Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and User talk:88.110.94.116: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
contacting blocking admin
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{unblock|Why can't i edit? It must be a proxy server or something but it also blocked my account creation, it says 'cos this is a "sock puppet" of WJH1992 or something, so i kindly ask for unblocking permission}}
{{MedTalkheader|archivedays=14}}
{{WPMED Navigation}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive index
|mask=Wikipedia talk:Optigan13/Archive <#>
|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine/Archive <#>
|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 9
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive %(counter)d
}}


I'm contacting the blocking admin. [[User:Blueboy96|Blueboy]][[User talk:Blueboy96|96]] 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
== [[variable deceleration]] - obgyn fetal heart strip finding ==

I'm having trouble finding an article on [[variable deceleration]]. does one exist? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/207.151.240.70|207.151.240.70]] ([[User talk:207.151.240.70|talk]]) 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The closest thing I found was [[Cardiotocograph]]. Feel free to expand on variable decelerations there. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::Maybe we can get some people on the reproduction task force to take up fetal heart monitoring articles. It should be an important topic for OBs. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.174.41.52|76.174.41.52]] ([[User talk:76.174.41.52|talk]]) 07:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::The trouble here is that the analysis of these strips seems to be an emerging practice. I have found only nursing school notes listing rules of thumb for what is a "variable deceleration", nothing of the quality required for Wikipedia. Absent reliable sources, the article would be amount to original research. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Nonsense, I know for a fact that there are clear definitions. Not sure if this can be found in peer-reviewed journals though. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Stevenfruitsmaak, I think we're saying the same thing here. I have found more than one clear definition, but not exactly the same and not published where it would stand up as a reliable source. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::there is at least class B research/articles defining fetal heart strip monitoring. I believe consensus meetings were just held. Practically every OBGYN knows how to interpret heart tracings and it is in almost every OBGYN textbook. If it is in the textbook it has to be able to be sourced. [[Special:Contributions/163.40.121.20|163.40.121.20]] ([[User talk:163.40.121.20|talk]]) 06:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== "Oxygen toxicity" or "Hyperoxia"? ==

Which is better? Please comment [[Talk:Oxygen toxicity#Hyperoxia|here]]. [[User:Axl|<font color="#808000">'''Axl'''</font>]] <font color="#3CB371">¤</font> <small>[[User talk:Axl|<font color="#6B8E23">[Talk]</font>]]</small> 17:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

== CDC Public Health Image Library ==

The [http://phil.cdc.gov/phil/home.asp Public Health Image Library] contains a large number of high quality images, most of which are in the public domain. I think these would make a good addition to wikicommons for use in wikipedia. I was thinking it is probably possible to automate the import of all images that are public domain to wikicommons including converting those in tiff format to png. Except I don't have the technical knowledge to do that. Does anybody think this would be useful and who can help with that? --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 21:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
:If it is possible, the people over at [[WP:BOTR]] will be able to help you more than we ever could. —'''[[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]]''' ([[User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Cyclonenim|email]]) 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think it would be that useful, a blanket move would include a lot of images that may already be duplicates that are on en.wiki or commons with less specific tags (see [[:Category:United States government images]]), the images would still need semi-automated addition of categories, and the images are just as easy to search and add to relevant pages from the CDC-PHIL page as they are on commons. Everything that is currently tagged with a template as from the CDC-PHIL is in [[:commons:Category:Images from the CDC Public Health Image Library]], I've done most of the re-tagging/moving of images in that category. I would suggest instead to go through various categories and pages on wiki or commons to make sure they have valid tags and move the images accordingly, and use the CDC-PHIL's image of the day, or what the current MCOTW is to decide what image/category to look at. We may also want to post the links to CDC's PHIL, and [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/Image_Library.htm Parasite image library] as well as the [http://visualsonline.cancer.gov/ National Cancer Institute Visuals Online]. -[[User:Optigan13|Optigan13]] ([[User talk:Optigan13|talk]]) 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

::: Ah I didn't know so many were uploaded already. Almost none of them seem to be the high resolution version though that is available for most pictures. --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I've now added links to the libraries along with Pubmed and Iberri's PMID tool to the project mainpage. If you see any that need high res versions go ahead and upload the replacements where you see fit. They way I've been doing it is to: 1. open the image on wiki, find it in PHIL (or vice-versa); 2. add an information template, update the license, add any relevant categories, and add language links using the [[tools:~magnus/whatisthat.php|What is that?]] tool; 3. Convert the TIFF image in MSPaint (GIMP removes the metadata on me) and upload the updated version if needed; 4. If the uploaded image finds a dupe then tag one for deletion, otherwise try to link any similar/dupe images in the other versions line; 5. Repeat for each image in the category you're working. It's a pretty light task if you want something to do with minimal conflict. -[[User:Optigan13|Optigan13]] ([[User talk:Optigan13|talk]]) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

== Image needs replacement ==

Hello all...

An image used in the [[Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments]] article, specifically [[:Image:Adderallrx.jpg]], has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
* And also [[:Image:Amine hormones, norepinephrine and triiodothryonine.jpg]] at [[Endocrinology]]

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--[[User:Jordan 1972|Jordan 1972]] ([[User talk:Jordan 1972|talk]]) 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== FAs needing review ==

A Wikimania [http://www.kaltura.com/devwiki/index.php/The_quality_of_scientific_articles_on_the_English_Wikipedia talk on the quality of Wikipedia's scientific articles] by a biochemist, discussing the high quality of our scientific [[WP:FA|featured articles]].

