a reliable source for that. There are some voices saying that metamedicine (a sort of copy of Hamer's new-medicine) is linked to scientology - but nothing is known for shure. Other argument: In my opinion, there are some (or one) Hamer-followers trying to include their POV into the article. Michael Redecke (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
i found this... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello David ! For your information: I just restored your last version of that article. And there was no justification given for the POV-tag. Michael Redecke (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

COCP revert

Did you mean to revert my edit to COCP? Your edit summary didn't seem to relate to the content of the edit, and it was only 4 seconds after my edit. LyrlTalk C 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry no :-) I was trying to revert on same anon's edit as you, although only on their 2nds edit (I should have looked back on their first too). Absolutely no idea how I came to edit conflict with you (I received no edit conflict warning and the edit had seemingly proceeded smoothly). I've reverted my last edit therefore back to your's.David Ruben Talk 02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing you got the "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed" warning, and that's why the edit conflict box didn't come up. Thanks for the quick response :) LyrlTalk C 02:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Your Talk Page

Would you like me to archive your talk page?--TrUCo9311 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt, so done :-) PS well spotted that it was overdue - did you randomly spot this on dropping in, or is there some bot you run for this ? David Ruben Talk 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Account blocking

Hi David Ruben

I recently had my account blocked for "vandalism" and while retracing my steps I come to you. I left a contribution on medical abbreviations, namely TTO = to take 'ome which is an actual abbreviation we used when I worked as a RN in Halifax West Yorks. (granted, a long time ago.) when students would ask what TTO meant, we would say "to take 'ome". This was not an attempt at vandalism, it was a contribution to an article. You reversed these additions, and since then I have been unable to edit anything else. The next article I tried to edit was a piece of blatant vandalism aimed at Bradford Girls Grammar School, a diatribe against various members of staff at the school, and some inflammatory accusations I felt were best not in the public gaze on Wikipedia. I was unable to edit it because my account was blocked.

Was it you who blocked my account? If so, please can you unblock it? If it wasn't you, please can you point me in the right direction to getting my account unblocked?

Many thanks, 74.15.4.18 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 74.15.4.18 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No block imposed by myself, and you care at posting above does not indeed seem the actions of a vandal. You obviously though have changing IPs as Special:Contributions/74.15.4.18 has only single edit as above, which was not blocked (else you would only have been able edit your own userpage & talk pages). The article edit you mentioned on List of medical abbreviations was this one and that as Special:Contributions/74.13.81.92 which also has just a single contibution and not in itelf blocked. I wonder therefore if you are caught in a range block imposed against some other anon editor using similar range of IPS as yourself. I'll post to WP:AN/I as not sure how to investigate this and sort out further, but I wonder if you would still find yourself blocked now ?. David Ruben Talk 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion was "is he being confused between a page protection and a block", ie was it you as an editor being blocked (of which no evidence found) or that the pages in question been protected (so that only admins can edit) ? Protected pages may have editors post suggested edits to that page's talk page. David Ruben Talk 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. When I went back to look for the article today it has disappeared, and the link now appears in red, i.e no article. I was definitely blocked though, for three months, which I found a bit harsh for using an apostrophe! My account now seems to be in working order again, so I am not sure what happened here. Thanks for your help anyway.74.15.10.34 (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To edit the page for Arformoterol

Could you please edit the article Arformoterol, because of lack of citations. I will await for your action.

Carlo Banez (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To edit the article for Rilonacept

Hi. I have recently created an article for Rilonacept, could you please edit it?

Carlo Banez (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for further editing of Fosaprepitant

Hello. I have again created a new article. It is about fosaprepitant, a prodrug of aprepitant. Could you please further edit that page?

Carlo Banez (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for further editing of Vernakalant and Tedisamil

Could you please edit the articles for vernakalant and tedisamil. Both articles are newly created. Carlo Banez (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

PFB

David - I suffered from PFB for years. I used topical antibiotics, oral antibiotics, Accutane - you name it, I tried it. However, what I found was that if I shaved (soap and razor wet shave) twice each morning (going "with the grain" and "against the grain" - one shave immediately after the other) I have been able to keep my PFB in check for years. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but it has worked incredibly well for me.

