Jump to content

User talk:Ian Furst/archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chateau Montebello

added note regarding HL Furst's letter to Saddlemire --Ian Furst (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Don't mean to discourage your edits. The principle at Wikipedia is that other editors can verify the sources -- whether it be online or via a trip to the library. That works fine for secondary sources, but primary sources are a bit of a problem, because there is usually one copy and it is difficult to verify. There must be a solution. Let me give it a bit of thought, and I will get back to you. Regards. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks - I can always upload the original letter. HL Furst's employement there is document in several books on the Chateau but the letter is something that only our family or Saddlemire would have had. Ian Furst (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You should upload it over at Wikimedia Commons, and make sure to categorize it in the Chateau Montebello category. I'm not sure that the letter is the sort of media we'd use here at Wikipedia, but it is appropriate content to be uploaded to the Commons media repository. Then you can source the paragraphs in question to that file. Make sure to add the {{PD-Canada}} license tag to the image when you upload it. Any other questions, feel free to ask. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

100th Regiment of Foot

added picture from Archives Canada

Dental implant

I'm guessing this edit was a mistake? My edit removed the advertisement, and you reverted it - restoring the advertisement. But your edit summary gives the reason "obvious advertising", which seems contrary to your edit. I can only assume that the edit was either in error; or you were commenting that you were adding an obvious advertisement. As I prefer to AGF, I'm assuming the first is the case and it was a mistake.

Regardless, I've re-removed the advert, so the article is cleaned up now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My error -- thx.

Thanks

for downloading that period map of the War of 1812 to Commons(File:KENSETT MAP CANADA 1812.jpg) and then placing it in the War of 1812 article. What a great addition! I wish I knew how to 'cut out' a subset of an image so it could be used to illustrate specific articles, like any of the articles associated with River Raisin events. I think it would be interesting to have a period map give an overview of an area for some of the associated articles. (I also noticed that the Kensett map spelled the River's name as "Razen"!) Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

happy to do it for you. Let me know they area you'd like; the copyright is expired so we can use part of the map and I've got the original so it can be a photo of just that area.
I think it would be useful to have close-ups of many of the various areas of interest - so much of the War seems to be a mystery to most people. It doesn't seem to have the 'cachet' to American readers especially, of other more well-known/more heavily-illustrated conflicts, such as the American Civil War or the American Revolutionary War.
If I am able to put an 'order' in, it would be wonderful to have close-ups available of the Detroit/River 'Razen' area to possibly illustrate associated articles such as Battle of Frenchtown, Benjamin Franklin Graves, Nathaniel G. S. Hart, River Raisin National Battlefield Park, etc. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited JCDA (Journal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi Ian. I saw you popped up on Doc James' talk page so I clicked on your contribs to see who you were / what you did. I think you may have some WP:COI problems with the page you are developing in the sandbox. Please read that guideline and the advice it offers. The page at present reads way too much like a website for the practice. In fact if it was an article it might even be deleted per WP:CORP. Take care, Colin°Talk 19:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Colin, thank you very much for the heads up on COI. As you can see, I'm a bit of a newbie and have only create 4 pages with a limited amount of edits - still finding my way around. Trying very hard to write the sandbox article from a neutral point of view; it's a smaller town and the office employs a significant number of people. I beleive the article to be worthy when comparing it to other businesses that are included but find it doubtful someone else would/ would be able to write it. Any advice is appreciated. Regards. Ian Furst (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that you need independent secondary sources to show both notability but also to back up any statements where someone might say "Really?" The practice might be a important employer but unless its been written about in a publication then it might as well not exist. For example, the two "references" don't establish notability. The first is an advertorial for HP and the practice is incidental. The second looks like press-release-rehashed-as-news in a trade mag. This is one of the frustrating things about WP that important things can't be covered unless they are already noticed by traditional publications -- but necessary because of the unique situation with the editors. We aren't recruited and we don't have any reputation so what we think and know isn't important to the reader. But even if there were lots of published sources about your practice, it would be difficult for you to write much about it.
I just don't want you to waste a lot of time on something that gets deleted and upsets you in the process. If you can establish the notability of the practice then the article might stand a chance of surviving. Then you've got the WP:V hurdle for content -- as much of it is written from your own head. The most glaring problems are the sentence about the six sigma program and the Core Values section -- that's just management/marketing bullshit. The list of publications is a bit OTT imo, perhaps just a sentence saying doctors at Coronation Dental have produced over XX academic papers in dental journals or something like that. Keep the article short. And you need links to it or it will be classed as an orphan and even more likely to be deleted -- but don't just add superfluous links to it as that might just piss people off: they need to be useful.
Ultimately, I think you are valuable here as a bright guy with an expertise -- whether you use that dental expertise or write about early American engravers isn't important. There's the whole rest of the WorldWideWeb for promoting your practice. Cheers, Colin°Talk 12:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ian,
I saw the note on Colin's page, and wanted to add a reminder that reliable sources do not have to be available online. Most large employers get some coverage in the local newspaper, like this 2004 story in the Cambridge Times about a new building they wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you haven't found WP:MED yet, that's where the medicine-related editors mostly hang out. You'd be welcome; just say hello or keep an eye on the talk page and jump in whenever you feel like it. There's also a much smaller group at WP:DENT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of cysts of the jaws, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enamel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mandibular fracture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Posterior, Glenoid fossa and Tragus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