Praise for our developed content, not so for our undeveloped content. He singled out [[breast cancer]] as particularly bad, and mentions [[DNA repair]], which is an older FA and needs review.

By the way, these are our oldest medical FAs that haven't been reviewed, it would be stupendous if they could be reviewed and restored without [[WP:FAR]]:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! style="background: lightsteelblue;" | Date promoted
! style="background: lightsteelblue;" | Article
! style="background: lightsteelblue;" | Notes
|-
|2003-01-21 || [[Menstrual cycle]] || Citations needed, <s>doesn't conform with [[WP:LEAD]], many [[WP:MSH]] breaches,</s> MoS cleanup needed, writing needs serious attention, this article should not be featured
|-
|2004-05-16 || [[Paracetamol]] || Somewhat undercited, needs MoS cleanup. <br />Needs restructuring and pruning of vast swathes of redundancy{{unsigned|Una Smith}}
|-
|2005-07-08 || [[Chagas disease]] || <s>Bad shape, shouldn't be featured. Sorely lacking in citations, images need attn, MoS cleanup, listiness, and an external link farm has developed.</s>
|-
|2005-07-18 || [[Tooth enamel]] || Not bad, citation check, some MoS tuneup, <s>see also needs to be pruned per [[WP:LAYOUT]]</s>
|-
|2005-09-03 || [[Asthma]] || Undeveloped [[WP:LEAD]], seriously undercited, linking and [[WP:OVERLINK]]ing need attention, MoS cleanup needed, no History section, this article should not be featured
|-
|2005-09-03 || [[Cerebellum]] || Lacking citation, MoS cleanup needed, images should be moved to a commons cat
|-
|2005-10-16 || [[Multiple sclerosis]] || <s>Lacking citation, MoS cleanup needed, should not be featured</s>
|-
|2005-11-12 || [[Barbara McClintock]] || In good shape, but undercited
|-
|2005-11-19 || [[Pneumonia]] || Almost completely uncited, external jumps, MoS cleanup needed, [[WP:OVERLINK]]ed, this article should not be featured
|-
|2005-12-18 || [[Prostate cancer]] || <s>External link farm</s>, [[WP:LEAD]] needs trimming, some sections are undercited
|-
|}

I post this again since I have finished reviewing and referencing [[multiple sclerosis]]. I think right now it fullfills FA criteria. It would be great if anybody gave its opinion and did some copy-editing (I did my best :-) Let's see if we can take all of them to current FA criteria. --[[User:Garrondo|Garrondo]] ([[User talk:Garrondo|talk]]) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiple_sclerosis&diff=242065184&oldid=241813633 did my damndest] to copyedit. Please look over my changes carefully—I'm not a total dummy when it comes to medical terminology, but I'm no doctor, either—and if I did anything boneheaded, I'd really appreciate an explanation so I can do better next time. I also left a few specific questions on the talk page. [[User:Maralia|Maralia]] ([[User talk:Maralia|talk]]) 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It definitely needs some more copy editing. I still found words like "ambulation" in it. --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 23:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:Hm, I guess that's too obscure/jargony? I didn't choose the word, but I left it in. Maybe I had too many years of Latin. [[User:Maralia|Maralia]] ([[User talk:Maralia|talk]]) 23:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== Eucalyptus oil a conventional medicine ==

It was suggested that I discuss this subject in the Doctors Mess if I disputed a fellow editors decision to exclude [[Eucalyptus oil]] from the Wikiproject Medicine banner on the basis that it should not be considered as a conventional medicine.

However, it appears that eucalyptus oil is indeed a conventional pharmaceutical on this basis:

1. Medicinal quality of Eucalyptus oil is specified by minimum standards defined in the British, United Sates and other pharmacopoeias (Boland ''et al'', 1991) and cited in the ''Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology''[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=846202].

2. "Eucalyptus oil" is included as an active ingredient in pharmaceutical products [http://www.rowlandspharmacy.co.uk/department/decongestants/index.cfm] [http://www.deliverypharmacy.co.uk/Pharmacy/Nasal_Decongestants.html].

3. The efficacy of eucalyptus oil is supported by pharmacological research[http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1094553904000562][http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0954611103914326].

4. Products containing eucalyptus oil as an active ingredient are recommended by doctors to patients.

5. Eucalyptus oil has a long history of use by surgeons and the medical fraternity (see history in [[Eucalyptus oil]] article).

I think the confusion by the fellow wiki editor appears to be a result of branding issues (but not based on evidence of EO as a pharmaceutucal active), and also a confusion between essential oils and homeopathics (which are quite different of course). Of course, eucalyptus oil is also used in natural therapies, however this does not automatically exclude an ingredient as a conventional pharmaceutical as well, if that ingredient is used in conventional pharmaceuticals as an active ingredient.

I recently spoke to my local pharmacist and he is of the opinion that eucalyptus oil as an active ingredient within a pharmaceutical product should be most definately considered conventional, as it is a recognized active ingredient in pharmaceutical products that are also recommended by doctors to patients attending their pharmacy, and because it had a defined pharmaceutical standards per the BP, and is used in pharmaceutical-style products.