When I go without shaving for several days, my PFB returns (because the hairs have grown long enough to grow back into the skin). However, once I deal with the individual problem hairs, and return to my normal, "shave twice" regimen, my PFB again disappears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.129.43 (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Danjeffers

Danjeffers (talk · contribs), with whom you discussed linkspam in 2006, has returned. Could you offer your views on his talkpage? JFW | T@lk 21:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Health food supplement serving information Neuropathy

You incorrectly removed serving info for alpha lipoic acid and benfotiamine citing WP:MEDMOS, but dietary food supplements are not drugs or medicine. Food is correctly specified in "servings" not "doses". And yes, foods can be treatments without being drugs just as can massage and acupuncture.
The milligram specification matters greatly in distingishing one food supplement study from another, as they progressively increase in serving size over time. Not having it cited in the article is an enormous time waster when doing research. The serving size is a scientific specification, not advice or instructions.
I think you are misreading a WP:MEDMOS which refers to drug articles, and that drug doses should be included in even brief descriptions of treatment studies, but that's a different issue.
Until the day comes that you can cite actual removal authority, please leave in the milligram serving sizes for health food supplements. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 04:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points, thank you, but wikipedia does not give instruction nor "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes" - see WP:NOT#GUIDE and the last item of "recipes" clearly would include dietary stuffs !
Aside from controversial issue as to whether "dietary food supplements" should be regulated in the real world as per medicines (ie with same requirement for proof of efficacy and safety) - and this so clearly not the place to debate a topic - I think with the stated meta-analysis suggesting that parenteral (i.e. intravenous or intramuscular injected) form of ALA has the strongest evidence of efficacy, this really should be considered as a medicine (vs I agree the current dietary supplement status for orally taken doses). However in context of the article discussing an illness then, IMHO, all treatment modalities should (as per the official policy) not have "how to" guides on dosage/strength. Likewise any mention of acupucture should not describe the precise points and technique used by an accupuncturist. David Ruben Talk 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Davidruben (22:44): "...wikipedia does not give instruction nor "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes..."
Scientific studies are none of those things, and neither are Wikipedia descriptions of them. (Your further reference to "recipes" and parenteral forms are red herrings.)
To claim otherwise as you do by implication, requires your merely personal notion that, any descriptive mention however brief, of milligram servings of supplemental food (or doses of drugs) used while describing scientific research, is one or more of those six NOT#HOWTO things. But lacking imperative, a description is not any of them, and is specifically not instruction:
  • imperative (M-W.com): 1 a: of, relating to, or constituting the grammatical mood that expresses the will to influence the behavior of another b: expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation [c; ... 2 ...]
  • instruction (M-W.com): 1 [a ...] b: a direction calling for compliance : order —usually used in plural <had instructions not to admit strangers> c plural : an outline or manual of technical procedure : directions [d ... 2 ...]
directions (M-W.com): 3 a: an explicit instruction : order —usually used in plural <had instructions not to admit strangers>
  • description (M-W.com): 1 a: an act of describing; specifically : discourse intended to give a mental image of something experienced [b; ... 2 ...]
describe (M-W.com): 1: to represent or give an account of in words <describe a picture> [2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 ...]
Scientific study documents typically lack instructive imperatives, so typically there are none in a numerical Wikipedia description of them, no matter how full or brief.
In other words, you are conflating "instruction" with "description". While you are free to write using private language definitions on talk pages at some risk to your educated reputation, you are prohibited from doing so in the policy-compliant editing of articles. Milo 07:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you are being somewhat pedantic arguing away from the main points and please WP:AGF (discuss issues, not people & their "reputations" thank you). The main issues are:
  • The citations for effectiveness (why are we arguing when we agree the research proves effectiveness of ALA in diabetic neuropathy :-) ? ), is strongest for parenteral and no vitamin/essential nutrient etc given by injection surely still remains as just a "dietary supplement" when so used (coming as they do then under medicinal regulations) ?
  • The problem with reporting on the oral quantities used in the research is that different papers used differing amounts. To gather from these an ideal quantity to use for patients is problematic, if WP:NOR is to be avoided, for while increasing the dose increases effectiveness, the papers also report increasing side effects.
  • Ideally to avoid WP:SYN, we would need a reliable secondary source that draws some conclusion from these primary sources for us.
  • More widely by your points, all drug articles could have dosage details included; provided it was worded as a description of a drug study or monograph, rather than as an advised recommended dose. That though is not, IMHO, in the spirit of WP:MEDMOS#Drugs nor for non-drug therapies of WP:NOT#HOWTO.
But any general guideline is applied as an individual case for each article and as this is a wiki, do start a discussion thread at Talk:Neurology on reinserting details of the precise amount of supplements to be taken and lets find out the views of other editors... David Ruben Talk 19:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Valproate semisodium

