User talk:Nbauman

The four tildes

The four tildes ~~~~ tag goes at the end of your comments on Talk pages (aka Discussion), not in actual articles. All contributions to actual articles are anonymous; only the History tab reveals who did what. Wasted Time R 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response to you at Talk:Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R 02:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

HRC subarticle deletion

As a sometime contributor to the Hillary Rodham Clinton articles, you may wish to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R 13:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

George Soros Opinions

I appreciate your addition to the Hamas discussion in the Rice page, as the Rice positions on democracy and Hamas have been criticized as contradictory. Nonetheless, Mr. Soros' opinions do not seem to add much to an encyclopedic analysis. Perhaps they belong in the criticisms section. My expectation is there is a better way of approaching the question, although I don't yet have a recommendation.Ohioan1 02:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohioan1, I thought some of your additions contributed a needed neutrality to the article.

Is there any way for me to send you a private email? Nbauman 04:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

DNA sequencing post

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Your comment on the Talk:DNA sequencing page is perhaps the most precise, even-handed, and well-presented statement of the difficulties of WP:COI I have read here on Wikipedia. Excellent work. MarcoTolo 18:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

DM1/breastfeeding

It seems I reverted your second addition to diabetes mellitus due to an edit conflict. Sorry. I think we should discuss this on the talkpage before adding references. In any case, we should provide full academic refs rather than just a PMID code :-). JFW | T@lk 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh horse manure.

I have to agree with Mbbradford that the link is only epidemiological, and that a solid immunological explanation is still lacking. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Diabetes

Thanks for adding the Rother cite to the article. I've made some changes. You may prefer to use the {{cite journal}} template. This formats the reference in a way that is generally preferred. On this page you can even generate an automatic template simply by typing in the PMID code of the article in question.

With footnotes, you can refer back to the first instance of the cite by using <ref name=Rother/> as I've done in the article now. For more details see Help:Footnotes. JFW | T@lk 06:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS

Thanks for reviewing and contributing to these. I hope you took my recent edit in good humour.

Please review the MEDMOS talk page for the full story and feel free to add some TODO or comments. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Health savings account

There are numerous errors throughout this page - errors and some flat out lies. Note - just because someone performs a study, doesn't make the conclusions of that study correct.

I don't understand why you feel to undo any change that someone makes? There are entire paragraphs I am reading that are incorrect and contain dated information. Can you please explain your expertise in section 223 regulations and the economics of Health Savings Accounts? Since you are so quick to revert anyone's posting, I am assuming you are a known tax expert in HSA plans and have sold health insurance plans for 20+ years.

---

While I have no real objection to removing my poorly worded point about the superiority of an HSA to an IRA, I would suggest that similar comments be added. Not to advocate a particular financial opportunity so much as to point out several things that are not obvious about an HSA. In particular, that they are in fact a viable alternative to an IRA—especially for those who cannot contribute to an IRA—and not merely an component of healthcare financing.

Some of what may not be obvious:

1. Setting up an HSA does not require the account holder to pay accepted medical expenses from the HSA. In fact, not paying them from the HSA in the early years will almost certainly be more tax efficient than drawing against the HSA and will provide more tax-free growth of the sheltered assets than when the assets are regularly diminished through payment of medical expenses.

2. Many people are ineligible to contribute to an IRA either because they lack earned income, are covered by an employer sponsored retirement plan, or their earned income exceeds the limits for the maximum contribution. An HSA is a viable alternative for those people if they also purchase individual health insurance rather than through an employer.

3. If the HSA and associated HDHP are provided through an employer, the retirement and post-retirement medical expense benefits of an HSA should be considered as an retirement account with healthcare benefits in addition to any defined benefit or 401(k) plan offered by the employer.

To focus on the healthcare financing issues with minimal reference to the retirement benefits is to fail to provide information that may be useful to someone in considering their usefulness or value in contrast to all of the competing plans and convolutions of the tax code.

Still, I will gladly defer to anyone who can better articulate the points I tried to make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.206.124.41 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Socialized medicine

Please see the talk page for some comments about your recent edits. Thanks. Kborer 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialized_medicine a heated argument has broken out with User:Freedomwarrior about whether scholars and medical professionals tend to avoid use of the term "socialized medicine". I seem to recall you once said this and I think you also said that journals will not accept articles for publication if they did use it. Did you say that from certain knowledge?