Of course, pharmaceutical products containing eucalyptus oil are sold over-the-counter but that has no bearing as to whether it's considered pharmaceutical or not, as many other conventional pharmaceutical medications are also sold over the counter.

Given the evidence, I find it hard to see how eucalyptus oil can be excluded from conventional status.

I would appreciate any comments. Thank you.[[User:John Moss|John Moss]] ([[User talk:John Moss|talk]]) 05:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:I agree that eucalyptus oil is mostly something used in complementary and alternative medicine but also has strict pharmacological and medical applications. Even if that weren't true, CAM is still a part of medicine. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 18:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for that Steven - that's very helpful. I'm also curious to know if any Wiki physicians actually recommend pharmaceuticals containing eucalyptus oil? Maybe as a decongestant or topical for muscular pain.
::Thanks once again. Cheers.[[User:John Moss|John Moss]] ([[User talk:John Moss|talk]]) 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's have one discussion, please, at [[Talk:Eucalyptus oil]]. Steven, perhaps you'd like to add your comments to that page, and perhaps expand on them to name the conventional medical applications of this herbal preparation. You might also like to have a look at [[WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Is_WPMED_the_correct_WikiProject_to_support_this_article.3F]] to see the standard divisions between the projects. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Hi WhatamIdoing, just a technical correction: an essential oil is not usually considered a "herbal preperation" per the school of [[herbalism]]. Herbalists tend to use whole leaf [[tinctures]] etc, and specifically the standards in the BP and other pharmacopoeia are defined by measurable quantities of isolates per conventional medication standards - unlike herbalism which shys away from isolates.
:Also I checked the WikiProject Medicine, and it does say there is scope for both categories. Eucalyptus oil is a widely used pharmaceutical ingredient in decongestants and topicals for treating musculoskeletal pain, and as Steven says with "strict pharmacological and medical applications." If eucalyptus oil is used in a conventional pharmaceutical product, supported by pharmacological research, recommended by doctors, than surely it's a conventional medication.
:Also, if you refer to the history of [[eucalyptus oil]] in the article, you will see that it's grounded in conventional medication - not alternative therapies. It was surgeons and pharmacists who originally initiated the development of eucalyptus oil. Eucalyptus oil by itself never existed as a folk remedy - the distillation of eucalyptus oil was first done by surgeons. It's actually drifted from conventional into alternative therapy use. Not the other way. And that conventional history is also why there are very well established standards for eucalyptus oil in pharmacopoeias and explains why it's still uesd in pharmaceutical products.
:WhatIamdoing, it was your original suggestion to flag the issue in the Doctors Mess, and I fully concur with that. We need to flag the issue with physicians to get fresh perspectives. Why change that now?[[User:John Moss|John Moss]] ([[User talk:John Moss|talk]]) 08:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::It's one thing to point everyone to an ongoing suggestion, it's a bad idea to discuss in several places at the same time. Article specific issues should be discussed on the talk page. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Ok, I'll go with that. Cheers.[[User:John Moss|John Moss]] ([[User talk:John Moss|talk]]) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== 2008 Wikipedia for Schools ==

The 2008/9 Schools Wikipedia is now available for browsing and feedback is welcome. Downloads start in two weeks so final improvements are possible; this is a big project with millions of users so it is worth doing well. The list of health and medicine topics included is [[SchoolsWP:index:subject.Science.Biology.Health_and_medicine|here]]. Feedback welcome at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection]]. Historical versions of articles were hand picked by volunteers, choice of topic was manual mainly from the version 1.0 selectionbot output. --[[User:BozMo|BozMo]] [[user talk:BozMo|talk]] 10:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Gadget for welcoming anons interested in medicine ==

For those of you familiar with [[WP:FRIENDLY]], there is now a script that allows you to add project-specific welcome templates to your interface (such as {{tl|MedWelcome}}. Check out '''[[WT:FRIENDLY#Project-specific welcome templates]]'''. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Position of "toxicology" infobox ==

Are there any strict rules (or even guidelines) governing the position of a template like <nowiki>{{toxicology}}</nowiki>?

The article Oxygen toxicity that I'm working on has expanded and I'd like to add more images, but they are related to topics near the top of the article. Since the <nowiki>{{toxicology}}</nowiki> box is quite long, it moves all the images down (particularly on wide screens) and disconnects them with their topics. Is there any reason why the <nowiki>{{toxicology}}</nowiki> box should not be lower down the page, perhaps even in the References section?

I am asking here in case there's already a consensus that requires the box to be near the top of the page for consistency with other articles. Thanks for any help --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 09:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

