Despite your awesome contributions nobody has bothered to welcome you! I'll refrain from posting my long welcoming message (can be seen at User:Jfdwolff/Welcome) as you appear to be well versed in the technicalities of Wikipedia.
Oh shoot. Trust JF to beat me to this. I was planning on blue-linking his page today </grumble>. Anyway, welcome, InvictaHOG, your contributions are spectacular, and if it is any indication of things to come the medical folk at WP are fortunate indeed! Keep it up (but don't burn out, ok!) :) See you around the wiki! encephalon20:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, and welcome to Wikipedia. I nominated the article "Multiple Solutions" for Deletion, and later I saw that you had questions about it. Feel free to visit its nomination for deletion page if you want to understand more of Wikipedia policy Runnerupnj03:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
InvictaHOG, thank you for fixing Cabot, Arkansas. I was pretty sure it was just a matter of time before someone would fix it. Sadly, I've found that the small community pages are really prone to all sorts of things like this.
I actually visited your user page before you sent me a note. I work for Goodyear. When I saw the name, I wondered if you had a Goodyear connection; there is a Goodyear Invicta tire. I did a Google search and found there are other users of the name, so maybe not.
Pneumonia article is very nice. Good feature. I added three sentences in prevention section that I hope can stay since pneumonia is over represented in infants. I added an image to the treatment section that can stay or go.--FloNight01:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, good work on Lisker's sign, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Lisker's sign? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP04:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Gleason score, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Please slow down a bit on eliminating Wikilinks from see also sections. Your pov is already plenty well represented in the Wiki's many biased and misleading medical articles, and simply wiping out untold numbers of Wikilinks to add further bias does little to enhance the Wiki. While it is to be expected that orthodox views hold sway on articles on mainstream topics, it makes no sense to sanitize and corrupt other articles that counter the overwhelming extant bias. Narrowing see also Wikilinks down to a single laundry list link is disingenuous at best, and clearly dubious by any standard. Ombudsman01:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The medical articles are not "biased and misleading", but your vaccine pages certainly are. Your abuse of the "see also" section to create some sort of a daisy chain of your cherished topics is noticable on every page you've edited. I believe the list of vaccine topics was your creation and you should be proud it is serving its purpose! JFW | T@lk01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You would say that, as they are allopathic biased, especially the vaccine pages, and vaccine disease pages. john22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. Ombudsman added these to push a POV, and removing them is completely legitimate. And I think your use of the term "censorship" sours the debate and is completely unwarranted. JFW | T@lk09:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're mistaken; until there is a policy banning see also links on vaccine articles, it is their suppression that is illegitimate. The same goes for Whale•to links. Resorting to terminology like pov pushing is simply a distraction from the matter of the content deletion campaign being waged, which inherently violates the spirit and intent of the Wiki. Add balancing content, if you wish to further compound the bias favoring medical orthodoxy, but please desist with the gratuitous deletions. Oh, and by the way, happy new year. Ombudsman19:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
InvicatHog main job is suppressing links critical to allopathy. It diminishes Wiki integrity when one group of doctors attempts to control medical thinking here. It is bad enough that they control all of the text on the vaccine pages (at least) but removing external links just shows the Wiki pledge "anyone can edit" is false, a lie. What it means is "anyone can edit the vaccine pages as long as they conform to allopathic beliefs". Censorship is a long tradition in medicine. john20:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop mis-representing the MMR RfC, which you started after the discussion had reached an impasse and degraded. There was nothing to add, as the comments regarding hazing within the medical field have now been proven to manifest right here at the Wiki. Mentioning the muddled RfC over and over is just a distraction; you have failed to secure a mandate, and proceeded to wage an unfriendly campaign to enforce silence in the see also and external links sections. Please refrain from using diversionary tactics to draw attention away from your deletion campaign. You should show some respect for the passing of a Safe Minds principal by contributing to articles, rather than deleting content just because you don't like its implications. It is time to adopt a more professional demeanor for the new year. Ombudsman04:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're almost right, but not really, as the particular example used above the MMR RfC postdated your professed lack of understanding. You responded to an explanation of the suppressive hierarchical influences upon the medical field (initially using the Whitehall Studies as an example; the hazing rituals example came afterwards), by saying "I fail to see how the Whitehall Studies or French economists relate to the Wikipedia article on MMR." For your edification, a second example was provided for you, outlining an anthropologist's observations about hazing rituals (as a primary means by which orthodoxy is enforced in the medical field); you never indicated that you grasped the point, regardless of the sequence of examples.
