User talk:Nephron/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 7 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

Hey doc!

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and enjoy. We have a place where all the medically minded people hang out: WikiProject "Clinical Medicine". You are invited to join. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's suddenly very quiet on talk:Renal failure. JFW | T@lk 14:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nephron. Welcome to Wikipedia. :-) Axl 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Firstly, I apologised to HJKeats for destroying his link. I see you have kindly repaired the damage.

See on Talk:Total cost of ownership on the copyright issue. May I ask you to decide whether this is a case of an unattributed source or a frank copyright violation? All the useful links are there. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

preclinical medicine project?

Hi, I am PhatRita, a medical student from the UK. I have been planning to revamp the anatomy and physiology pages this summer, but have realised that there is a lot of problems with the format, such as medical terminolog vs lay etc. However, there is huge potential for expansion into human anatomy and physiology, with most actual pages stubs and little more than a sentence.

I have suggested the idea of a preclinical medicine wikiproject to user:JFW and he supports it. Would you have any interest in such a project?

PhatRita 11:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well feel free to have a browse of the project. It's mostly there for organisation, to make aware that future articles are categorised in the correct manner and the correct use of terminology applies etc. You can put as much time as you into it. Even if you're just there for giving opinions you are most welcome. wikipedia: WikiProject Preclinical Medicine

PhatRita 13:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use of italics, bold text, etc. in Wikipedia

Hi,

Thank you for updating the femoral artery article! Please note that in Wikipedia, text is made italic like this:

Use the '' (italic) markup. Example:

''This is italic.''

which produces

This is italic.

Bold text is done like this:

'''This is bold.'''

which produces

This is bold.

No need to use HTML :-) Keep up your great work! --Mstroeck 10:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:PMID and Quinupristin-dalfopristin

Thanks for the advice. Terrace4 22:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Volumetric flow rate

I saw that you moved Rate of fluid flow to Volumetric flow rate. Apart from whether this move is justified (I think your explanation was reasonable), the move created several double redirects. I hope it will not be considered an inapproprate request if I ask you to fix those. They are not that many (unlike what happens when people move long-established articles). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 23:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And a remark. You should not replace

#redirect [[Volumetric flow rate]]

with

#redirect: [[Volumetric flow rate]]

as that screws up the redirect. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 02:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had a redirect "screwed up" in that way. An using Special:Whatlinkshere/Pagename shows whether there are double redirects. JFW | T@lk 17:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: internal mammary artery

Please look-up the definition of words before you accuse people of vandalism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mamma

mam·ma2 Audio pronunciation of "mamma" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mm)

n. pl. mam·mae (mm)

An organ of female mammals that contains milk-producing glands; a mammary gland.

http://www.emedicine.com/asp/dictionary.asp?exact=Y&keyword=mamma

mammae Pronunciation: (mam'a, mam'e)

TA syn: breast

See Also: mammary gland Etymology: L. Nephron 20:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Deep blush. So sorry. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Your edit made the article better-- I didn't think about the fact that mamma might be mistaken for slang. Nephron 00:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I mostly assumed that someone (perhaps a youngster) had logged onto your account and was messing around. Breast is, of course, one of the most vandalized articles here -- of course I know "mamma" and "mammae", and I should have thought about the context, but I'd been vandal-hunting all day and assumed the worst. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Echocardiography

Hello Nephron, I think, this would be the better image for Echocardiography. gx --195.93.60.8 10:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling you're Kjetil Lenes; the above IP is European (that fits). Any case, nice image - I added it to echocardiography. Why have one great image, when one can have two great images? :) Nephron 05:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Kjetil Lenes; but I think he made some good pictures. You can find me [1] here. gx--195.93.60.8 07:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

relative risk

Your link to predictor is a bit odd, since that is a redirect page pointing to prediction, whose topic is not at all the meaning of the word predictor in the context in which you used it. You can't assume words used as article titles generally mean what they mean in the specialized field you're writing about. (You may also want to look at the other things I did with that page.) Michael Hardy 19:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't insert the reference to predictor. Also, I had a different lead sentence. Any case, Cyberodin did do some good things... and you improved it further. :) Nephron 03:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of blood vessels