Actually there has been a certain degree of edit warring going on with the main article. I have pinned some accusations of POV and some others have come flying back at me. I would understand it if, given what has been going on, you have deleted this article from your watchlist.

However, your help in resolving this one issue would be of a little help.--Tom (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wall Street Journal

I guess that for people like me who don't read that journal, but only read about these editorials, the Wall Street Journal is best known for...  :) Count Iblis 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your medicaid edit

Isn't your edit regarding waiting times just an argument against more government health care?--Rotten 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have an unfortunate misunderstanding of wikipedia's neutrality policy

Nbauman, you seem to lack an understanding of what wikipedia's neutrality policy is. I posted pertinent portions on the talk page of the Hamas article here: Talk:Hamas#NPOV?. Please read them, and read the entire policy so that you can correct your misconception. Thank you. -- Avi 21:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I had posted a detailed explanation on the talk page of the article twice. You compounded your lack of a response with a further misrepresentation of wikipedia policy. Then, when I give you the benefit of the doubt by characterizing your continued activity as a lack of knowledge as opposed to willful misconduct, I am accused of being insulting. Oh well. In any event, consider yourself warned for violations of wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as now, you have no excuse for having misunderstood it. I hope you take the time to actually read the policy, understand the policy, and then return to the article and contribute gainfully in concert with other editors to enhance the quality of the project. Thank you. -- Avi 13:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As one of wikipedia's administrators, one of the tasks I am charged with is ensuring proper adherence to guideline and policy. This includes the education of members who are unaware/ignorant of policy, reminders to those who are aware and may have inadvertently or otherwise violated policy, and, when necessary, taking action to protect the project by judicious locking of topics or blocking of editors. You may wish to read WP:BLOCK and WP:ADMIN for more information. Be that as it may, I have politely informed you of your repeated mischarecterization of wikipedia's neutrality policy and pointed you in the proper direction for you to get the information you need to understand what is required of you, as a wikipedia editor, to continue to add your contributions to the project. I am not "threatening" you with anything. I am following the standard policy of ensuring editors are aware of our policies and guidelines, and the ramifications of continued violations/misrepresentations thereof. You now have been informed, on multiple occasions, that your statements and actions vis-a-vis the neutrality policy have been incorrect, and you have been given the information necessary for you to be able to follow policy and guideline. Further violations/misrepresentations of the policy can therefore only be willful, and not out of ignorance, and willful violations of policy are dealt with to prevent harm to the project. Simple, really. This discussion is not specific to the "Hamas" article, but your actions/posting behavior, and as such, is ONLY apropos for your talkpage. Thank you. -- Avi 18:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer

Hi, NBauman. Thank you for your comments on lung cancer. Are you aware that I'm planning to submit "Lung cancer" for "featured article" status soon? Please look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Lung cancer. Thanks for your help. Axl 06:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Single-payer health care

The talk page section that you asked about in the comment when you undid my changes today is called "Article title". Kborer 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Health care discussions

Hi there. We discussed somewhere in Wikpedia recently about the misleading reporting by a certain institute about so called socialized medicine. I gave some examples of reporting and I recall that you that you said something to the effect that I was being overly generous to the institute concerned and that its output was demonstrably false. I was about to post something that referred to those discussions we had... but to my surprise I cannot now find any trace of them in the talk pages for either Socialized medicine or Single Payer Healthcare or Universal Health Care, or Publicly finded health care or in the history to those pages. Can you recall where it was discussed? I have a sense that there is someone at work on Wikipedia with Admin rights or whatever it is called that is able to purge data without trace and that certain editors here are working to an agenda. Do you have that feeling too? Maybe I am just getting paranoid after weeks of frustrating editing and discussions.--Tom 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom, yeah, [here] it is. We were talking about the Centre for Policy Analysis, and I said they were "verifiably false". It can be pretty hard to find these things.

I agree that some editors have an agenda, including some Admins. It is true that Admins can purge the page history so that the rest of us can't view it any more, but they do it rarely, and for them to do it in a dispute like this would be an unusual abuse of their authority and they'd get into trouble over it. It's good to be suspicious, though. Nbauman 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK, thanks. I had a feeling it was the Cato Institute but wasn't sure. --Tom 23:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer cure?