Getting back to the matter at hand: you keep stating that long lists are being reinserted into see also sections, but the fact is that only a few especially pertinent links are being reintroduced; you have systematically deleted all the see also links from an array of vaccine articles, repeatedly, without a mandate, without any real consensus, leaving a virtual desert in your wake; and you have repeatedly complained about pov pushing, which is nothing more than a diversionary tactic. If you want to have the merits of your concerns taken seriously, please try a little harder to be accurate with your representations, and please try to show a little more affinity to the collaborative spirit that should be fostered within the Wiki. Ombudsman07:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of the incredible work you've done for Wikipedia's medical articles, especially in producing featured articles, I hereby award you this barnstar. — Knowledge Seekerদ07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
InvictaHOG, you've done some incredible work while you've been here and have been the major driving force behind the featured medical articles. Your contribution has been invaluable. — Knowledge Seekerদ07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Medical' is a pseudonym for allopathic, and he sure has done a good job suppressing links and text critical to allopathy, I will be putting up a page to his efforts in due course under my 'suppression' section [2], it also will bring into question the integrity of Wikipedia by allowing biased editors to suppress information they don't like. john22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "and is sometimes referred to as a triple-jab."
The idea is not to limit Wikipedia to what you know but to bring it up to represent the sum.
No disrespect to a harried housewife and busy mother but can you really imagine a doctor using the term trivalent to her? Hells bells, clinicians use triple jab when talking to each other.
Stick it in Google and see for yourself. Do please check first -before deleting.--Aspro20:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to laugh that after you spent some time deleting whale links, Midgley has put up a page highlighting whale•to. Funny old world! I do suspect it will all come back to haunt him. john00:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate your comments on possibly improved scanned page management per John's concerns, storage limits for Whale's potential uploaded images to WikiSource and any of the others storage options that you are familiar with. Thank you for your calm and constructive comments in this RfC. --66.58.130.2618:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seekerদ02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that there's a heck of a lot of discussion of cite.php, including discussion of limitations and feature requests, over at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. Might have more leads on the issue you asked me about the other day. (I'm leaving this note here just in case you got bored with watching my own user talk page :) Bryan01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you comments at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. Since I posted my note on the "hidden refs", I figured out how to properly hide them, and implemented "live" versions at Cuba and Shoshone National Forest. I'm still waiting on the code changes to let us move those reference blocks to a later section of the page; but if the code change is made, it should be a simple cut-and-paste to move the identical reference block down, where used. LotLE×talk03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of the incredible work you've done for Wikipedia's Cystic fibrosis article and bringing your knowledge to the wikipedia community I present to you this barnstar. --ImmortalGoddezz04:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came across as rude. I took out a bunch of "in the park" comments, restructured some wording and almost completely rewrote the intro...let me know there what other enhancements you feel are needed. Thanks.--MONGO06:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delink dates, in the text, of the month day year format. This is required for the date preference feature of Wikipedia. Dates in official names don't need to be linked and references don't matter as much (although some will still link them for the same reasons behind linking in-text occurances.) Rmhermen14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notcied that you participated in the Michael Woodruff featured article discussion, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in the Rfa for Cool3, the creator at WP:RFA. ShortJason15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We all strive to improve the articles. Our discussion seems to have initiated a healthy larger discussion about the medical clinical template: should it be “popularity-driven” or “progression-driven”? It is my opinion that a “progression-driven” template makes a more logical, ergo better read. But let us see what others have to say.- Regarding the introduction, I noticed you reversed it. I admire all the great work you put into this very extensive and important article. My point is simply this: What should the introduction do? In my view, it should offer a definition, it should not be too wordy, and it should not “steal the thunder”, rather it should seduce the reader to go on to an interesting and informative article. The body of the article is very informative, but I do not feel that an introduction that attempts to be summary or an abstract is the optimal way to lead the reader to it. – Just on the side: I would think that animals may have CF, too. Ekem00:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. My interpretation of WP:LEAD is not that it is a directive to write a summary or an abstract. But no need to belabor the point. – Please take a look at the CF articles in other languages. The French article has a beautiful, logical structure and contains information that may be useful for the English article, such as a listing of common gene mutations. The German article has a great definition, very specific and to the point, also the Dutch and the Danish articles have more specific definitions that the current English version. I hope that will help.Ekem17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think why you deleted all the "foreign" CF links (including one to CF Australia which is in our national tongue ie. English) but left all the Seppo sites in Albatross214703:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
InvictaHOG, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again!