I just wanted to thank you for making that page so much better. I started the page because it seemed like we needed it, but I am not a doctor, and I appreciate your improvements. Another similar page I started was List of human nerves, but if you have any ideas for the best ways to organize that page, I would be much obliged. --Arcadian 18:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the list is all that useful 'cause the arteries and veins all appear in their own categories, so, the list in some ways is reduntant. I think a decision-tree like diagram [2], as found in Martini's Anatomy & Physiology [3], would be ideal, i.e. something that allows one to trace say a blood clot (due to atrial fibrillation) from the left atrium to the middle cerebral artery. Unfortunately, the wikipedia software doesn't seem to be advanced enough to do that. Nephron 22:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nephron, My name is gus I am german and I just had a look at Angela Merkel page. Its an old german tradition to use political Satire during german Carnival time. The People of Cologne are especially known for their sharp witt and mockery during this time. I dont think the links of the political satire floats in Cologne should be deleted. Its an old tradition that dates back to Court Jesters like Till Eulenspiegel and democratic rights activists long ago! The Target are often Politicians and people in high Authority. This is a biographical reality for Angela Merkel and historical fact, and therefore this info should be part of her Page! I stated my case on her talk Page and I dont know why that historical fact should be censored .There are a few more facts I will suggest to add to her page very soon. To make it a more current biography,because at the moment even her picture is out of date and i wouldnt call her page a serious biography, There is still plenty to research about Angela Merkels DDR years and early political life or lack of it...

I am new to all this, but I saw you express similar sentiments like mine on the Angela Merkel talk page, against those who think that Cologne Carnival link of Merkel and Bush had no place in a "serious" biography! well....it is still a historical Fact so why should anyone hide it or want to censor it,I wonder ? Do you think we could link it up again ? I got to learn a few more things before I can attermpt such a current and important page.. but I did some work on the talk page to help with some current info..

thanks and cheers, Guss 18:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking of CMAJ

Is the Canadian Medical Association Journal really in the top five journal category? According to ISI's Journal Citation Reports, its impact factor is 5.941, whereas the impact factor of e.g. Annals of Internal Medicine is 13.114. I would imagine that the Annals would be in the top five, not CMAJ! Plus even without the impact factor numbers, my gestalt is that the Annals is much more visible in the medical literature than CMAJ. Andrew73 00:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

parasympathomimetic

Regarding your recent edit to the parasympathomimetic article. Although it's true that water can be poisonous in extremely large amounts, some parasympathomimetics (namely malathion) are used as a poison (specifically an insecticide). I think it's appropriate to describe them as drugs and poisons. See Organophosphate or Sarin. Matt 09:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inducing a parasympathomimetic response, which is what a parasympathomimetic does, isn't necessarily deadly nor by definition harmful (i.e. poisonous) ... whether harm is done is dependent on the dose and a threshold value needs to be surpassed for harm to result. Drugs are "something that alter the physiology (of the person that takes 'em)," such as inducing a parasympathetic response. I don't object to the word poison per se--I just don't think it belongs in the lead sentence.

Why do you just rv... what was wrong with the Also see link? Nephron 06:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

finger flexor reflex

With regard to the execrable parallel between the finger flexor reflex and plantar response: Why not just add a section to the arm article that states:

The arm is considered the upper limb analog to the leg, because apart from differences in anatomical structure, function, appearance, innervation and position on the trunk, they are the same.

You must be a "lumper" :)

More seriously, there is a case to be made that the plantar response is not a reflex at all, and that the plantar response observed in brain damaged adults is a) inhomogenous (a collection of different pathways in different patients) and b) not the same as the normal response seen in infants up to 12 months of age. The plantar response is not a simple sign of upper motor neuron dysfunction; there are many cases of corticospinal interruption in which it is normal, and many cases where the Babinski's sign is found for reasons other than corticospinal tract interruption. It may in fact, in many cases, represent disinhibition of the rubrospinal tract, a phylogenically old tract.

Just because a lot of medical students are taught something doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia - especially if it's not true. I note that you're a nephrologist; please be assured that I would not undertake to lecture you about the difference between nil and minimal change disease :)

-Ikkyu2 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think comparisons are good, if one knows at which point to make the distinctions. Also, it makes sense to simplify things on some level, provided one knows the limitations of those simplifications.

Just because a lot of medical students are taught something doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia - especially if it's not true.

I don't disagree with that. That said, Babinski and Hoffmann are upper motor neuron lesions. What is untrue? The rubrospinal tract, as I understand it, is upper motor neurons - they synapse with lower motor neurons (LMNs) or neurons 'upstream' of the LMNs. I don't think the way I wrote the articles is a distortion and even if it is somewhat of a distortion, I think it is appropriate for the audience, which is the larger public. I think the differentiation between LMN and UMN is the important one... and I think that is what the comparison is accomplishes.