: I don't know if there are any guidelines, but I personally prefer the ones at the bottom of the page, like the oxygen toxicity page also already has. The one at the top could easily be merged into the one at the bottom. --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 11:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::[[WP:ACCESS]] wants infoboxes at the top. Editorial judgment is still appropriate. Have you tried putting some of the images on the left? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks - that was a good heads-up! I found this: "Vertical navigational boxes, sometimes called "sidebars", and horizontal navigational boxes are sometimes placed in the lead, especially when no infobox is present. If an infobox is present, the navigation sidebar may be moved to either the top or bottom of any other section in the article." As there is an infobox in Oxygen toxicity and the problem is the navbox (even though I called it infobox), it looks like I can move it. Although, I'm also attracted to the idea of some images on the left. Only problem there is when you look at the page in 800x600 resolution. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 17:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't any official policy preferring right sided or bottom navigation boxes. WP:ACCESS only says they can be in the lead. However they might be problematic especially with regard to accessibility, because they take up large part of the screen on low resolutions, and for people with screenreaders, they put a lot of stuff before the actual article. Most discussions I have seen therefore seem to favour bottom of article navigational boxes. --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Looking at the HTML content of the article at present, the infobox comes first, then the side navbox. The bottom navboxes are almost at the end of the page content, so I concur with WS's view. However, I quite like the comprehensive content of the side 'toxicology' navbox. If the bottom 'poison & toxicology' navbox had the same content, it would be no contest - the bottom box would be my choice. I'm therefore attracted by WS's other suggestion: to merge the content of the side one into the bottom one. But then I would be changing a template in use on other pages - would that cause problems for others? or can I just go ahead and do it? Any advice appreciated and thanks again --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 00:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Value of Epocrates external links ==

I'd like to hear some opinions on using [https://online.epocrates.com/home Epocrates] in external links. Me and others have seen several links to this site appearing in external link sections, and the question arises how these should be treated. Epocrates Inc. provides free medical information in a partnership with the BMJ Group.

I think there could be two conclusions:
# This is a useful resource, similar to eMedicine and maybe more so that GPNotebook (both of which are linked from {{tl|Infobox Disease}} and have their own templates. Therefore, this should be treated similarly, or at least not be deleted as "spam".
# This external site provides little extra on top of what a featured Wikipedia article would contain, and should be treated as spam (and maybe a request should be made to add it to the spam blacklist).

I myself am not completely sure, or else I wouldn't ask. A first look reveals that this site contains some interesting features (like images of pills, drug interactions etc.) and a useful organisation which makes me lean towards option nr. 1. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 14:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Side note: GPnotebook nolonger free access and Arcardian [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AGPnotebook&diff=236890071&oldid=174460544 therefore downgraded] the {{tl|GPnotebook}} external link template. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:I searched for some drugs and found some very terse information that wouldn't be any use to the general reader. Looked like it was aimed at the prescriber, though there wasn't really any guidance, just lists. The patient info and pill pictures required (free) registration, which is forbidden by our external links guidelines. Then I clicked on diseases and was told that was only available in the US and Canada. So, that's a #2 from me. [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Strange, I'm in Belgium and I could see the page on pulmonary embolism... The site is indeed directed at practitioners, but the same could be said about eMedicine. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven, the link you provided requires me to register in order to view the website. Therefore I will not be looking at the website or using it for references. [[User:Axl|<font color="#808000">'''Axl'''</font>]] <font color="#3CB371">¤</font> <small>[[User talk:Axl|<font color="#6B8E23">[Talk]</font>]]</small> 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Axl, an example of an external link that was added is [https://online.epocrates.com/u/2911116/Pulmonary+embolism this]: can you view this without registering? --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 15:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

: (EC) I was politely invited to comment here do to my deleting this as spam. My reasoning is that first, this is being added every few months by multiple anon IP's that are going to a lot multiple articles and adding the link to them without making any other edits other than to add this site. Second, I don't like sites that require a sign in first to see any of the information enclosed in that site. I think this site violates [[WP:EL]] policies. I don't think readers should be required to go to a site and sign in to read the information. I can't say off the top of my head if this is a violation of external links or not but I do know that it is a violation to spam it to multiple articles just to have the site added to Wikipedia. I really think that this URL should be added to the spam blacklist since it is has continually been spammed to many artilces and remove as quickly by many editors. Thanks, --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:orangered">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 15:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC) As can be seen by the comment by Axl, I am not alone in refusing to sign up to see the site.

::Sites requiring registration are banned for ==External links== (but not ==References==) under [[WP:ELNO]] #6. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::References don't require any web link at all, but in the case of this website the web link must be navigable by anyone seeking to validate a citation, because the website is all there is. So I favor no more linking to this site. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 02:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Request submitted to [[User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#epocrates.com]]. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
: Steven, thanks for the new link. I am able to view a limited amount of information. However the details are restricted. The website trips up on criteria 1 & 6 at [[WP:ELNO]]. [[User:Axl|<font color="#808000">'''Axl'''</font>]] <font color="#3CB371">¤</font> <small>[[User talk:Axl|<font color="#6B8E23">[Talk]</font>]]</small> 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

{{done}} this has now been added to XLinkBot's revertlist by [[User:Versageek]]. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 17:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== GA nomination for [[Osteochondritis Dissecans]] ==

I have nominated the article [[Osteochondritis dissecans]] up for GA review. It's information is well referenced with use of inline citations throughout. Perhaps it requires some expansion, however the most relevant and widely-accepted information (found so far) has been presented. Your review and/or help on this article would be much appreciated! Cheers! [[User:FoodPuma|Food]]<sub>[[User_talk:FoodPuma|Puma]]</sub> 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== merge of [[overeating]] and [[Compulsive_overeating]] ==

There is a discussion on merging [[overeating]] and [[Compulsive_overeating]] at
[[Talk:Overeating#Merge_with_Compulsive_overeating]] - come join the fun. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Photos of medications ==

Hi,

if you're interested in discussing if and how we can get more pictures of drugs, please voice your opinion on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Photos of drugs]].

thanks, --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 16:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== "medical billing resentment" syndrome, MBR ==

DIAGNOSIS and CAUSES:
Patients hide painful conditions, (like arthritis pain,) well know danger signs, (like frequent urination,) and chronic conditions, or genetic predispositions, (like incidence of hypertension in progenitors,) and other life-limiting conditions that should be treated, because they have had ruinous prior experience with medical billing procedures. Persons afflicted with MBR eschew timely treatment and contrive actions detrimental to their personal well being, As the incidence MBR grows, public health will become endangered.