Cool3talk20:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
I saw your 'keep' vote on this. Did you really look at the article on him? There is precious little to differentiate him from many thousands of academics. By the way, I liked the work you did on the MS article. It's an outstanding article.MollyBloom03:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your civility, which is more than I can say for the editor of the article in question. Please go back and look at it. I agree with you that I might just sit back for awhile and watch. It is true I feel strongly about this, because I simply can't see what makes this individual so unusually notable as to be included in a Wiki entry. I also know the history of the author of the article. I read the court case against that surgeon, and frankly was repulsed. You should read it. Rob and Midgely both misrepresented the issues and rulings of that case. Well, it is possible that Midgley simply can't read legal cases, so I will give him the benefit of a doubt. However, Rob is astutely aware of what happened. IF that article stays, then this should stay in the discussion. It goes to the essence of one of the major complaints about plastic surgeons who advocate silicone implants.
Your assessment on my talk page of the case is very benign. The facts in evidence included his alcoholism (and most recent 'rehab' about the same time as the filing of the lawsuit), as well as his failure to keep proper records (at best). I have no doubt that what was stated was true. But even if it was more 'benign', he still violated ethics (and the law) in his failure to keep records of the (supposed) informed consent. He has a legal duty to keep all medical records. His failure to do so, combined with her assertions, speaks volumes, and goes beyond the 'he said she said' that you suggested. That most likely is the reason he did not appeal his loss in the appeals court. It is very likely he would have lost.MollyBloom05:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A doctor has a legal duty to maintain medical records. This is not optional. In fact, a plastic surgeon who did my implantation had his licensed revoke, in part because of sloppy record keeping - and that was in the late 80s. I am shocked that you would say keeping records is not necessary. It may not be a medical ethics rule (I wonder if there are there any) but it most certainly is a legal requirement. It is an ethics requirement for lawyers. It is also practical. Can you remember every detail of every patient? Would you be willing to base your treatment of a patient based solely on your memory? That does not pass the smell test. And why did he suddently want her to sign one then, after the fact?
The uncontested facts and facts which were consistent with the evidence are as follows:
1. Silicone was placed in the patient by Maxwell,
2. Maxwell told the patient about the hazards of silicone,
3. The testimony of the staff that the patient was shocked and upset (i.e. visibly upset) upon learning she already had silicone implants.
All things considered, since Maxwell informed her of the silicone hazard issues at the time of the initial implant, it's not logical that she would agree to silicone. Couple this logical point with the testimony of the staff regarding her refusal to sign a silicone consent form when she came back for later surgery, and the fact that the patient was visibly upset when she learned she "already had silicone"- and its hard not to draw the conclusion that Maxwell violated informed consent and breached his patient's trust. Neither one can produce a consent form for the use of silicone. Again hard not to draw the conclusion that Maxwell violated informed consent.MollyBloom06:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a plastic surgeon? Just curious, based on your statement that you saw a trans-flap or Maxwells work? You are indeed correct, that there is no reason to continue this discussion. You have made your position and your attitudes very clear. If it is a doctor with a few publications, include 'em, regardless of how unethical he may be. Or maybe ethics, as you implied, is not a concern for doctors. MollyBloom 07:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC
The Rfd turned into a personal attack forum, focusing on people and not the merits of the Rfd. Please tell your friend Midgley to stop hurling insults. I am sick of a senseless war that is nothing but fighting off insults. What I do not understand is why any doctor would support any other doctor who uses Wikopedia as a forum to harass, insult and disparage. That does not seem very professional. MollyBloom03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look entirely compatible with a continuing professional practice, but no, I don't think it is fake. Actually, based on this and a colleague whose postings to a UK mailing list progressed, there is probably a paper to be written, on what doctors should or may say or do in the line of description of behaviour and advice to moderators and the like. A very touchy subject though. I don't suppose I'll be thanked for [20] either. Midgley02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05t15:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear InvictaHOG, I can't thank you enough for your support during my recent request for adminship. I look forward to collaborating on many more medical articles! Your kind words were greatly appreciated. Take care -- Samirधर्म04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello InvictaHOG! As stated on the talk page, I think you did a splendid job on the Kell page. I just realised that blood types were the MCTOW project, and assume that this fact attracted your attention to the blood type page. As I'm leaving for holidays I won't be able to contribute now, but if you have the time, I would appreciate greatly any other blood type system subpage. I think it's maybe because I'm a specialist working in the