Feel free to edit the articles if you think they distort things significantly. Your input thus far I think has made the articles better. Nephron 01:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ventricular septal defect

Hm. Good questions, that should be answered. The best way to do that would be to edit the article, I'll try to get around to that in the end of the week. But perhaps you could help me with my english: I used typical in the sense that this picture of a VSD is how the vast majority of VSDs in newborns look (localization, size). Is that wrong? Would it be better to just say this is the most common...? --Ekko 07:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michener Institute

Is it a public or private college? --Ardenn 08:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ottawa ankle rules, 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.

--Gurubrahma 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Just wanted to say hi and that I've enjoyed your contributions. Let me know if you decide to do gastroenterology as opposed to renal. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not sure yet about residency. Any case, I'll let you know if I turn into a GI gunner. Nephron 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching the vandal on my user page. This anon IP appears connected to User:TuomasTumour as well as a number of other IP addresses that all go around adding "hen fap" to articles. Looks like a serial vandal is on the loose. I blocked the original user for 48 hours which is no doubt why he's being a big baby about it. Thanks again. 23skidoo 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Nephron 07:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Passive smoking

Hi. In the course of my work on the John Brignell article, I've visited Passive smoking, which is terrible, made up almost entirely of pro-smoking misinformation. I don't have the knowledge to fix it, but I thought you might know someone who did. JQ 05:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Hi Nephron! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / ~~opposing~~ / ~~vandalising~~ my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now ~~still a normal user~~ / an administrator / ~~indefinitely banned~~. Your ~~constructive criticism~~ / support / ~~foulmouthed abuse~~ has ~~given me something to think about~~ / helped me immensely / ~~turned me into a nervous wreck~~. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ~~ask someone else~~ / ~~suffer and die~~ / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Re: PAS, etc.

Hi Nephron. Pro-Lick is currently blocked for a second time. This editor's history at Wikipedia has been a bit rocky, and I think there are several admins paying attention. Probably more by the day, at this rate. I'll add PAS to my watchlist, and think about merging it or not. A good place to get feedback (and noise) might be Talk:Abortion; it seems to be a sort of hub for abortion related discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for citation

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For his tireless work in improving the citations for medical articles, Nephron is hereby awarded the Working Man's Barnstar. Arcadian 13:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

The vandal you overturned on the Diefenbaker page (205.188.117.6) seems to be following my contributions and reverting them...(The pages he's chosen are an oddly coincidental pattern). Anything I can do to stop it? Thanks. Habsfannova 04:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makemi RfA

Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Mak emi 05:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. By the way, why doesn't your sig. link to your page? Do you write your name manually then do three tildes? I find it helpful to have a person's page, especially their talk page, in their sig. Just a thought. Mak emi 05:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I'm editing your page in two clicks! Mak emi 06:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nephron

Thanks for inviting me to the Clinical Medicine project. I'll join up - I have some contributions to make. - Richardcavell 03:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our RfAs

File:1000000eme.jpg

Another sysop rolls off the conveyor belt, thanks you for your help, and excuses himself for a few days while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 09:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 05:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coombs test

There are some good references for Coombs test at the bottom of the article page.

Actually, all that is needed is A Rads schematic, which is very good. I have spent some time trying to find the right words for basic aspects of Coombs test on the article page and it is still not right yet. I think that Coombs test is a key test and worth getting right.

It has been some time since I worked in hematology and blood bank, and so I can not answer your questions. I am hoping that someone with up-to-date working experience in blood bank will write more about blood grouping and cross matching blood, as I have commented on the talk page.

There are some errors in the redirects to the Rh disease page and I have flagged these for change (there is a process for this). Hemolytic disease of the newborn should have its own page and not be a redirect, I think. Snowman 10:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuskegee Syphilis Study

I assume that this edit was the result of an edit conflict... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess so... whereas I usually check what I'm reverting ('cause vandals sometimes make multiple edits). Not sure what happened there. Nephron T|C 23:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaGizza's RfA

Hi Nephron/Archive 1, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. --Gizza^Chat ^© 11:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --Here T oHelp 12:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Causality

I'll respond fully in a day or two, just spent a long time on the ABC article and I need to head to bed. What I can say is I do understand the difference quite well; I wouldn't be a veteran controverial science related editor here without knowing that. For a taste I added the comet section to the Walt Brown (creationist) article after one of his supports thought it prudent to edit science related articles; and initiated the writing of the Evolution#Misconceptions_about_modern_evolutionary_biology section. (also your shoe size analogy neglects the fact experienced scientists conduct ABC studies, not you or I)

The problem is the sentence in question doesn't confuse the two; although I understand it can be confusing to a lay reader. (hence I linked the terms as best I could, indeed causality could use some work) However the sentence in the ABC conclusion is saying exactly that. Correlations are indicated in some studies; but that does not met the causality standard for epidemiology. It is attempting to clarify correlation is not causal.