re Dental implant

Main issue is use of primary sources. I dislike removing content, and it will take a significant amount of time to remove all the primary sources and replace with secondary sources so that no content is lost. This is not a topic I am particularly interested in right now... I'm more oral med/oral path orientated... but I can help keep an eye on it and stop it deteriorating further...Watchlisted. Lesion (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

re cysts of the jaws and moving towards a new oral pathology template...

Hi again, great work on mandibular fracture, it is coming along nicely...

I was thinking to include a category in a the oral pathology template called cysts of the jaws, maybe dividing them into hard and soft tissue? or just all together as there is some overlap. If you could help me gather a list of all the "oral cyst" pages we have currently, this would be great. Did you cover them all in cysts of the jaws? Lesion (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I used to bold text with '''Example''' to be a substitute for minor headings, but one day someone corrected me and pointed out that this is against the MoS, which prefers actual headings. Another thing I would say is that wikipedia is not a work in progress, so I personally don't worry about laying down a bare skeleton with small sections. Over the years other users will come and flesh these out. In this case, I have some more content to add to the classification section, probably tomorrow. Having said all that, if you still think appropriate, please feel free to be bold and merge sections as you see fit. Lesion (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
MoS is v dry...I have never sat down and read the thing end to end...if you are more of an active learner, a peer review is a great tool to learn all the little style guidelines without having to ever read any policy. Lesion (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mandibular fracture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Axial and Coronal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pericoronitis

Hi, I just reworked this article which was very short and insufficient before. Wouldn't mind another view on it to balance out any accidental non mainstream opinions or anything I have left out. Cheers, Lesion (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to JCDA (Journal) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Huether Hotel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victorian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your free Cochrane account is on its way!

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dental implant

I have this page watchlisted, and I keep an eye on it. Unfortunately this kind of thing is not directly relevant to my interests, so I will pass on the offer to collaborate with you on this unfortunately.

See the comment on talk:Dental implant, I have tried to network for you as another editor may be interested in this and recetnly posted on the talk page. Lesion (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar! Added to my Wall of fame. Dabbler (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Dental Implants

Hi, I'd like to add a new section (with photographs) to the Dental Implants article. I'd like to run it by you first, though, since you're doing the main work on updating the page. What's the best way to proceed? Thanks! Amir Ansari (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting me involved before posting. If you're OK with it, let me know which section you're going to do and I'll stay away from it/help work it in to what we're posting. There's a couple of things that we're trying to follow;

1. Gear the info to a general reader (not a patient, not other health care providers) - the language and topic needs to reflect it. The intent is to create an article a student might review for a presentation at school in about 30min.
2. It needs to come from secondary sources. We're going to take out all but a few primary resources (bisphosphonates is a good example, you can't write about the topic without quoting a journal because little exists in textbooks right now). People that have rather passionate views on particular implants/techniques have peppered the article with statements backed by primary research which makes it impossible to read for a layperson and difficult to follow for almost anyone.
3. LOVE PICTURES, I've been creating little GIFs as well.
4. I'm using the "{cite isbn} template. Putting whichever textbook will be used in the "Sources" list, then referencing it inline - see references 1-4 as the article looks now for an example.
Look forward to working together.