MBR is thought by some students to originate in the insurance companies selling their financial service as a useful service. Spreading the risk of potentially catastrophic health care cost to a large population is sold as a useful service. Historically, however, most peoples interactions with medical billing and insurance companies lead to the conclusion that bureaucracies, public and private, are greedy to collect money, and miserly to dispense treatment. "What happens to me is never covered!"

While most people want to contribute their fair share to meeting societies health care needs, they feel that they are being held up for lavish pay to insurance executives et cetera.

As medical finance bureaucracies prosper richly by using elaborate and deceptive financial procedures, resentment festers in both the healthy and afflicted. As unmitigated resentment lingers endemic, the population suffers apathetic atrophy rather than suffer at the hands of exploiters.

PRESCRIPTION:
A sick and hurting population calls out, "Prompt and effective reform of all predatory and unethical medical billing practices,now!" Oversight, regulation, more regulation, socialism, whatever it takes."

ALSO SEE: Reverse Munchausen syndrome.

Preliminary unscientific studies have verified several cases of MBR, more study is needed
[[User:Cactusmitch|Cactusmitch]] ([[User talk:Cactusmitch|talk]]) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Fascinating. Is this entity geographically restricted to the U.S.? '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

)))) - MastCell, I can't say about the geographic distribution. I live in Arizona. Conversation with several Americans, all west of the Mississippi, have confirmed that they have a similar conditions. Thanks for reading my stuff. Cactusmitch:) ((((

::Have never seen this in Belgian patients; it takes the form of ''hospital bill neglect syndrome'' in Europe, I think. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::There is a cure... the [[National Health Service]]! However, it should be noted this causes significantly more damage in ''huge'' waiting lists. —'''[[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]]''' ([[User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Cyclonenim|email]]) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeah, people are much better off being totally uninsured than having to spend time ''waiting'' for healthcare... :) '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::To be fair, your normal ER/A&E waiting times aren't THAT long in comparison to other countries where paid health care if the norm. It's more when it comes to minor surgeries. The NHS is fantastic at saving your life but not so good at improving it. Bit of a generalization coming from someone outside the actual profession for now, but alas that's my opinion... —'''[[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]]''' ([[User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Cyclonenim|email]]) 06:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

)))) Cyclonenim, I have in laws who use the Public Health Service, (Indian Health Service.) Far from perfect, MBR seems rare in Reservation facilities. The billing entities may just be willing to settle for basic insurance payments. Contract health providers have some detractors. Thanks for reading my entry... Cactusmitch:) ((((

p.s. I may have contracted MBR. I sign acceptance of lots of fine print without a lawyer's opinion. Now I write, "No surprise co-pays," of "Paid in full." on office visit checks.
Cactusmitch:)

:Mitch, it will only be possible to have a Wikipedia article on this topic if you can produce some reliable sources. Much of what you've said makes perfect sense, but you must demonstrate that people hide symptoms from their physicians for overbilling concerns. If this is a problem, I'm sure it has been studied. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 06:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea to compare different countries nationalised heath services because they'll all work differently to different efficiencies. Just to clarify, my comments above was a joke. The NHS is not a perfect solution ''at all'', but it does mean you don't have to worry about payment-related stress. —'''[[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]]''' ([[User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Cyclonenim|email]]) 11:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine]] ==

These articles are going to be linked from the main page for a while, more watching eyes are welcome...
*[[Cervical cancer]]
*[[Human papillomavirus]]
*[[Luc Montagnier]]
*[[Françoise Barré-Sinoussi]]
*[[Harald zur Hausen]]
*[[Human immunodeficiency virus]] (which is semi-protected anyway)

--[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Also suggest a few extra eyes and watchlists on [[Robert Gallo]], who was conspicuously ''absent'' from the Nobel Prize listing; his article is also attracting signficant attention. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[fleet enema]] ==

pt got a [[fleet enema]] in the E.R. What is a [[fleet enema]]? it is not in wikipedia... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/163.40.108.175|163.40.108.175]] ([[User talk:163.40.108.175|talk]]) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Fleet is a brand name. It's a very common [[enema]] often chosen for its [[laxative]] qualities. The active ingredient is [[sodium phosphate]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah. For future reference, you may wish to use the [[WP:RD/S|Science Reference Desk]] :) —'''[[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]]''' ([[User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Cyclonenim|email]]) 06:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: I created a redirect to "[[Enema]]". [[User:Axl|<font color="#808000">'''Axl'''</font>]] <font color="#3CB371">¤</font> <small>[[User talk:Axl|<font color="#6B8E23">[Talk]</font>]]</small> 13:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Coronary artery disease]] and [[Ischaemic heart disease]] ==