However, your addition was also incorrect. It put the blame on the ABC hypothesis itself; not the studies; for not meeting the requirements of causality. That was a ~~grievous~~ error, and was POV; even though I am entirely confident you were doing what you thought was accurate. It was a small error, but had big implications for the conclusion. The ABC hypothesis does meet several of the criteria, it is consistent (in its predictions), specific and completely plausible. As to the other criteria (biological gradient and temporal); I'm sure it meets them, but I don't know exactly what they mean. :"D If you could explain in laymans terms, I could give the relevant evidence that meets at least a minimum level of plausibility. Again, the results of studies done on ABC are all over the place; that does not translate to the ABC hypothesis itself.

FYI: I only read over your first paragraph, and found more than enough to disagree with you. If the rest is support for correlation != causation; I wouldn't really want to read it, as it would annoy me greatly... regardless of how well you presented your point(s). I admire your scientific outlook, and look forward to seeing more of you. Goodnight. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off I'll apologize for my tone; it had more to do with my sleeping patterns than you. As I'm a little more rested I can try and put things briefly; and hopefully clearly. The ABC article as a whole is exploring those elements of causality; even though it doesn't name them.

I entirely agree the paper is a classic; and is an excellent source; and I apologize for not reading it, as I should have last night and simply answered the other variables. ABC meets those requirements as well; although some such as temporality are tricky as there are so many confounding factors... I have no doubts about breast cancer being multi-causation. (ie. upwardly mobile women have abortion early, AND delay child bearing; however both are hormonal in nature) However, good controls should account for them.

Anyway I find you an engaging person and would like to elaborate further, but none of the above is really the point (although multi-causation is important to point out in the ABC article). While the article doesn't list that basic information about causation; it does explore those elements in detail within the body of the article and it results in a muddy picture. While I agree the conclusion only speaks to the strength and consistency of the ABC results; the article does go into the other elements of causality. I'm certainly willing to entertain the thought as you've put it so nicely; of a point by point summary of how ABC meets causality. It could result in great summary overview of the ABC hypothesis; or it may come out as repetitive/stilted or even "promotional". However, the article isn't about causality; and all the explanation of each element should be in causality; hopefully in its own section which could be directly linked to.

Want to work on a point by point causality summary with me for the ABC conclusion in its talk page. I caution it could get messy... and I'm unsure if its even encyclopedic. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you!
Hello Nephron/Archive 1. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- F a ng Aili ^說嗎?

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Relative Risk, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Bradford Hill

There's a little of Bradford Hill's assessments of Causality in epidemiology fyi. --Limegreen 03:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as a little PS, I haven't looked at psychiatry and anti-psychiatry, but I suspect if they're anything like some of the rest of that area, then they're not a great precedence. I wonder better whether splitting out less contentious things (perhaps a Symptoms and Diagnosis of ADHD, with a brief summary on the main page), would be a better way of reducing the size. I've also had a go at weeding on the basis of verifiability and adding footnotes as a bit of a strategy. --Limegreen 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right. However, I'm worried that the Anti article will snowball out of control. Some of the recent edits seem pretty low quality already (that's the stuff that you copied out of the main article), and I'm unlikely to ever look at the new article. --Limegreen 04:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Nephron/Archive 1, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight.
If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever...
Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me...