Ian Furst (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I must mention that I'm working in a dental implant startup. However, our 'anatomic' implant is orthogonally different to everything referenced in the current article. I think the topic of anatomic implants merits a section by itself, though, because it is a significant leap forward in technology, with a successful 8 year clinical history (in other words, it's no longer experimental). Unfortunately, as a result, it's no longer accurate to say that all implants are of the screw-type!

BTW, I'm quite aware of the need for neutrality. I'd be grateful if you could look at our website: http://www.bioimplant.at and let me know how we can include a discussion of this technology (I've already written a non-partisan piece about the tech, which I can post for approval). The secondary sources are in German - do you think this will be a problem?

Amir Ansari (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting Amir! I appreciate you bringing the discussion to the talk page first to avoid conflict-of-interest problems with the article (see wp(coi)). Normally I would put a mention about it in the implant type section of this article, but the articles on it are all case reports with 2.5 year follow-up. It is novel, but the problems with a lack of secondary sources may make it difficult to survive in wiki. Under the FAQ you talked about 5-8 yr studies - have you got them published yet? Is it FDA, Health Canada, EC approved? Aside from the wiki stuff, I'm a surgeon in Canada - hit me up on LinkedIn to exchange emails, I'd like to here more. Ian Furst (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Darn, I'm not on LinkedIn! But you can contact me via the BioImplant website (use the contact form), and just say it's a message for Amir - it'll get passed to me. Amir Ansari (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The 5-8 year studies are in review, so have not been published yet. Also, I've located a good secondary source in English which is not too technical for a lay person, so perhaps the piece is 'good to go'! I'll move over to the comments in the Dental Implants talk page now. Amir Ansari (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sinus lift

Agree these 2 articles appear to refer to the same procedure. Question is what is the most commonly used terminology so we can merge everything there? I know this as "sinus lift", but the other titles seem reasonable to me. Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

  • "Maxillary sinus floor augmentation" is OK. "Procedure" is an unnecessary qualifier I feel
  • "Sinus augmentation" is not specific enough imo. Neither which paranasal air sinus is being referred to, nor which part of the sinus is being augmented is implied. Technically, functional endoscopic sinus surgery could be called sinus augmentation.
  • Other option is to move everything to a new page called "sinus lift" Lesion (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Everybody seems to call it a sinus lift. Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation is great as a technical term (very descriptive for us) but not what people search for. I used the Google Keyword planner to check the average number of monthly searches by words. Sinus lift gets 3600 searches a month, sinus augmentation gets 320, all other variations I could think of about 10. I'm not sure how it fits into wiki policies, but my opinion would be sinus lift with redirects for the others. Seems like the most useful to everyone and it's used in our fee guide with subgroups for direct and indirect. FESS is something totally different, it's an endoscopic surgery on the sinuses, typically they debride it and open the ethomoid bullae. Very different from sinus lift stuff. Ian Furst (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I know FESS is very different from sinus lift, but I was making the point that "sinus augmentation" is too vague a term.
OK, let's merge to sinus lift per your google results. The redirect will need to be deleted by an admin first (I have already tagged it for speedy deletion), then we can move the merged page (currently on maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedure). The page is still in poor shape though... Lesion (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thx. I can clean it up pretty quick will be basic but functionalIan Furst (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for offering to do the hard work and cleaning it up =)
P.S. there was a cochrane review on this topic, I've added it to the article and it looks like a useful source to expand other parts of the article. Lesion (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
too specific for the page in my opinion. At first I tried to find a way to work it in, only to realize that it mislead the casual reader (e.g. what is the debate about how to determine implant stability, rather than what is the typical means to determine osseointegration). Also, only primary references. i'm going to look further for copyright or COI issues with it; my suspicion is it was shoe-horned into the article by the company selling the machine. can't tell though because the creating user has left Wikipedia. Ian Furst (talk)
"Implant stability quotient" doesn't get a huge amount of hits on pubmed: [1] Not been through these to see if they are all primary. If there are a few secondary sources, it should be theoretically be notable for its own page if it is not merged. Not everything has to be deleted because it is currently imperfect. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline. I think you know the literature best here, so whatever you feel appropriate should be fine with others.
Re images, these look great. Images are very valuable contributions as they will continue to be useful many years after the text has been progressively reworked by future editors. My one comment would be in some of the gifs I feel the transition is slightly too fast. Some people might find it hard to see what is going on before the image changes. You set a good example for uploads, I should start taking the time to photo interesting things I see. Lesion (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
good points - thx. will rework some of the GIFs, especially the restorative one. I'll leave the ISQ thing alone for now, but don't think I'll link it to the main article. thx for looking. will add some more photos today of implant complications too. Ian Furst (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Re. merging: if you believe it is an uncontroversial merge, be bold. If you want other opinions, you can tag the article with merge template. If you have enabled Twinkle (via preferences), select the TW drop down menu (next to edit, etc), select "tag" then look for the merging options.
I have tagged the article for illustration in this case, but I think it is uncontroversial and I am happy to perform the merge tomorrow. Lesion (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
not controversial - if you do this one i'll start looking for twinkle tomorrow too. thx. Ian Furst (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI if you are wondering why I have not yet merged it, I am in the process of investigating why one of the images was deleted from the article, and I have linked the article in a discussion. A lot of medical images are being deleted by people on Commons for bizarre reasons. It would be confusing for others to merge right now, but I should be fine to merge it in a day or 2. Lesion (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
No rush; and thanks. Having some issues with citation management in dental implant so I'll be playing with that for a while.Ian Furst (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done + we have the image back now. Lesion (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I tried not to look too closely at the obvious problems when I merged that content. Apologies, normally I would deal with it, but I remembered you saying you might have a go at sinus lift so I thought it best to leave it to you. Things are a bit up in the air for me currently. Lesion (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dental implant