These two terms describe virtually the same disease. [[Talk:Ischaemic_heart_disease#IHD_vs._CAD|I proposed a merge a couple of years ago]], there was one opponent saying that ischaemic heart disease can be caused by causes other than atherosclerosis, but did not provide any external source for that; an admin summarized that there was no consensus to merge. I would like to bring these two overlapping (if not duplicate) articles to the attention of Wikpedia's medical community and decide whether they really need a merge or a major rearrangement of content to avoid unnecessary duplication. I don't think anyone disagrees that this is a topic of very high priority, bearing in mind its leading role in mortality causes around the world. --[[User:Maxxicum|Maxxicum]] ([[User talk:Maxxicum|talk]]) 07:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: '''Disagree''' - Problem is that CAD and IHD whilst usually synonymous, are not invariably so and nor do they precisely mean the same thing even when considereing just elderly patients complaining of a chest pain.
:# [[Kawasaki disease]] can cause small aneurysms on the coronary arteries of children, but this is not atherosclerosis buildup that usually is the cause of IHD.
:# When considering the more typical adult patient:
:#* CAD would IMHO better describe the structural abnormalities that may be present. As CAD article states "most individuals with coronary artery disease show no evidence of disease for decades as the disease progresses before the first onset of symptoms". Example: a patient being worked-up for a heart murmur (that might eventually prove to be of little importance) might be shown to have advanced coronary artery blockages, yet they have been asymptomatic of any angina, breathlessness etc (i.e. the blockages have not been critical enough to cause ischaemia of the heart on typical activities, or at least not caused symptoms) - the patient has CAD but not IHD (obviously needs assessement as to what prophylactic interventions & measures are needed to prevent symptomatic illness)
:#* Whereas IHD is more the clinical persentation of the patient, and as the article sets out may include both symptoms & signs of chest pain or of heart failure. As [[acute coronary syndrome]] indicates, not all cases of those with chest pain necessarily have significant (CAD) athersclerosis or thrombus occlusion.
: I agree entirely though that we might expect most lay readers coming to our articles may have prior assumption of the equivalence of the terms. I have no problem therefore agreeing that the articles should be clearer in distinguishing meanings, and also to not over duplicate details. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
* Great information, thank you! Can you please edit these articles so that they reflect this information, and also so that CAD article has a clear reference to the IHD article, and the difference between these close terms is explained in detail? Thank you in advance. --[[User:Maxxicum|Maxxicum]] ([[User talk:Maxxicum|talk]]) 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Pubmed citation bookmarklet updated ==

The [[User:Wouterstomp/Bookmarklet|Pubmed citation bookmarklet]] has been broken for quite a while, but I updated it and it should be working again now. --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 17:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Tensor ==

The article at [[[[tensor]]]] is about multidimensional mathematical functions. I was going to add a hat note to an article on tensor muscles, but there isn't one. Shouldn't there be an article on tensor muscles? '''[[User:Barticus88|<span style='color:#ffffff; background:#55CC44'> &nbsp;Randall Bart&nbsp; </span>]][[User talk:Barticus88|<span style='color:#ffffff; background:#CC7766'> &nbsp;Talk&nbsp; </span>]]''' 00:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
: What do you mean by a "tensor muscle"? I am aware of three muscles named "tensor": "[[Tensor fasciae latae]]", "[[Tensor tympani]]" & "[[Tensor veli palatini]]". [[User:Axl|<font color="#808000">'''Axl'''</font>]] <font color="#3CB371">¤</font> <small>[[User talk:Axl|<font color="#6B8E23">[Talk]</font>]]</small> 13:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::cranial nerve 5 innervates the tensor named muscles I believe. [[User:Tkjazzer|Tkjazzer]] ([[User talk:Tkjazzer|talk]]) 04:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::just the ones in the Head. [[User:Tkjazzer|Tkjazzer]] ([[User talk:Tkjazzer|talk]]) 04:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Computer vision syndrome merger to Asthenopia ==

[[Computer vision syndrome]] (which has 17 PubMed hits - ie exists but not widespread used term) is already mentioned in [[Asthenopia]] ("eye strain" which has 96 PubMed hits) article, and thus should be merged (using per [[WP:MEDMOS]] the technical term for the condition vs redirected lay-term) - I've set up discussion thread at [[Talk:Asthenopia#Merge of Computer vision syndrome]] [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Patient handout or review article ==

Hi,

In a recent ruling in a [[Talk:Diabetes mellitus#MEDCAB (2nd go)|dispute]] about the lead section of [[Diabetes mellitus]] the mediator has said:
<blockquote>
''The various type should be called "types" and not forms. The reason for this is that this is an encyclopaedia, the reader is what matters, not the editors! We (experts) don't write Wikipedia for our own use, we write it for the layperson. This article must be understandable by the non-expert reader. Experts shouldn't be coming to Wikipedia for sources: frankly it would be professionally weak to do so and no peer reviewer would look kindly on a researcher using a Wikipedia article as "evidence" in any publication of note (indeed at my university, citing Wikipedia is an automatic failure for any piece of work submitted to med-school!). This place is for the high-school student, the worried new patient, the news reporter looking for a quick snippet to include in an article: the layperson. As such, we have to keep it understandable by that audience.''
</blockquote>

Should Wikipedia articles about medicine (or life sciences in general) be downgraded to a form easily understandable by laypersons? If so there are thousands of articles to be rewritten. Wikipedia is not paper so articles are hyperlinked and readers can refer to other articles for most important points in the text that are not immediately understandable.