The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPD References

WHOOPS!! That's what happens when we edit after the second glass of Shiraz...sorry about that--Zeraeph 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SMH

Nice pic! -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nephron T|C 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Just wanted to take a moment to say thnaks for voting in my RfA! It failed to gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination. - Amgine 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning to give you this for a while

		The Original Barnstar
		For exceptional contributions to medical articles, and for great creativity in the creation of new medical articles, I award you the Original Barnstar. Congratulations! -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved! -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should go study... :) -- Samir

(the scope) धर्म 20:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should go study too. Shame one doesn't get partial credit for editing WP articles... Nephron T|C 20:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi Nephron/Archive 1,

Thank you for supporting my RFA! Unfortunately it did not succeed mainly because most opposers wanted me to spend more time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your faith in me & looking forward to your continued support in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scleroderma

Would appreciate your input if you had a second. Particularly renal complications. Thanks -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Nephron, thanks for supporting my request for adminship! Unfortunately, it ended with a final tally of 45/15/2, no consensus. I may have another go in the near future, once the school year is over. Thanks again! -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy and the use of magnesium and vitamin B6

Thanks for taking the time to look into this and make constructive comments. I really appreciate it. Colin°^Talk 08:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you, Nephron, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)

Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Nephron/Archive 1, 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! Cool3 talk 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

I'm honored that you thought I was a good candidate - thanks very much!

-- Nataly a 04:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

Hi Nephron, a couple of things:

If you have elective time, Kamel Kamel is on service at SMH in July for nephro consults
If you have some time, we could use your help at Wikiproject Gastroenterology.

Cheers and hope all is well -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoglycemics

I agree the oldfashioned and withdrawn biguanides should be removed. When I trained there were still plenty of patients on tolbutamide. With regards to the glipides - these will be introduced fairly soon, mark my words.

Perhaps the template should be renamed to include all oral antidiabetics. Makes life easier. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Thanks

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liver Dialysis

Much better Nephron, I probably should have thought of doing that after so much complaining! Nice is very er.....nice. Thanks for asking.Felix-felix 16:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us smile

Bhadani sends his [[Namaskar|greetings and friendly smile to you! I do believe that smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. I would request you to please spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing and all the best!

<! -- Template:smile2 --> --Bhadani 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation

To WikiProject "Clinical Medicine". I have been visiting it on occasion, but you're right that I should formally join. Thanks too for your constructive edits to many of the pharmacology stubs I've started. Terrace4 10:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA/Gurch

Thanks for the support – yes, I intend to apply my resources to vandal control at some point – Gurch 17:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyRussian's RfA

File:Motherussia.jpg

Hello Nephron, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello, Nephron/Archive 1, and thank you for the supportive vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! - Kukini 05:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky gut syndrome

Looks like the article is spun to support "the Candida causes all of the badness in the body" hypothesis. And the links are particularly weak. I'll put an NPOV tag on -- Samir धर्म 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Nephron, thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for adminship, it passed with a final tally of (65/3/3) - which I find both amazing and humbling. I wish I had time to thank everyone personally, but I'm afraid all I can offer is this token of my gratitude. I hope to live up to your expectations/hopes. If at any stage you need to contact me, for help or a request or to point out a mistake in my conduct, please make sure to tell me on my talk page. --Fir0002 08:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Nephron/Archive 1, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks!

Dear Nephron/Archive 1, thanks for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. I've enjoyed collaborating with you on medical articles. Hope that the rotations are going well. Just let me know on my talk page or e-mail me if there's anything you need, administrative or otherwise. Thanks again -- Samir धर्म 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nephrology, Wikipedia Dialysis Unit, CRF Prognosis

The template looks fine, the only suggestion off the top of my head is that you could probably lump the PCT category together with the collecting duct category, as the physiology and conditions overlap somewhat. I don't really think that you can tease out the renal malignancies on the basis of anatomical location, except of course the urothelial cancers, which aren't strictly renal, and fit nicely in the cancer category. APKD doesn't fit an anatomic location, but is nicely served by the genetic disease category. One important missing disease/group of diseases and anatomic/histological category would be the tubulointerstitial disorders, TIN etc-interstitium or tubulointerstitium should be separate from the (chiefy physiological) categories of the PCT and DCT/CCD. I'll see if I can figure out how to join the project thingy...Felix-felix 08:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATN would be another important one to go in tubulointerstitial diseases...Felix-felix 10:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Sarcoid, which isn't geneticFelix-felix 10:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADL's page

In the activities of daily living page, you recently changed the first citation. I was just wondering...the citation itself requested that any citation of that article should be done in the way I put it. Does that make any difference vs. the Wikipedia standards? --aishel 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for our reply! --aishel 10:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)

re: "I couldn't resist wikifying your user page. If you look that the diffs you can see what I did and it might explain a few things in terms of editing. Take Care, Nephron T|C 06:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)"

Super helpful! Thank you...I'm headed out the door for vacation, but when I get back to my computer next week I'll spend some time looking at the differences.