Hi, NBauman. "Five-year survival of 67% for stage IA isn't cure, unfortunately". That's why it says "sometimes". :-) Axl 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Axl. My understanding is that NSCLC, and almost all lung cancer, is inevitably fatal unless the patient dies of other causes. I'd be interested in a clear statement from an authoritative source on that subject. There was a study in BMJ of how patients (and sometimes doctors) are often unwilling to acknowledge fatal diseases, and they used NSCLC as an example. Nbauman 15:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"NSCLC... is inevitably fatal unless the patient dies of other causes." Technically this is true; either the patient dies of NSCLC or the patient dies of another cause. Perhaps this is not what you mean? In any case, have a look at this reference. Current surgical treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer 2001 Axl 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting article: Long-term survival following pneumonectomy for NSCLC. Axl 18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is interesting. The 5- and 10-year survival statistics for lung cancer are fairly low, but there are a few long-term survivors >10 years. I'd like to add a discussion of life expectancy to the entry, if I could find good data. I'd like to see 5, 10, 15 and 20-year survival by stage, which is what you need. SEER has 20-year survival, but not by stage IIRC. Nbauman 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the data you want. This study is the closest that I found. Axl 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my comment?

[1] Just wondering! 86.137.127.139 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By mistake, sorry.

I thought something was missing after I got finished, but I couldn't find it. Nbauman 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I tellya, I've had stuff like that happen. I've taken to using the show changes button. It's a lifesaver. superluser_tc 2007 September 20, 22:20 (UTC)

Oh that's OK :) On big pages like that it's easy to miss some stuff. 86.137.127.139 09:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for putting it back. I wanted to but wasn't sure if I was allowed. 86.137.127.139 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

about Finkelstein and JaapBoBo

Nbauman,
There are numerous scholars who do not claim that the 1948 exodus was an ethnic cleansing and JaapBoBo is aware of that : Efriam Karsh, Shabtai Teveth, Anita Shapira, Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Yoav Gelber, David Tal, ... In fact only Ilan Pappe uses this and maybe Walid Khalidi.
And among these scholars there are numerous other major disagreements on the causes of the exodus.
JaapBoBo found a sentence where Finkelstein says "the serious scholars think the way I think" and he claims it is not a pov on the causes but a general (neutral) appreciation of an alleged (but non existing) consensus among historians.
Please, do not defend such offending manipulations.<br.> Ceedjee (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you find a consensus among scholar here, please tell me what it is : Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Ceedjee (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the place to discuss this is the talk page of the entry.

However, to respond, I believe that Finkelstein is a reliable authority as defined by wp:rs.

I'd like to know which scholars Finkelstein cites to support his claim. Nbauman (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

None. Of course.

He just says : "if an historian doesn't share this mind with me, it means he is not serious".

He doesn't say : "I have surveyed historians and among the serious ones, there is a consensus that share my analysis."

Ceedjee (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Passive smoking

Hi, Nbauman. I saw that reference in Lung cancer. Like you, I am very sceptical about the validity of the reference. After some digging around, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that passive smoking causes lung cancer. Thanks for reverting. Axl (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WSJ

Hi, thanks for your comment on the WSJ talkpage. Please see my comment in the same talkpage on the issue raised. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a barnstar...

I was cruising through some articles on healthcare topics, and noticed that Canadian and American health care systems compared was not just a bunch of useless POV statements, but a fairly comprehensive, balanced article. Upon further investigation of the talk page, I see that you played a large role in keeping the article that way. So, for your efforts...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your efforts to keep "controversial" health care articles, specifically Canadian and American health care systems compared and Socialized medicine, balanced and factual, and doing so in a calm and intelligent manner. Green451 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad you noticed. Nbauman (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell us more about yourself

Editors of medical and scientific article like to know the level of education of fellow editors. Your personal page is too short to be useful. Please tell us more about yourself. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to let my postings and cited sources be judged on their own merits. Nbauman (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience talk by ScienceApologist

Feel free to post the notes. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought your notes captured the talk rather well (Not one of my strong points, writing *and* listening). Kudos to you. We should do that more often. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nbauman (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Electrocardiogram