field that I've been procrastinating about creating these subpages, making myself busy on the reference desk instead. It's like I feel it has to be perfect. I'll get back to it later this summer. Best regards, vibo56talk14:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for editing the article Transfusion-associated graft versus host disease. I will look at the main article later, my interest shifted to something else right now (started working on a separate article for Abdominal aortic aneurysm). Can you tell me how to join the wikiproject clinical medicine? Just adding my nick to the list would work? Could you also look at the Orthomolecular medicine article? I think I will withdraw from discussing with those two guys coz it makes no sense to argue with them. ackoz14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to nominate you for adminship. You have an outstanding record of edits and you could use the administrator priviledges in editing wikipedia. Would you accept the nomination? ackoz11:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on the CF article. I'm glad it made FA status so others can learn more about it. I used to have a friend with CF in college (she is still alive).whicky1978talk06:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that the article had modern pictures in the past, but their quality was appaling, so I removed them without much ado. Your pictures are fine and I definitely want to use some of them when I will expand the article in the future. Please upload them to Wikimedia Commons for the time being. I also plan to upload some of the Nevsky photographs from www.walks.ru, as we have the owner's permission. I also reworked your article about Vladimirskaya Church and announced it on Portal:Russia/New article announcements. I plan to write much about St. Pete sights when I shall have more time. Happy edits, Ghirla-трёп-07:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Yelagin Island.jpg and releasing it into the public domain. I think that one of things that makes Wikipedia great is its unique collection of images. You might also consider uploading your pictures to the Wikimedia Commons so that all of the different projects can use them. Happy photo taking! --Hetar05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Yes actually I've still got a lot of info to add to the article. Your comment is right - I was writing in context of the partition of India, which happened 50 years after Khan's death and thus is not properly explained or directly relevant to this article. Thanks for your comments, but do check back in the coming weekend. Rama's arrow 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for you reply. You have understood the problem. It is not regarding "keeping" or "deleting". I wanted to bring to notice of every one that the AFD debate is not proper. As soon as an article is listed for debate, you see everyone coming and adding delete (or keep) even without reading the article and the relevant points, but based on their personal opinions. For example if there is an article in Hitler's good qualities (for example) and that is marked for deletion, then every one who does not like the article start adding delete immediately not seeing the merit of the article.
I am sure that the same thing has happened here also. You can see one user has voted three times. Another user gave a hasty decision and in the process of justifying that, they invent their own guidelines and in that process insult the subject. If you have read the AFD Debate you will see words like "junior author", "carm", "no post graduation" etc. What is the need for the words. After I decided to counter all these they change the stand.
The article was listed under "no proof for the book" When the proof was shown the decision changed into "Non-notable" and then after that was shown, it was 'Vanity". The bottomline is very simple. The ego of the user prevents him from going back on the decision and hence to justify the speedy decision he invents new guidelines
You should note that I have been able to substantiate my points far better than those opposing it
To summarise, let us see what the Guidelines say
1. Notability of Books. THe books have an ISBN Number. 5 books are published by reputed firms. 4 of those are published by the biggest medical publisher in India. In such a case, one user who gave a knee jerk comment in the first place has choosen the 6th (1 out of 6 minority) and say that it is self publishable. He has ignored 5 because his ego prevents him from going back on his earlier words
Notability (people) 1. Published authors - 6 books is more than enough to satisfy this criteria
Notability (doctor) May be there is nothing called as exam preparation in western world, but here it is a budding field. I did not give these links it that page as it will amount to "self-glory", but since you seem to understand, I am giving you few links. You can search at www.rxpgonline.com [21]
www.aippg.net/forum[22] and www.netmedicos.com [23] You may think me of some one obsessed with self glory, but the point to prove is that, unless some one is regarded as an expert in that area, you will not see students from the length and breath of a country with 1000 million population to ask for my help. May be this branch of Entrance preparation per se is not notable in western world, but just because some thing does not exist in America, it does not mean that it is not an entity
Then
Regarding the counter points
1. The article was not written by me. When this controversy erupted, I read the guidelines regarding autobiography and has followed what is given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you
Even without going through the debate, when users accuse of vanity (as if I have created the article) it hurts a lot
2. WP:BIO clearly says that you can have articles on published authors. There is no talk about Junior/Senior, Undergraduation/Post Graduation, Fiction/Nonfiction etc.