Aunt Amanda

Thanks for the assistance

Hi Nephron. Thanks for the welcome and the tips. re: references, were you commenting on </references> being omitted or the suggested use of the javascript code below in my external links: Paste across to the URL box the following javascript line in its entirity: javascript:(function(){var url = location.href;var pmid = url.match(/list_uids\=(\d+)/);if( pmid ) w=open('http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/cite/?type=pmid&id=' + pmid[1],'add','width=800,height=300,scrollbars,resizable');})(); Wikipedia is addictive for me. I authored a user modifiable database using FOLIO Views system in 1995 as part of my doctoral dissertation and this system is truly incredible. Thanks and best regards, Petrosino 09:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contact

Hi

thanks for your message. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, and have only just about managed to get my head round editing pages, so the whole project thing seems kind of complicated! I'm not sure how much use I'll be to the project, because I'm only really on Wikipedia sporadically, but if that's not a problem I'll join - I assume it's as simple as adding my name to the particpants box on the project page?

Cheers

Iain Joncomelately 10:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks man. Just got back from the celebration dinner. Take care. -- Samir धर्म 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, last night on call, I had a case of what I think is Hypokalemic periodic paralysis (very cool, first presentation, K=1.3, TTKG = 1, and responded with PO KCl). -- Samir धर्म 07:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... that's some first presentation. Until you mentioned it... I'd never heard of it-- so, probably a Zebra. Talking of which-- the article could probably be expanded. The question I had when I read the above was-- how common is it? Nephron T|C 18:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch

Please watch amygdala. Thank you. Koalabyte 01:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mango juice^talk 21:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. How do you suggest that I cite references? I've looked the citation help pages recently and wanted to use footnotes for equations. I was discouraged, however, by the lack of support by APA and MLA. I look forward to your feedback.

-- BeastRHIT 21:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAIRO

Nice article! -- Samir धर्म 03:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy

Hi Nephron,

I'm sorry about the nasty comment made regarding your edit to Epilepsy. I didn't intend for my additional comment to make you feel worse. I was glad to see the diagram in the article and really wanted to expand it. However, I also wanted to use an "official" classification and couldn't fit the ILAE one into a diagramatic form.

I think the only problem with the text you added was the use of the word "epilepsy" rather than "seizure" when describing the categorisation. I think that was just a simple mistake to make (on the level of a typo), but clearly a certain person thought it was indicitive of all that is wrong with Wikipedia.

Best wishes, Colin°^Talk 08:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oral hypoglycemics

Nephron, I see you kickstarted Template:Oral hypoglycemics. As a result of my recent merge of glyburide into glibenclamide, I propose removing glyburide from the template, or perhaps changing

{01-glibenclamide}

to

{01-glibenclamide (glyburide)}

or something of the sort. Again, if you have any opposition to this change, please drop me a line. I am also informing JFW and Arcadian, as they seem to have contributed significantly to the template. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 00:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health

Yes to the first profession - I had been reticent to discuss much as some of the mental health pages are a minefield - see the arguments at the botom of the psychiatry talk page. I will stick my name on a project somewhere (just stuck some mental health bits on the Huntington page) cheers Cas Liber 09:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

You're definitely a wikiholic. Hopefully you're studying that in parallel with edits, which would be an interesting study-routine. Had I had wikipedia (or easy medline access, or even a personal computer/modem) when I was in medical school in the early 80's, I'm not sure what would have happened. I might have flunked out due to diffusion of time. I might've been kicked out, since back then nobody was used to the fact that the internet can make you an instant expert on anything, so knowledge-humility hadn't yet penetrated medicine (I mean like, at ALL). So it's just as well. See you in the doc's mess. S B H arris 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTTS pic

Thanks! That would be me, the big red one ;) - Frey 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian city naming convention poll

I had forgotton to close the previous poll. If you want to, could you "vote" again at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#City naming convention poll 2? Thanks and sorry for the trouble. --Usgnus

image

I am sick of seeing Image:Floride Coltis ulcerosa.jpg. If it really is public domain, why do you keep putting a {{db-noncom}} tag on it? -- RHaworth 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Florid ulcerative colitis on endoscopy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Florid ulcerative colitis on endoscopy.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion

...at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Medicine-related_articles)#Suggestion.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 09:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

familytree

Hi in your page on the Arterial tree do you know how to get rid of the {familytree} {familytree} {familytree} stuff at the top? Thanks.