Hi. With regard to your recent edits, the heart does not create electrical waves when it pumps. Rather, it pumps in response to the electrical waves it creates. It is electrodes that are connected to the skin. The electrocardiogram does not give information about the strength or weakness of cardiac muscle. The fascicles in the electrical conduction system are not nerves. I would not substitute the word 'salt' for 'electrolyte' and potassium is more important than calcium. As a stand alone comment, it is false that the ECG measures the pumping action of the heart. Overall, with regret, I would have to say that you did more harm than good to the article. I would prefer that you revert the changes, post your changes to the talk pages, and take comments. The lede simply isn't accurate anymore. It needs to be as simple as possible, but not more so. Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Fine. We'll take this up in Talk:Electrocardiogram. Nbauman (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate your tone, Nbauman. This isn't personal on my end at all. MoodyGroove (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I don't understand you. What do you mean? Nbauman (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Interested in getting the information out there, I think I jumped the gun on the Chronic lymphocytic leukemia‎ article. I'm still learning, and have done a lot of research on wikipedia editing since last night and this morning. Thank you for your valuable input. In the future, I will suggest new information such as research that could POSSIBLY be helpful on talk/discussion pages first. -JasonSpradlin82 (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

JasonSpradlin82, I'm glad you weren't offended. Dealing with current research really is a problem on Wikipedia. OTOH lots of people are interested, OTOH we don't want to over-emphasize new treatments and I don't know how to choose from the thousands of new studies that are going on. Maybe it's something to discuss at WP:MEDMOS. Nbauman (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan

Please explain your objection on the talk page. I have already done so there.Ultramarine (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Crohn

Hi,

I have removed the statement from the lead for two reasons. Less critical, but still important, is that it is in the lead of the article - as such, it should be sourced, and discussed, below in the body. Placing a statement like that in the lead also places undue weight on both the idea, and it's eventual source. The lead should summarize the most critical or salient points, and unless the drug has revolutionized the disease and very quickly, there's not much reason to single out one new drug.

Second, per WP:PROVEIT, information that is challenged must be sourced by the person who wishes to add the information, not the person who removes it. And having a {{fact}} tagged statement in the lead of a page like Crohn's disease, which is very long, very referenced, and a medical article (thus WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS are in effect, which also raising the bar for the quality of sources added), really seems inappropriate. If natalizumab was just released, and it is a valuable treatment that deserves mention for being far more effective than previous medications, it should a) be easy to find articles about this on [www.pubmed.org pubmed] and b) be actually mentioned in the body. Thanks, WLU (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation tools

In case you were not aware, there are a variety of tools that allow you to generate citation templates quickly and without error:

• Citation templates
• pubmed/isbn template generator, incredibly useful, uses the pubmed number or isbn to automatically generate a citation template for you
• Google scholar autocitation, a google-style search engine and reference generator. Useful when the article doesn't have a pubmed number (old, social sciences or humanities).
• ISBN search tool
• tools, but the above are my favourites to date

Diberry is my favourite, combined with [www.pubmed.org pubmed], but the google search tool is good as well (though the formatting is messier and it does not fill in the ISBN for books).

I found the Cochrane reference for natalizumab on the google search one - it also fills in urls and access dates for full text articles.

Thanks, WLU (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try them out. I knew there were tools like that somewhere on Wikipedia, but now I have the link where I can find it again. Nbauman (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you had known - I figure over a 1000 edits and everyone knows everything, forgetting what a rube I was at that point. There's also WP:TOOLS which has a selection (though I find the diberry and google ref are great and have only recently supplemented them with the ISBN search to avoid amazon's slow site). You may also want to look into WP:POPUPS, which are very handy for the diff preview alone, though one-click reverting is also very nice. User:Wikidudeman has also made something called hodgepodge, which combines the best features of half a dozen java tools, but does not work with internet explorer (otherwise I would use it, it's very impressive).

You may also want to archive your talk page, as it is pretty long, which makes it harder to navigate and takes a very long time to load when the editor is using a slower connection. If you paste the following template at the top of the page, it'll archive automatically, using User:Miszabot.