What do you think ?

[[User:Kpjas|Kpjas]] ([[User talk:Kpjas|talk]]) 07:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:Well, "patient handout" smells of medical advice, so that may not be the best example. The articles should be at least as accessible as hospital consent forms: not infantile, but stripped of jargon and making no assumptions that a reader understands more than the basics of anatomy and physiology. I think it would be appropriate to lay out a "target audience" for the articles, but that idea isn't very popular for wikipedia in general for some odd reason. If I had to make a decision, I'd say that articles should be written to the level of a nursing student: someone who has a solid grounding in the basic science and the beginnings of an understanding of clinical practice but isn't by any means an expert. I would say "Member of Congress" but that's US-specific and some of them seem to have problems with the [[series of tubes|basics of science and technology]]. [[User:Somedumbyankee|SDY]] ([[User talk:Somedumbyankee|talk]]) 12:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Audience]]. I agree, neither patient handout or review article are suitable styles to follow. We must [[Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible|Make technical articles accessible]]. Don't regard this as "downgrading". Accessible writing on a complex subject is achievable but takes considerable talent. The language should probably be pitched at the level of a broadsheet newspaper or popular science magazine. Jargon needs to be explained in-article and wikilinks used for the benefit of readers wanting to learn more (i.e., the reader should get the gist of what is being described without having to click away and come back).
::For a few complex but important subject, WP has "Introduction to..." articles. See [[Introduction to general relativity]] and [[General relativity]]; [[Introduction to viruses]] and [[Virus]] (though IMO Virus is also highly accessible and a great example to follow). [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I completely agree with Colin. Per [[WP:JARGON]], many of our articles should indeed be rewritten. We shouldn't be overly patronising or using kiddy-language, but I think high school level is more appropriate than nursing student-level, which is already too advanced. It's a lot easier talking jargon for most experts; I find it challenging but rewarding to write for the general audience. I recently saw a perfect describing of the situation at [[Talk:Seizure#HUH?]]: {{Cquote|I am not a professional in the medical field and I found this article way too confusing to follow. For now I'll go elsewhere to gather information. ...<br/>For a reader who just wants to know what a seizure is, this is a hopeless article. '''These jargony medical articles really are the scourge of Wikipedia'''.}}

:::Not that this problem is limited to medicine: try learning something about maths or statistics from a Wikipedia article... hopeless indeed. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In the first quote somebody said "we don't write Wikipedia for experts, we write it for laypersons". That's not strictly true, we write this encyclopaedia for ''everyone''. There is, in reality, no more reason to 'dumb down' language than there is to step it up a gear. Most terms are allowed to stay here (especially if they have an article) but occasionally, for particularly complex words or for words without an article, we can describe the condition/name etc. briefly in brackets. I don't see much of an issue with this method because if and when people don't understand, they can ask at the [[WP:RD/S|reference desk]]. —'''[[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]]''' ([[User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Cyclonenim|email]]) 16:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:I often advocate doing both. Particularly for "Cause" and "Pathophysiology" sections (which tend to be get technical than, say, "Signs and symptoms"), there's no reason that you can't start with a short, simple internal summary before proceeding to the details of biochemistry. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Kpjas is referring specifically to a long grumbling edit war perpetrated by an anonymous editor who insisted that very rare monogenic forms of diabetes needed to be mentioned prominently in the intro. This particular issue, for which the MEDCAB was alerted, has little to do with style. However, I totally agree that we need to write articles for everyone. That can be difficult, though. In [[hypopituitarism]] (my last major project), the "causes" section looks dreadfully jargonesque: an enumeration of long names that are mostly in Latin. Yet for the professional or for the (relative of a) patient, it is essential that this information is covered.

When I wrote the early drafts of [[WP:MED]], I thought it reasonable to allow medical articles to have a "gradient of complexity". Some content simply ''cannot'' be brought down to a level that can be [[grok]]ked by a twelve-year old; this is something we need to accept. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

A lot of medicine has to do with bringing scientific knowledge down to a practical level. "Doctor" in its original meaning is to be translated as "teacher". A doctor talking to his/her patient about a diagnosis is essentially doing that: explaining that a disease is, what kind of treatment is available, what is known about the prognosis, and how common it is. Much of what we do here follows the same thread. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 20:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

<br>The question of "audience and language" in medical articles in Wikipedia is for the most part settled. (<small>I used ''patient handout or review article'' for the sake of the discussion only </small>)<br>Reasonable guidelines are summarised in the MOS, for example [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Audience|Wikipedia:Manual of Style - Audience]] (''why did I miss it?'')

*''Audience'' &rarr; ''everyone'' translates to ''high school student level''
*''Language'' &rarr; ''NO JARGON'' mandatory in the lead, strive for no jargon wherever possible in other sections

Interesting points from the discussion:
* "Introduction to..." articles for subjects with the most technical language
* internal summaries for the jargonesque sections
* gradient of complexity

I reviewed lead paragraphs of a few of our medical featured articles and they look very good IMO - language accessible to the general public and unfamiliar terms linked to separate articles (for a comprehensible explanation in their leads).