My main concern is that all these points come out only after I put a counter question. They are not the real facts or standing norms, but are made up as the users ego prevent them from stepping back and change the hasty initial judgement. In order to substantiate the hasty vote, they invent their own new guidelines and terms like junior doctor, exam shelf life, not finished PG etc . Wounded by these new "self invented" guidelines, I even deleted the article my self, but that has been restoredDoctor Bruno01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why this has become a big issue is for the simple reason that the concerned subject himself is giving responses to the claims and 'that too in his own name from an account that is a year old instead of using sockpuppets. May be the issue would have been different, if I had replied "keep" under 10 different account names, or asked my students and readers of my books (in real world) who are wikipedians to vote for me. We made a careful decision of not interfering with this process and only me (the best person to give proofs) to respond to the question.
I would like this issue to be a turning point as far as meaningful debates in AFD is concerned.
One important point I want to emphasise here is this - User A gives and opinion of "keep". User B counters that with a good explanation. How can User C then come and add "Keep as per A" Should he not counter the argument of B with his own points. That has not been done in that debate.
I am not accusing every one, but one user - who claims to be from India who could have easily called the Publisher to verify whether I have written the books for Re 1 (cost of phone charge - less than 3 cents - a coffee cost Rs 3) - who said that I have never written a book. He also goes round various talk pages and incites opinion about meDoctor Bruno01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not able to say with certain whether it is a "intentional personal attack" (which was my first opinion), or an vain attempt to satisfy one's ego to justify the initial hasty comment at the AFD page (which I assume to be the reason now), I think that in the interest of the WIkipedia and community as a whole, the best, easiest and least stressful option is to just let things go and to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as if it never happened and count it as water under the bridge and move on. [sorry for the copyright violation :) ]
As of now, I feel that I have wasted 5 days of my time and time of editors like you in this controversy. May be if some one had spoken to be like you, Blnguyen, Erechtheus, Sarah Ewart and Samir (Scope) on day one itself (instead of quoting the lone book ignoring 5 books) this controversy would not have ballooned.
As far as the "bold and large text" is concerned, let it be like that till the debate is closed. I would like to bring to the notice of the community that voting in Afd (as well as in Rfd etc) should be done after some thought and contemplation and not mechanically. Let this incident may serve as a mind opener to avoid un necessary heated exchange of words.
It's me again. I was nudged by your notice to rummage out my old PC and upload to Commons my own sloppy pictures of the Donskoy Monastery. Now I search for your picture of the Novodevichy and can't find it. What's the matter, man? --Ghirla-трёп-19:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; we may have here an example of transatlantic language shift. I am more than happy to give you a laugh, but in the UK the description of "stenosing teno-vaginitis" is in fact common usage. In this context the use of the word vagina clearly has no gynaecological connotation; it refers to a sheath or tube within which the tendons of flexor pollicis longus and abductor pollicis brevis travel. Tenosynovitis indicates an inflammation of the synovium lining the tendon sheaths, while tenovaginitis indicates an inflammation of the sheaths themselves.--Anthony.bradbury23:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted it. I fully recognise that this may be a specific British usage, but as I am sure you know the live-and-let-live approach in Wiki is to leave USA/UK terms as they are first entered. Tunica vaginalis is, of course, a good example of alternate usage, though clearly unconnected to Monsieur de Quervain.