{{User:MiszaBot/config | maxarchivesize = 250K | counter = 1 |algo = old(7d) |archive = User talk:Nbauman/Archive %(counter)d }}

By changing the algo to other figures, you can adjust when the sections are archived - 7d is 7 days, 30d is 30 days, 72h is 72 hours. maxarchivesize adjusts how big the archive will get before it starts a new one. WLU (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Proprietary names in med articles

I wonder if you could agree with the version I am proposing, at least from the point that it does no harm, and allows mention of a brand name every time the generic name is wikilinked. Paul Gene (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to MCB

Hi there, welcome to the wikiproject. If you have any ideas, suggestions, or questions please drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Free trade

I am apologising in advance - I will try to help balance the free trade article, but am extremely short for time. I think there is an issue of framing (employment vs consumer benefits) - but may not be able to assist as much as I had hoped would be the case.--Gregalton (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton, I'm not asking you to do a lot of work (that's up to you). I just want you to give your opinion on the balance of the article. I think that would be very helpful. Nbauman (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

myc

Your opening paragraph is incorrect. See my comment on the myc discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.78.130 (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Herpes simplex

Hi Nbauman, I couldn't hep but notice the small conflict beginning on the herpes simplex page over race/gender issues in the lead paragraph, so I wrote directly on the concerned user's talkpage to invite them to comment on the article's talkpage - they may be a new user that is not completely familiar with WP procedures so may not realize there was a discussion occurring there! I agree the sentence is question is a little clunky and might benefit from rewording - maybe some compromise can be worked out! Best wishes, ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to use it as a teachable moment. This issue comes up regularly. I didn't think of using the talk page of an anonymous user. Nbauman (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a new user. My issue with the sentence is that you are taking seroprevalence data, and making a statement about risk factors based upon that data. Seroprevalence data of virus infections is not the same as risk factors. I have no problem with mentioning what percentage of the populuation of women, urban, racial, etc. have the HSV virus. But to say that simply having sex with a female, black person, poor person, or a city dweller puts you at risk of HSV2 is applying personal bias to the data. The risk factor of HSV2 is unprotected sexual contact. If you just limit your statement to the data without trying to apply an interptation (sp) to the data i will be content. Until then I will deleting that biased sentenced. (I did notice that you were previously lectured on Wiki's bias rules). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.104.101 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So sorry to butt in here - the risk data doesn't actually mean you are at higher risk of acquiring HSV infection if you have sex with the listed groups of individuals, it means the listed individuals show a higher risk of acquiring the virus themselves, from whatever source. Maybe we could move the discussion to Talk:herpes simplex? ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's take the discussion to Talk:herpes simplex, which is where it belongs. I'll be glad to continue it there. Nbauman (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on AfD

That comment you have made in the AfD on Intro to genetics about Madeline "wanting something deleted since it competes with her work" appears a little harsh to me. From my reading of her discussion that isn't the motive she has at all, and she appeared much more concerned that it was becoming a textbook-style instructional article. I don't often ask people to edit their comments, but considering that it would be good for us to all work together smoothly on this, would it be possible for you to rephrase that sentence? If you could that would be great. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think so I'll follow your lead. I didn't particularly appreciate her accusing me of not having read her article, but I won't escalate it. Nbauman (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions the last edit you made to that page is this one. It must not have been saved for some reason. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthracycline

Do you mean anthracycline or renin-angiotensin system (cf. my message at Talk:Renin-angiotensin system)? I do agree the Anthracycline lead is far too short and not lay-friendly enough. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried expanding it a bit, and removed a (somewhat inaccurate) sentence that referred to the chemical structure of anthracyclines. Any better? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Human papillomavirus

You may want to revisit the Human papillomavirus related articles. I note your thoughtful identification of certain issues here [2]. You might also find the HPV vaccine article to be of interest as well. [3] [4]

Best Regards, Doright (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS Please comment.

Dear NBauman

The following addition is being discussed at WP:MEDMOS: "Where possible, it is preferable to reference review articles or other secondary or tertiary sources instead of primary sources (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources)." I would appreciate if you could comment on both appropriateness and the content of the addition. Thank you Paul Gene (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Why is this spam?"

Note that in my edit summary, I wrote "spammed". I removed it as spamming because the editor responsible added the links and nothing more to multiple articles. Further, adding a link to the Epocrates Online site is definitely promotional, in violation of WP:EL and WP:SPAM. I've left the link you reinserted, but am not sure that it offers more information than what's already provided. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on Talk:Major depressive disorder, but I'll answer it here anyway.

I reviewed the link to Epocrates Online. It adds a peer-reviewed summary for doctors, with a vignette, and treatment recommendations. BMJ is a reliable source of clinical information -- one of the most reliable in medicine. I think that's a valuable addition to what's already provided.