I didn't realize that the "discussion" page was censored from answering peoples questions or, hell, talking about the actual topic. I think its stupid that you eliminated those two things from the talk page. Jackkoho (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to revert back if you feel that an important aspect of the topic was being highlighted as needing to be added to the article :-) But please consider that article talk pages are for discussing improving the article and not for general blogging/forum discussion. Hence the anecdotal listing of symptoms or side effects is inappropriate (see WP:No original research), but of course seeking say information on sourcing a WP:Reliable source for rates of various side effects to be used within an article is to be encouraged (ie focus on discussing 3rd party information to be included in the article, rather than ones own statistically-unrepresentative experiences). Full guidence at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines :-) David Ruben Talk 05:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah - you already have reverted and indicated sources (this comparison) - yes, much better, and provides the info needed then to consider adding to the article :-) David Ruben Talk 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Shinto shrine infobox

Thank you for taking time and effort to fix up Template:Infobox Shinto shrine. I'm afraid I'm no good at coding... LordAmeth (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure, but I do think the contact info of telephone number should be dropped as I suggested at Template talk:Infobox Shinto shrine. David Ruben Talk 01:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Miscarriage-Pregnancy timeline.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for the mop

Hi David. Some days ago you popped into my talk page and expressed that you wanted to co-nominate me for the mop. Now Happy‑melon has come back from his mini vacation. He left a very positive response for you on my talk page and he has written a draft for the nomination.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Last February, you warned me about my copyright violations. After months of consideration, I have also made changes to some pages by removing some information which I consider as copyrighted material (please see list below).


I have done this action for legal reasons. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than that you added useful info on what the various drugs claimed clinical indications are and approrpriate links to the relevant company product website, I don't see that you removed material? Whatever, the edits were good :-) David Ruben Talk 13:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BNF 55

Hi David,

Just been updating bits on the British National Formulary. As a locum pharmacist have got round yet to buying my own copy of the BNF 55. Once I do I can take a Digital Picture of it and upload. If you have time, and have BNF 55 could you upload an image, as I see you did the last one :).

Cheers Lethaniol 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok - just need remember to do it in the next couple days :-) David Ruben Talk 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done as Image:BNF55 frontcover.png David Ruben Talk 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

sunscreen cancer issue

Hi, Thanks for your input.
I want to make clear, that UV-radiation can cause skin cancer via two different pathways: direct DNA damage causes squamous cell carcinom and basal cell carcinom, but the more lethal form - malignant melanom - is caused by indirect DNA damage (free radicals). There is no evidence that sunscreen can reduce the indirect DNA damage. However there is evidence, that sunscreen generates free radicals and thereby amplifis it. There is evidence that many ingredients of sunscreen penetrate into the skin were the generated free radicals cause the malignant melanoma.
The large discrepancy between the scientific literature (saying that there is epidemiological proof and mechanistic proof for a melanoma inducing effect of sunscreen) and the popular press is a really large problem. The discussion that is occuring about malignant melanoma and sunscreen needs to be mentioned in the article. The fact that SSC and BSC are generated in a different mechanism than the melanoma needs to be mentioned.Gerriet42 (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What does "IMHO" mean?Gerriet42 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO - In My Hummble Opinion - i.e. it it my understanding (acknowledges that I might be wrong and makes the item being mentioned more polite - hence we are engaged in a discussion rather than that I am stating some self evident "truth" that the recipient must agree with). Not entirely sure it is humorous as http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/IMHO implies :-) David Ruben Talk 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ampersands

We don't generally use these in headers or titles. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00 10 April 2008 (GMT).

Thanks for the RfA

I know you already know this since you wrote on my talk page, but here is the official "thank you" message:

Thanks for that you co-nominated me for adminship. I was just made an admin! I have the distinct feeling that I might be the first user specialised in template programming that has become an admin here on the English Wikipedia. And that would not have been possible without your eloquent nomination. Now I got to come up with a name for my new position, perhaps "template specialist admin" or "admin specialised in template programming" or perhaps just "template admin". Or why not "admininistratorious templatius"? #:))