Thank you

Hello Nephron and thanks for the message with the invitation to participate in "doctor's mess" and to contribute articles. At 76 I am somewhat behind the state of the art in the specialities of nephrology and bacteria; so you have given me a motive to do some catching up. An article " cardio-thoracic surgery" is a big challenge which I shall start drafting; just the historical aspects alone could be a massive article, so much thinking needed about how to present in a synoptic but yet sufficient manner. I did not know of Wikipedia until quite recently when my old friend Geoff Wickham asked me to keep an eye on the Telectronics company article. Much yet to learn about the proper way to do things in contributing so will appreciate any help along the way. Regards.QRS 03:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hemodialysis

I reverted some of your recent edits to hemodialysis, mainly for reasons of clarity and structure, (fo example it could do with a short adequacy section) do you want to collaborate on an 'essay plan' or template for this article, or perhaps even all the renal replacement therapies? There's enough material in Hemodialysis to be a featured article, but it's a mess at the moment, and the other RRts should all be good enough for good artcle status with enough wwork (even the dire renal transplantation). What do you reckon?Felix-felix 12:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a no then?Felix-felix 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a medical treatment template. The only featured article on a treatment is paracetamol, other medical FAs are tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis, asthma, lesch nyhan syndrome. Good articles include earwax and rabies. I reckon that the article looks alot better without the awful step by step guide. I have Adobe Illustrator so can knock out (simple) no-copyright diagrams, and am in London for another week or so, so can take photos of fistulas, vascaths etc. I think that the article could have sections like history of hemodialysis, adequacy, access, complications, anticoagulation, equipment etc. These wouldn't have to be super comprehensive, and could link to main articles, as we did in the dialysis article. How about a RRT data box thingy?Felix-felix 06:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Oral hypoglycaemic template

I had tried where ever possible to compress the templates so that sparsely populated groups were joined on one line where this might look neat (very subjective I grant you). Your edit re-established one line per class, which was not unreasonable and indeed I am uncertain what is/looks best. Some quick thoughts are - yes this is undoubtedly more immediately apparent in distinguishing items from one class from the next, some templates can be quite long and might risk occupying large parts of the screen, wikipedia is not currently restricted by paper length unlike hardcopy encyclopaedias, there are plans for DVD or even printed copies eventually, issues about compressing layout apply to otehr aspects of the editorial procerss too (e.g. use of small font sizes in long footnote sections). So, I wonder on your thoughts about the aesthetics of one-class-per-line and should this generally apply for all templates... :-) David Ruben ^Talk 22:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would be very pleased

If you do a GI elective with us at SMH this year ! Even a post CaRMS 2 week thing. My e-mail's on if you need CaRMS help -- Samir धर्म 12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. The hardest part is deciding what you want to do. One thing that they never mention is that switching programs is a very easy thing to do (even for competitive ones). What is the specialty of choice, out of curiosity? -- Samir धर्म 04:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhygin

I would support a move, unless he is completely unknown under his own name. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hey Nephron, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your very kind comments and support. It was really nice to have support from some the medical editors. :) Thankyou! Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Thanks for the "Ophtho" template! Cheers! -AED 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed on October 17, 2006 with a tally of 53/6/0. I am equally elated and humbled by my new capacity as administrator of Wikipedia, and I send my heartfelt thanks for your unflinching support. If you need me for anything, just ask me! With gratitude, ²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks

Hi, Nephron! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Core des at 15:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Announcement: It's an administrator!

Nephron, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

Fixing vandalism

Nephron. Can I ask for advice? I occasionally do policing on some of the electrolyte pages that I've edited. Just today, someone added stupid stuff to the hypokalemia page. I wanted to learn two things, if possible:

1) Is there a way to auto revert? (Not that it's too difficult, in this case, to delete their comments, but really for future reference.)

2) Is there an appropriate way to either warn the vandal or to simply block their IP address from editing further?