Many of the other sources in the entry are subscription-only, so people can't verify them. They can see whether claims in the article can be verified in Epocrates Online. I think that's a valuable addition.

I don't understand why it's promotional, any more than eMedicine, the Merck Manual, or any of the other sources that WP regularly links to is promotional. If there was a subscription fee, I would have deleted it, but it's free.

I'm familiar with WP:EL and I don't think it violates WP:EL. Which specific provision of WP:EL are you referring to?Nbauman (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You can move this to Talk:Major depressive disorder if you like.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. There are two links that I removed that you reverted. If you look, you'll see that have left the Epocrates Online Depression link in, and have removed the Epocrates Online link. I think the Epocrates Online link is promotional. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is Epocrates more promotional than eMedicine? Nbauman (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. Please give me the exact link. For example, I've been referring to my change of "Depression at Epocrates Online" to "Depression at Epocrates Online". The second link served no purpose other than to promote Epocrates. --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Herb Stein ref

You're right, thanks for putting that back. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a reminder that the WikiNYC Picnic is tomorrow (August 24) from 2 PM to 8 PM. If you plan on being lost, be sure to come ahead of time! To clarify, the picnic will be taking place within or adjacent to the Picnic House in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. I hope to see you there! --harej 03:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus or silence?

In regards to the consensus policy on Wikipedia, it seems to be much deprecated. What everybody is using instead is WP:SILENCE essay: "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it. In wiki-editing, it is difficult to get positive affirmation for your edits. (Disaffirmation comes with a revert.)" Thus, if you want to have your views heard, you have to revert the guideline status. As Burke said: "No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Paul Gene (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul, sorry I wasn't there to add anything to the discussion. I just spent a week getting a lot of work done, and had no time for WP. I was wondering what was going on here in my absence. Nbauman (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lucky you :) To sum it up, Colin started an edit war, and Davidruben improperly used his admin privileges to protect the version he likes. See my post at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Administrator.27s_poor_judgement_and_improper_actions and comment on his user page [5]. I am doing an Rfc on his actions [6]. Paul Gene (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What an outrageous accusation. Please supply a diff to support your claim that I started an edit war. The first stone was thrown by Paul in this edit where he removed the guideline tag. As David pointed out, Paul has reverted the tag 7 times and this has been restored by different 4 editors. The only person who started and is maintaining this edit war is Paul. Apart from a minor edit, I haven't edited WP:MEDRS since 31st August. Colin°^Talk 12:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul: As Xavexgoem has tried to explain to you at WT:CONSENSUS, WP:SILENCE is part of consensus. By analogy: Just because everyone uses tires does not mean that cars are deprecated (even though statistically there are 4 times as many tires on the roads as there are cars).

I think it's a good idea for Paul to go talk with Xavexgoem a bit more, so he can get a better grasp of how this aspect of wikipedia works. Apparently he's already quite capable in other areas, so I have every confidence that Paul Gene will exceed himself here, provided he proceeds carefully, and accepts guidance from his peers. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Working in a consensus system is a 2 way street: you advise your peers, and your peers advise you. A wise (wo)man will tend to accept more advice than (s)he provides :-)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS: Steps towards consensus

If you are still interested in reaching a consensus at WP:MEDRS which could include your views, please at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Steps_towards_consensus, answer the following questions posed by Kim Bruning:

1. Your current position as to how MEDRS should be formulated (and reasoning why)
2. Some idea of where you're willing and able to compromise on that position.
3. Your current view/ best estimate of where each of the other participants stand, singly and as a group (and reasoning why).
4. Your current best estimate of where other participants are willing to compromise.