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and again well done... as per RfA comment, just keep the self-description short :-) Seriously though, if you have any questions about other admin actions, do ask either myself or other admins - there is no shame asking at say WP:AN or WP:AN/I for views of other admins if the best approach to be taken in a situation is unclear, but as an admin you have been given the community's trust to be able to act WP:Boldly when required - within the guidelines of course and conceivably (not that I ever can) WP:IAR if the situation requires (but be very clear and ready to explain why you ignored the rules). Apart from I think image deletion, there is little (except irritating a few people) as an admin that can't be undone by yourself or another admin helping out. Take care, and keep in touch David Ruben Talk 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will ask you or at the places you recommended when needed. I have now also gotten access to the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC chat so I can get quick advice when I don't want to wait.
Oh, I thought they had added image undelete by now? So images deleted can still not be undeleted? Ouch. Thanks for the heads up on that one.
--David Göthberg (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Undelete images ? Oh, was not aware (and no particular reason why I should) that such a new feature enacted. Any idea where that had been proposed/announced ? As for #wikipedia-en-admins IRC chat - instructions on how to set it up and all the details on clocked accounts (or whatever) etc completely baffled me - various requests to third parties and external site registration (with its own giberish instruction pages) just soooo unhelpful, and here's me a supposed technophile :-( David Ruben Talk 21:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Images can be undeleted just as regular content—see, for instance, [12] (an image I speedied earlier today). I don't know how long it has been around, though :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
David Ruben: I didn't mean that I know if images can or can not be undeleted. Just that I know that people have been complaining about it for ages so I hoped they had fixed it by now.
And yeah, getting into that IRC channel is not easy. I had luck since I have used IRC for ages, and were already a registered user on that particular IRC network (due to my day job requiring access to some channels there) so most of the job was already done. Still I was almost baffled by the instructions. By the way, since you are already using your real name then you don't need a "cloak" at that IRC network. But you need to register a nick there. Yet another how to guide that needs writing...
Fvasconcellos: I took a look where you pointed. Seems the image page can be undeleted, but I am not sure if the image file itself then gets undeleted. I better do some testing, that is upload a dummy image, delete it and then see if I can undelete it. I found nothing in the help files and guides about it.
--David Göthberg (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I finally got around to test image undelete, and it works fine, both the image description and the image itself came back. And we admins can preview the images before we undelete them.
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you really feel ?

wow. remind me never to get on your wrong side :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope my Reductio ad absurdum reasoning wasn't taken too seriously :-) David Ruben Talk 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Acne

I agree that "cracknee" and "necknee" were very silly, and added sometime after the initial entry about bacne. That term, though colloquial, is quite common and, if you type bacne in the search box, it will take you to the article on Acne vulgaris, unlike its silly counterparts. As such, I think I might re-add the part about bacne. -24.149.196.112 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference previewing & syntax

This is in response to User_talk:Andreas_Toth#Reference previewing...

A big thanks for the suggestion for temporarily including the <references/> tag for previewing references. - I will definitely be using this tip the next time I edit references.

It would be very nice if the reference section was automatically included as part of previewing changes. It would aid everyone as it would:

  1. Reduce the number of temporary edits by users that are unaware of the suggested use of the <references/> tag.
  2. Eliminate accidental temporary <references/> tags from being included in articles by those aware of this.

Are you aware of any work being done in this area or how to go about requesting such a feature?

Thanks also for reminding me about the reference (footnote) syntax. For some reason this simply didn't occur to me at the time. Duh!

Also a big thanks for mentioning the alternative use of the {{cite news}} template. This will come in handy the next time I create references.

-Andreas Toth (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion on UpToDate links. I work with the team of physicians at UpToDate who write and edit our patient information. We have 370 topics that are written specifically for patients and are free to the public see http://www.uptodate.com/patients/about/toc.do?full_url_key=true&tocKey=table_of_contents/patient_information. Here's a link to our editorial policy (http://www.uptodate.com/patients/about/policies/editorial_policy.htm) if you want to learn more about our editorial process. As you mentioned in your post, many medical topics on Wikipedia link to emedicine and other high quality sources for patients like Medline Plus in the external resources box. Maybe that would be a more relevant place to provide a link to UpToDate patient information? I'm happy to discuss. Jgervais118 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the response. As per WT:MED discussion, clearly my US wikipedians have heard of you and think it is a useful resource in their clinical practice. However, subscription requirement (vs. eMedicine which is just a free registration) counts against using as an external link, and critically not being able to reference a specific version of your pages prevents its use as a confirmatory reference - the dynamic nature of your site constantly updating as new EBM becomes available is clearly a major good point for doctors using your site, but means that Wikipedia articles cannot reference a historically stable version. Of course were the Wikipedia pages to be updated as soon as your own site was, then there might be less of an issue; but Wikipedia will always lag behind journal publication. Also Wikipedia is not just a web medium, but also produced as DVD or printed forms (to encourage the widest possible usage in areas of the world where internet access may be limited). For these formats readers must be able to later follow-up on references to verify information, and a dynamically changing reference will not do.
So UpToDate can't be used as a reference for the material within Wikipedia articles (i.e. not appropriate for {{Infobox Disease}}). As for use as an external link, the WT:MED discussion points out WP:EL guideline that sources should generally provide more information than it would be appropriate to have in the article itself were it at Featured article level. Hence only some specific topics might be appropriate to have as an External Link (rather than all 370 topics that you mention).
Last point is that you should read our WP:Conflict of interest, as your involvement with UpToDate means that your role in adding external links should be limited to proposing in an article's talk page, but allowing other editors to decide whether or not to add the link :-) David Ruben Talk 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davidruben/Archive_8&oldid=1139057131"