Thanks in advance, Dan Levy 20:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Talk[reply]

Thanks for the help. I guess that I'm a typical newbie editor....couldn't figure out how to read the FAQ :-) Dan Levy 02:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy you are such a Wiki-head that the word "colon" was Wikified! (Nice tip, though). Yes, I'm a nephrologist at the University of Chicago and study modulation of potassium channels in my lab. And if you are in the "studying Medicine" phase, why such an interest in Nephrology? Dan Levy 15:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am primarily interested in electrolyte disorders. Although at some point, I was planning to pull some stuff from radiocontrast nephropathy off of the radiocontrast page and expand it into a new Contrast Nephropathy page. Otherwise, I *try* to keep my efforts to <30mins per week. Dan Levy 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Talk[reply]

Chronic diarrhea

Hi Nephron, hope the elective is going well! I love Ottawa... my hometown! Hope it's not too cold right now :)

Chronic diarrhea: as you know there are many potential causes. Colonoscopy is useful to identify neoplastic causes of diarrhea, infective causes (sometimes), and inflammatory causes -- with Crohn's and UC being the major culprits. All of these are usually identifiable as an abnormality grossly on endoscopy with biopsies serving to differentiate among them (for example, villous adenoma vs. adenoca; CD vs. infective, etc.) The role of biopsies as identifying pathology in the endoscopically normal colon is limited to a few entities:
- Microscopic colitis: a relatively common entity in the elderly with considerable morbidity. Can be patchy, and classically has normal endoscopy. Anyone with a risk factor for microscopic colitis (incl. older women, people on NSAIDS, celiac disease) should have multiple biopsies throughout the colon (I usually take 4 from each of cecum, ascending, transverse, and descending; and 8 from rectosigmoid). I do not think the operating characteristics of number of biopsies has been elucidated
- Eosinophilic colitis: part of the eosinophilic enteritis spectrum, not fully elucidated in terms of its clinical characteristics, but can have normal endoscopy. I biopsy in a similar fashion in young patients, asthmatics and those on new medications whose symptoms don't resolve
- Rarely, rarely, IBD can be missed on gross endoscopy. We do random biopsies as above for this indication (again number of biopsies unknown; I usually take 16-24) ensuring that I biopsy the terminal ileum.
- The weird and wonderful (Whipples, diffuse infiltrating neoplasms PMID 16369396, etc.) -- number of biopsies never elucidated
The other major indication for random biopsies is in UC and Crohn's colitis screening for dysplasia, where we take 32 biopsies of the colon. This is of course unrelated to diarrhea diagnostics.

Hope this helps -- Samir धर्म 02:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nephron, I wish there was evidence or even a position statement on this. I am assuming that the scenario in question involved normal endoscopy. The need and number of biopsies then depends on your pre-test probability of a particular condition. For example, for a grossly normal colonoscopy on a 40 year old man with diarrhea and a history suggestive of overflow, I probably wouldn't biopsy at all. The same situation in a 70 year old lady would garner 16-24 biopsies to evaluate for microscopic colitis. There is no CAG guideline on chronic diarrhea [4] and the AGA position statement [5] doesn't reference it. Very little literature on the subject of number of biopsies for this indication, but agree that it should be evaluated -- Samir धर्म 04:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A belated note - Gary Kirk's RfA

Dear Nephron

Thank you very much for voting in my request for adminship. In the end, not many people let their opinion be known, and I didn't get the mop just yet. I have already begun acting on the issues brought up by the community, and will continue to do so. If you have any more suggestions for me, feel free to let me know.
Once again, thank you.
— Gary Kirk // talk! 09:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White coat

Oh man, has that pic been up there for that long? Does Toronto have a white coat ceremony now? Hope the elective is well -- Samir धर्म 00:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Hey, thanks for dropping me the note. I don't really know enough about medicine yet to join the full clinical medicine project, but I've been tearing through my basic sciences curriculum. User:Arcadian deserves a lot of the credit for indirectly turning me into a serious editor, as the image plates from Grey's anatomy he uploaded and linked have been a huge help learning the material.

I've seen the project sites before but haven't figured out an effective way to turn that into good contributions, as opposed to just editing my own way. The 'how to cite references' stuff is great, though... I was just trying to figure that out today!

Two little questions: Why do some people add spaces on both sides of their headings (the ones you make with equals signs)? Does it change anything?Robotsintrouble 02:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rickets

I replied to your comment at Talk:Rickets. Mike Dillon 07:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TeX conventions

Hello. Please note my edits to Kt/V. In particular, "displayed" TeX should be indented, and for reasons mentioned in one of my edit summaries, one should use \ln, \log, \sin, \max, \det, etc. with a backslash---both to prevent italicization and to cause standard spacing conventions to be followed. And note that you don't need to write 2 * 3 if you mean 2 × 3. Michael Hardy 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]