Paul Gene (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Electrocardiogram article

I read with admiration your comments as well as several others on this article and agree there is merit to your reasoning. It appears that most of what is posted in this article was written by folks who read EKGs every day (like myself). The EKG is a very complex concept at any level. Perhaps inclusion of some very basic science would help bridge the gap in understanding this very important article. My initial suggestions: 1. Histology - The heart is formed from specialized muscle cells called cardiomyocytes. 2. Cardiomyocytes conduct electricity that initiates contraction of the heart muscle in a coordinated fashion. 3. A small, select group of cardiomyocytes in the Sinoatrial Node of the heart posess a very complex property known as automaticity. 4. This tiny cluster of specialized heart cells is generally agreed upon to represent the physiologic pacemaker of the heart. 5. Electrical discharge of the sinoatrial node has a distinct "signature" when captured by externally applied electrodes thus enabling a look at contraction of the upper chambers of the heart known as the atria. 6. In health, the sinoatrial node initiates capture of all the other cardiomyocytes within the atria of the heart. The "Pebble in a pond" scenario begins to describe the propagation of electricity from the center node to the periphery of the cardiomyocytes of the atria. 7. Passage of the electrical discharge of the sinoatrial node is then directed towards the AtrioVentricular Node to the His Bundle and Purkinge fibers. 8. Willem Einthoven won the Nobel Prize in 1924 for inventing the EKG. Einthoven discovered that the electrical discharge from the cardiomyocytes was powerful enough in signal to be captured by electrodes on the skin. 9. Computational application of Einthovens' vectors in this pursuit is ongoing. Your thoughts appreciated. LBeben--lbeben 02:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs)

EKG Article

Nbauman: The readership of this article is likely polarized in their view of the subject matter. What do you think should be done with the EKG article to make it acceptable to both an average anatomy/physiology student and a practicing cardiologist? --lbeben 03:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs)

Lbeben, it's not that difficult to write stories that will appeal to both. The New England Journal of Medicine does it all the time.

You have basic information at the top. The more technical material should go further down, as WP:MTAA recommends. WP:MTAA has some good advice.

Before you mention a technical concept, you have to explain it first.

A good model of writing is the Merck Manual. They use both the everyday terms and the technical terms. I I like to use everyday terms, and add the technical term in parenthesis, because it's more concise.

Probably the best thing would be to have a review for readability by non-specialists. It's hard to get people to do that, though. Nbauman (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Re: Link to Fraser Institute article at Health care reform in the United States

Hi. I think you misunderstood my actions in deleting the link that you re-instated. I deleted the link because the Fraser Institute has removed the article from its web site. I did search there for it and I could not find it so it would seem to have been removed and not just moved to another location.

On the general point, I think that it is worthy to point out that Fraser DOES have a line and its credibility is not quite on the same wavelength as a source from an academic journal with peer review. I looked quite hard another similar paper put out by Fraser and it was quite hard to discern the source of the data they were using. Without that, it is hard to verify what they say. And verifiablity is everything n'est pas? --Tom (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I just checked the link and it does work. The article's still there. I'm re-inserting it in the entry, with a direct quote from the article.

As to verifiability, and how to handle the Fraser Institute's claims, let's discuss it on the entry's talk page where we started to discuss it. Nbauman (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Curious. It was not working this morning and not again this evening when I checked again. This evening I found an earlier 2005 report by the same authors. This is at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.web/product_files/HowGoodIsCanHealthCare2005.pdf. I had a quick peek and it has references at the back. I was curious about the table on page 45 which compares Canada with other OECD countries. The reason for my curiosity was that there was obvious omission from the table. The United States. Had the U.S. been included its HALE would have reported 69.3 and LE 77.7 with a ratio of good health to total life expectancy of 89.65. It would have been well down the table below Japan. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and 21 European countries. The U.S. would only have outstripped Korea and Poland. As Fraser seems to prefer to sell the bad news about Canadian health care and praise free markets the inclusion of U.S. health outcomes in this table might not have gone down well with the bosses or the funders of this outfit! This rather confirms the point I made at talk:Socialized medicine that these kinds of organizations are not exactly even handed with the data they choose to show.--Tom (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything you say is true on the merits. The only problem is the way you say it. You have to comply with WP rules and with other rules of debate. I'd rather discuss this on Talk:Socialized_medicine or Talk:Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#Fraser_Institute Nbauman (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nbauman (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

intellectual laziness

I saw your thank you note at my WP user page. I assume that was directed at my compliment about you. No need for that but thanks anyway,