I note that you have written vast numbers of articles with a medical orientation - it's quite difficult to find something new to write about!--Anthony.bradbury23:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's true. But whenever I think that I would like to write about something, I find that somebody - often you - has already done so!--Anthony.bradbury23:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: thank you for your kind words on the article on this topic. I found a gaping hole between slipped disc and sponylolysis which was crying out to be filled; and before becoming a general practitioner I was an orthopaedic surgeon.--Anthony.bradbury23:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good going! As a Physical Therapist who has worked in Greenland, I have quite a bit of experience with this diagnosis. It was so common (30-50% of all Eskimos) that it was hardly ever listed as the primary cause of pain. One simply took it for granted that the poor patient probably had it, as well as other problems. It's actually rather easy to diagnose a stable or unstable one. -- Fyslee13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to nominate it as soon as it came off semi-protection. Sorry I have been unresponsive. Summer grades and Fall registration make for a killer couple of weeks in August. TedTalk/Contributions14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Invicta, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I understand that it was hard to find information, but your entry contained several grave errors, hence the summary. Balezino isn't a city, or even a town, so no need for the template. It is also not in Siberia (Siberia is east of Urals). The picture, however, would be great. You can add it when you have time. Hopefully you enjoyed that trip through Russia. When I was travelling from Perm to Moscow recently, there was an English guy, who was taking education in China and returning home by the train. Seems to be a popular route, although I cannot understand why people choose train over aircraft. Grue 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
thanks for the picture. I don't live there, but contribute to the article and watch it. Nice picture, but I'd post one of those of the station overview. I've noticed you've made quite a trip! --Ъыь(mailbox)20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re: ==HSV 2\HSV-2== on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, Sept. 3/06
Ok, sorry let me rephrase my question: Must you display at least A symptom of HSV 2 [or otherwise called herpes simplex virus 2, herpes simplex virus-2, or HSV-2] in your lifetime, [i.e.: before you die] if you have HSV 2 [or otherwise called herpes simplex virus 2, herpes simplex virus-2, or HSV-2]?10011010000:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that means I could have HSV 2 [or otherwise called herpes simplex virus 2, herpes simplex virus-2, or HSV-2] without knowing because I could have shook someone's hand, or if they touched me....... isn't that terrible?!10011010021:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. But on the article, it says that its passed on by broken skin, and that maybe the person I'm shaking hands with has HSV2 on his/her hand I shoke but the sores were not there [you can transmit HSV2 without having symptoms]. Well my concern is that how could I say I'm disease free if that could well be the case, & yet I don't even know if I have HSV2 on a part of my body? Because I could have HSV2 on my forearm, someone could transit me HSV2 to me by their foreare [say, if they are wearing a tshirt & brushed against me].10011010008:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I edited your link into our "Saletta Morgagni" now pointing to your en.wiki (very impressive!) user page. Your appreciation to my categorizing style for histopatholoy images made me happy!--Alex brollo09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi InvictaHOG, you created a great diagram Image:ABO_blood_group_diagram.svg, but it looks like you labelled the A and B erythrocytes the opposite way round (the ABO blood type article says: "Type A has an extra N-acetyl galactosamine bonded to the galactose near the end, while type B has an extra galactose bonded to the galactose near the end"). I'm not sure how to edit an SVG, otherwise I would change it round. --apers0n05:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for going on about this, but it looks like you have replaced my temporary PNG with the SVG image in the Blood type articles apparently without modifying it, so it's still not technically correct. I saw you also made the image Image:Bloodtype final.svg where the A and B red blood cells are also the wrong way round. --apers0n05:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That has sorted it, the image is now perfect and I think the Blood type article may be ready for a peer review? I've nominated the duplicate article Image:Bloodtype final.svg for deletion on the Commons, but thought I would notify you here in case you have a reason for keeping it. --apers0n08:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To all who have helped me develop the article Tourette syndrome, I was hoping you'd have a new look. Jkelly has checked the images, I've asked Tony to do a thorough copyedit to polish the prose when he has time, and I've completed the referencing and expanded the Screening section. I think I've done all I'm capable of, and would appreciate any new input you may have. Sandy23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you could help with Image:BMIchart.png or if you have any comments on images or charts for BMI. See also BMI Chart (height 150 - 174cm). Snowman12:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the tasks of the WP:MEDGENP is to assess all unrated articles listed on the article rating page so that the quality of the articles within the scope of the project can be seen at a glance. This was previously updated only manually, but now the ratings are also harvested daily by a bot and the results posted here, with significant changes from the previous rating listed here. If you would like to assess an article relating to genetic disorders you can add the relevant template to the article talk page, which will add the article to the relevant category and will be monitored by the bot.
A new assessment category {{GA-Class}} (Good Article) has been added for articles that have been assessed as a Good Article.
There is also a new category Category:Acquired genetic disorders for genetic disorders that are not inherited. Please add this category to any articles you think may qualify.
If you are registered to use the AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) (requires Windows 2000/XP + .NET framework v.2) there is a Wikipedia Assessments plugin that is designed to make the assessment process faster and easier (about the plugin / user guide). It has an assessments mode, for reviewing articles, and a talk page tagging mode for reviewing articles. Users with more than 500 mainspace edits can register to use the AWB.
