User talk:Maxwvb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Maxwvb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

Rod of asclepius.png

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).

Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 14:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Atrial fibrillation[edit]

I have temporarily removed your addition to atrial fibrillation, because it is unclear to me as to whether the "wavelet theory" has gained any degree of widespread acceptance. I don't think a 10-year old Japanese paper is sufficient to prove that. Please have a look at this guideline, which shows the kind of references that we might prefer. JFW | T@lk 14:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The wavelet theory is the mainstream theory in the electrophysiology for atrial fibrillation. Why revert an edit in a subject you obviously know nothing about? You might've asked me to search for others ref's before undoing my edit. best regards, Maxwvb (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talkpage. Given that you are a newly registered user, there was no way of knowing whether you might ever return to address my queries. I'm very glad that you're following this up. We currently have no other contributors with a particular interest in cardiac electrophysiology, and there is a large number of articles beckoning your input.

With regards to the wavelet theory, if it is as prominent as you suggest perhaps the relevant content could be developed further, rather than simply mentioning the names of the people who described and confirmed it. JFW | T@lk 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but that will take a little more time then I have right know. Maxwvb (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I mean, right this hour, I will look at it tonight. Maxwvb (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)