Finally, a very controversial proposal
* subpages &rarr; "For the specialist" or "For patients" for example "/Diabetes mellitus for the specialist" or "/Diabetes mellitus for patients" linked from the main ?

[[User:Kpjas|Kpjas]] ([[User talk:Kpjas|talk]]) 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:No, I think I oppose subpages. That sounds like "Barack Obama for Democrats" and "Barack Obama for Republicans", i.e. it will eventually lead to POV and WEIGHT problems. If absolutely necessary, we could split out ''topical'' subpages if there is sufficient content to populate such a subpage (e.g. [[genetics of diabetes mellitus type 2]], a fertile area of intense research). [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::I also oppose subpages. Basic science articles sometimes benefit from the "[[Introduction to genetics]]" approach, but articles about diseases and medical conditions should avoid them. The problem is indeed due weight. I'm convinced that an "Introduction to type 2 diabetes" would rapidly degenerate into a patient education webpage, despite the purpose of general education. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Schizophrenia FAR ==

[[Schizophrenia]] has been nominated for a [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|featured article review]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured quality]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|here]]. Reviewers' concerns are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:|{{{2}}}|Schizophrenia}}|here]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== I have created an article ==

Could someone take a look at my article [[Suzuki frame]]? I would be pleased if you did. Thank you.--[[User:Skullsplitter Viking|Skullsplitter Viking]] ([[User talk:Skullsplitter Viking|talk]]) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's a good start. A photo would be really helpful, to demonstrate what makes a Suzuki frame different from a simple splint. Do you have any freely available photos handy, or do you have access to a Suzuki frame which you could photograph and upload? I'm afraid I don't, but if you do then I think it would add to the article. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Menstrual cycle FAR ==

This FAR '''says Med was notified, but I don't see it here. The article has received a lot of work and could be brought over the hump, I think, with a small amount of effort''': help appreciated. It's already been up for a long time, so time is running out.

[[Menstrual cycle]] has been nominated for a [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|featured article review]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured quality]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|here]]. Reviewers' concerns are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:|{{{2}}}|Menstrual cycle}}|here]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:The original notification is [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive9#Menstrual cycle nominated for FAR|here]]. I'm planning on doing some more work on the article this weekend (Sunday). I will work on any tagged statements first. [[User:Lyrl|Lyrl]]<sup>[[User talk:Lyrl|Talk]] </sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Lyrl|C]] </sub> 22:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Dermatology Project ==

I just wanted to post that I have started a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dermatology|WikiProject Dermatology]] page. Please let anyone interested in dermatology on wikipedia know. Thanks! [[User:Kilbad|Kilbad]] ([[User talk:Kilbad|talk]]) 03:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:For some reason this was listed as a task force instead of a WikiProject. I've corrected it. I've also changed the banner to include parser functions similar to WPMED. This template can be viewed at {{tl|WPDERM}}. :) —'''[[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]]''' ([[User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Cyclonenim|email]]) 15:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::The project was originally created as a project, but I discussed it with [[User:Kilbad|Kilbad]], and then moved it to a task force. I have a request for an admin to modify {{tl|WPMED}} to add parameters for a derm task force. See the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force|collaboration's talk page]] for more details. --[[User:Scottalter|Scott Alter]] 15:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Yeah I completely just realised when I checked Kilbad's talk page to inform him of my changes. Please see there for my comments. I'm sorry, I should have checked there first. Anyway, there's a lot of work to undo if we move this to a task force, but I'm not convinced it's better off as such. —'''[[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]]''' ([[User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Cyclonenim|email]]) 16:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::::A semantic difference perhaps, but I think that this should indeed be a task force. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Talkheader, archiving ==

I've added a template talkheader to the page to try to clean up the archive links and messages that were showing up above and below the table of contents and were a bit messy. I've also added a request to index the archives of this page and the Preclinical and clinical med project pages. Also, as far as I know the current image should go because it features a picture of the simpsons on tv so prominently, but I wanted to see if anyone objects before I replace it with [[:Image:Rod of asclepius.png]]. -[[User:Optigan13|Optigan13]] ([[User talk:Optigan13|talk]]) 06:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

: Nice improvement! Why do you want the image to go though? I like the current one a lot more than the one you propose. --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 10:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks a lot for improving the header, it needed doing. I agree with Wouterstomp, though, I prefer the current image. This is the doctor's mess after all ;) —'''[[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]]''' ([[User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Cyclonenim|email]]) 15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:56, 11 October 2008

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

88.110.94.116 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why can't i edit? It must be a proxy server or something but it also blocked my account creation, it says 'cos this is a "sock puppet" of WJH1992 or something, so i kindly ask for unblocking permission

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Why can't i edit? It must be a proxy server or something but it also blocked my account creation, it says 'cos this is a "sock puppet" of WJH1992 or something, so i kindly ask for unblocking permission |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Why can't i edit? It must be a proxy server or something but it also blocked my account creation, it says 'cos this is a "sock puppet" of WJH1992 or something, so i kindly ask for unblocking permission |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Why can't i edit? It must be a proxy server or something but it also blocked my account creation, it says 'cos this is a "sock puppet" of WJH1992 or something, so i kindly ask for unblocking permission |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm contacting the blocking admin. Blueboy96 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=244596156"