Hey InvictaHOG, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your comments and support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was a little too off-topic to reply in the RFA, but I agree, the article on the nocebo effect is quite good. Reverse placebo effects are distinct in many ways though (it is covered very little in the medical literature, psychology has more on the phenomenon), but for now it makes a very good redirect. Thanks. :-) Irongargoyle01:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A new user recently created the article Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis and I've been trying to help him bring it up to Wikipedia standards. However, his description of the model as "unconventional" on my talk page and a google search have made me wonder if the article is really suitable for Wikipedia. The article is well-sourced but I'm afraid it may actually be original research. With no medical background, I feel unable to judge whether or not this is the case. I remembered your help with the article Michael Woodruff and the fact that you are apparently an expert on medicine, so I thought I'd ask you if the article seems suitable for Wikipedia. I'd hate for the newbie to come across this discussion, so I ask that you either reply here on your talk page or contact me via email with your response to the article. In any case, your input is much appreciated. So, if you'd be so kind, just look over the article and give me a thumbs-up/thumbs-down. Thanks again. Cool323:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest it is not my primary field and I am not conversant with the newest theories and ideas for the truly puzzling question which this theory intends to explain. However, I can say a couple of things about the theory - it seems to make sense and it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal. You are right that google (and similarly, citation trackers) do not make much out of this theory. I can only find articles on pubmed which are by the same authors when discussing this theory. Some strengths are that this is certainly presented in the terms of a hypothesis and is well-referenced and well-written. I don't think that this counts as original research due to the fact that it is published. There is, however, a precedent for deleting such an article as this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis). In that instance, the page was also well-written and referenced. The argument seemed to hinge on notability, which might actually be a problem in both cases here. However, as you can see I actually voted to keep that article, so you know up front where my preferences lie. If you want a more diverse set of opinions, WP:MED has quite a few of us who like to talk about these sort of things! InvictaHOG01:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. As the article does appear to not be orignial research, I'm not particularly concerned about its notability. At any rate, it passes my personal criteria for inclusion. If someone is interested in pursuing the matter further, they may do so at will. However, insofar as I am concerned, Wikipedia's probably better off to have the article. Cool321:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCursework15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Editing clash - I thought you were working on Asphyxia? I have rewritten the article. I shall now merge your recent changes. best regards Widefox 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm done merging your changes. And not editing more. My changes are what I consider a balancing to provide NPOV. I look forward to your changes. regards Widefox16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take kindly to your unbased assertion that I did not read your reference, in fact my extensive comments would lead to the opposite conclusion. Please treat me with the respect that I try to give you. And please find some better references, so that the page grows stronger, and not bulking it up with asphyxia references to avoid deletion! I have constructively added to the article (I'm probably the major author now), despite still believing that asphyxia is the real place for this. My understanding is that you are talking about asphyxia, and not asphyxia gases. This only adds backing to the idea that asphyxia is the correct place for this material. Further, just between you and me, I am a science post-doc from a top-tier international research institute, and so I can read through a 2 1/2 page reference! Widefox16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - don't know if you have time for this, or interest, but I'm having trouble getting any third-party attention on Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis (talk) and thought of asking you because of your AIDS-related contributions.
The editor who started this article, and who has added links to it and a bit of related questionable text in HIV and SIV, is apparently the principal author of the peer-reviewed papers cited; is new to Wikipedia; and has taken a very combative attitude to my admittedly blunt questions about references and notability. At this point he is refusing to talk to me, saying I don't understand the subject, and generally coming off a bit grandiose (I'll be proven right, they called Einstein a crank, etc. - there is actually a bit of this style in his published material too). I'm just a nerdy nurse but I don't think my doubts about his reasoning are totally off base... but it may just be that he's not expressing himself well on Wikipedia and needs some editing help. So, if you get a chance and don't mind wading through some rather pointless arguments... thanks. ←Hob02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I missed the previous comment about this. And I should've thought of going to the medical portal - the first thing that came to mind was WikiProject AIDS but that's defunct. ←Hob18:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that you have just reverted two modifications that I did in the page for MS. I had put the history in the beginning and I had made the introduction shorter. The first thing, I did it because I think the introduction is the proper place to speak about the discovery of the disease. The second because it was too long, and I took care of not losing information while shortening it.
What was the reason for reverting the changes? Do you think that it was worse after my changes? User:Juansempere
Anyway, I would propose at least one urgent change in the introduction. The sentence in the introduction that says "Although many patients lead full and rewarding lives, MS can cause impaired mobility and disability in more severe cases." should be changed or removed. A person did find it offensive (See modification 02:07, 2 January 2007), and it does not apport any information.