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dental implant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dental implant

The article Dental implant you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Dental implant for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In recognition of your contributions to dental implant

The Medic Barnstar
On behalf of English-speaking dental students and dental patients worldwide, this is awarded to Ian Furst for his consequentially steadfast and apparently tireless contributions made to completely redraft the dental implant article. Congratulations on this well deserved accolade!! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Orofacial pain, odontogenic infection, toothache, pulpitis

Hi Ian, very impressed with what you have achieved on dental implant. Above I post some pages which I think we both might find mutual interest in if you want to collaborate. I started orofacial pain and odontogenic infection not too long ago. All except the last one are fairly underdeveloped articles, often an easier starting point that a large existing article imo. Let me know what you think, or if you have other articles in mind, or if you are not interested in collaboration right now. Lesion (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

All that talk of page hits reminded me of something... Dental implant gets 1/2 million hits per year which would qualify for one of the Wikipedia:Million Awards if it were promoted to GA. Don't worry too much about the GA review. Truth is different editors interpret the criteria differently. It is luck to an extent if an article passes or not, I believe. I am more focused on just improving articles, although it is nice to see them make it to GA status, sometimes this might involve some changes that you do not think are good.
I just started on toothache yesterday. In terms of article structure, I was going to follow WP:MEDMOS, for which the recommended headers are in place. Yes needs a lot of work, they all do to be honest. I am confused, when you say build up do you mean start with toothache? Lesion (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, toothache. Although, that's just my suggestion (based on the number of hits it gets). I'm happy to work on it with you. Ian Furst (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
OK great. I will discuss further on talk:Toothache. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Toothache

There is no deadline my friend. Good luck with your "whizzies". At least the cold weather might help them with the post op swelling ;p Lesion (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

peer review

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dental implant/archive1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toothache, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Event (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wisdom teeth

Thanks for bringing that debate to my attention. I'll take a look at the systematic review and get back to you tomorrow. Wordsmith17 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dental implant may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Toothache may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • noxious stimuli produce even greater size discharges in the nerve perceived as more intense pain ([[hyperalgesia]] which evolves to the firing threshold is being low enough that the nerves fire
  • pockets- [[Gingival sulcus|gingival crevice]]s which have been pathologically deepened (> 3mm). This pocket contains subgingival plaque (a bacterial biofilm) and calculus. The periodontal

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your message :) - it's cool. I don't want to smother discussion - systematic reviewers just tend to be sticklers for detail! Hildabast (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! Wordsmith17 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toothache, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ASA and Avulsion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ian_Furst/archive_1&oldid=1136180415"