Other modifications I would like to do is to move epidemiology together with "Why MS occurs" or even to merge them (they speak more or less about the same things), and to change the name of the section History for something like "Discovery" or "History of the Discovery". I don't think that makes sense to apply the workd history to a disease.
I would like to hear your oppinion on these subjects.
Regards,
User:Juansempere, 4 Jan, 2007
PD. I have already removed the sentence that I told you before. Just revert the change if you think it should be there for some reason.
Thank you for excepting. As you read I am disabled and have problems remembering things so I hope you have patience. I am figuring out a little bit but have made mistakes that took a lot of time in my opinion to fix. I am not on here that often either so I think this would work out well. Feel free to email me too, that is if I have an email account, I really don't remmember and I really don't know how to find your email. See, I might be a lost cause! :) Thanks again, --Crohnie21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked to be adopted and you kindly responded. I have been trying to figure things out and went to the Sandbox. I am sorry to say I might be a lost cause because I didn't understand most of it, sorry. This kind of thing is really new to me and I am getting myself confused and panicked. Any suggestions for someone like me? Take your time, I will continue to try to figure things out. I think I have improved though. I have to admit, this is definitely working my brain! :) Also on a different note, my user page, I really don't understand what I am to do with it. I wanted to try to write up an article about living with crohn's 24/7 and all the surgeries and details but from what I read it's not supposed to be about me. I hope you're not sorry for adopting me yet. --Crohnie15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In order to circumvent your spam filter, I had to click on the Talk:The Real World: San Francisco article to edit it and then create this section. If I click on the "edit this page" tab, the spam filter blocks any additions whatsover (even if they contain no links). Greg L21:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been requested that you upload a new version of your picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MS_Risk.jpg) included in the Wikipedia article "Multiple Sclerosis" in a PNG/SVG format, because it contains information that could be displayed much more clearly than a PNG/SVG format. The new image is to be derived from a non-jpeg source so that it does not contain any compression artifacts.
It may be possible for me to do a vector tracing of most of the image and replace your "Key" box, the text within the box and the coloured rectangles within the box, as well as replace the text on the far right hand side of the image, however, this may be too time consuming for me given the scholarly pressures that I face.
It is for this reason that I am formally requesting you to create a new image without the compression artifacts in your current image.
You have great shots from Siberia on Shared! I just wanted to give you a heads up that I have been using a bunch of them on Wikitravel's guide to Siberia and I would like to invite you to come over and contribute some of your travel knowledge (if you are interested). Thanks so much for dedicating such great photos to the public domain! --Peter
Hello: I created a Userbox for the nephrology project. If there is strong feeling about changing the appearance, we can discuss that on the project talk page. The template is at: Template:User WikiProject Nephrology. To post it on your user page, paste {{User WikiProject Nephrology}} . —Gaffταλκ20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Gleason.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECU≈talk16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:LR_capitol.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell(talk) (random)01:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Walking pneumonia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. 76.214.197.6119:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.
Image:Schally portrait.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Andrzej W. Schally.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Andrzej W. Schally.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made the graph on the Body Mass Index page. It shows the height against the weight and the BMI ranges. The line representing a BMI of 18.5, the left edge of the yellow area, is incorrect. It seems to be at BMI = 19. For example, for a 1.8 m person: BMI=18.5 -> 59.94 kg, BMI=19 -> 61.56 kg. This graph is 2 years old, but maybe you still have it and can correct it. Thanks, -- Lido (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Cystic fibrosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was amazed to see that you had put up a photograph of the city of Perm see across the river, taken from the Trans-Siberian railway up on the Perm entry. It was almost identical to the photograph I took from the same vantage point. I was further amazed that you took the photograph in July of 2006, the same exact month I was taking the train from Moscow to Beijing. Judging from the weather in your photograph, might have we been on the same train? Anyway, thank you for bringing back fond memories of an awesome trip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.173.248 (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.
We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.
You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
Technical work like template designing for the journal.
Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.
The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.
Hello, InvictaHOG. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hello, InvictaHOG. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hi. I'm helping someone who is hoping to self-publish a book, and she has chosen your photo File:Naadam_rider_2.jpg to use for its cover. I just thought you might like to know, and I'll ping you the details when the book gets published. Is there any particular way you would prefer to be credited? I realise you released it into the public domain, but thought I'd check anyway. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
work 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
wijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikael
wikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.
Template:Complications of surgical and medical care has been nominated for merging with Template:Transfusion medicine. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