On the other hand I am troubled that you accused me of "intellectual laziness" for pointing out at Socialized medicine that Cato's claim that "Medicare is not very efficient at all (when Medicare admin done by doctors and hospitals is added in)" was not backed by any quantitative or qualitative data. Surely Cato is intellectually lazy for not supporting its claim with data. Now you have deleted my edit, the Cato intellectually unsound argument remains in the article without any qualification whatsoever. Pity. However I don't wish to edit war with you over it.--Tom (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do something about the Cato Institute's intellectually unsound argument, the way to do it on WP is to find a WP:RS that says it. That's what I and others did with David Gratzer's false claims about prostate cancer survival being lower in the U.K., even though it was a lot of work. To simply give your own opinion about Cato, rather than doing the work of finding a WP:RS, is indeed intellectual laziness. You couldn't do that in an undergraduate term paper. I'm glad to see you challenging the free market ideologues in their outrageous, false claims, but it doesn't do any good to simply soapbox your own opinion. If you want to be useful, find a WP:RS. Nbauman (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits

My major edits are marked major, my minor, minor. And reverts, minor, because they amount to no change at all.CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because I have not altered the state of a page, simply maintained the status quo. If nothing changed, then certainly, no major edit happened. Reverts of vandalisms, I mark minor, because that way other users can filter them.

For oncogene, this is different, and if my second-to-last edit was marked minor, this was an oversight -- sorry. I still disagree with you though: it is for me more important to be correct than simple. And "DNA" is acceptable, I have no idea why "deregulate" isn't. (of course, technically, it really ought to be "disorderly upregulation of function" ;) ). Aside from that, you have repeatedly duplicated content in the page, which is a bit sloppy.CyrilleDunant (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MTTA

I see you have been going through biology articles with the worthwhile goal of making them more readable. Just be careful that you do keep the original meaning of the sentences you alter. If an article is very technical, it can be simplified, but it is hard to regain the precise nuances of meaning when they have been edited out.

I also think that some of your simplifications are a bit patronising for the average reader, but I probably am no judge of that.CyrilleDunant (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I spent 30 years working with doctors and scientists writing articles that explained their work accurately, and they were usually pretty happy with what I wrote.

I also spent a lot of that time talking to cancer patients and other non-scientists who had a need to understand biology, and I have a pretty good sense of the words and concepts they understand and don't understand.

That's MTAA, btw. Nbauman (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. That is still not a reason to make the articles less correct. You can certainly put things into word people can understand, but if you remove the extra information, they also cannot learn. And if words are too complicated, this is the world wide web, we have hyperlinks. CyrilleDunant (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You should take the advice of François Jacob: "In describing genetic mechanisms, there is a choice between being inexact and incomprehensible."

You can't write for a general audience, and use words they can't possibly know, and expect them to click to a link for the definition. We had a discussion like this on one of the medical pages (ECG, I think). You would click one technical term, which would lead to a page filled with other technical terms, and each of those terms led to a page filled with more technical term. It would be easier if they went to their bookshelf for a dictionary.

That's not following the WP rule of writing for a general audience. You have to define the technical term right there. My preference is to follow the usage of publishers who have done scientific studies of medical communication, and use the layman's terms, followed by the technical term. Many editors say that you shouldn't use technical terms at all for a lay audience, but others say that readers want to know the technical terms so they can go on to the professional literature.

I personally am willing to ignore the rules, if we have consensus, by giving scientific details that only an advanced student, or even a professional, would understand -- as long as you put it further down in the entry, after the easy-to-understand information. But as WP:MTAA says, you must be especially careful in the introduction to be clear to the ordinary reader. Nbauman (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your comments, but your edit of oncogene was not inexact, it was wrong. Plus, I am not even a biologist (in fact, I am a mechanical engineer) and there are no words in this article I cannot understand, so I dispute the assertion that the original introduction was too complicated. Also, you should distinguish between broad articles, say Biology and Genetic, more advanced, such as Transcription (genetics), or Regulation of gene expression, and frankly specialised such as Oncogene, itself a technical word!

Philosophically, the attitude of saying "non-technical people cannot understand complicated matter, so let us not even try to explain" more than slightly disturbing. Also it is not the spirit of WP:MTAA, which is about making the information accessible, not dumbing it down: the goal is not to make wikipedia useless to the more technically minded readers. Being comprehensible by all is a goal one should strive for, not an absolute rule, and certainly does not overrule the fundamental goal which is the spread of knowledge, with all the complicated technical bits included.

Biology being fraught with complicated technical terms, the wikipedia editors have written Glossary of gene expression terms, is it not wonderful?

As an aside, I suspect the reason that people end up believing transgenic tomatoes are characterised by their content of DNA is too much simplification in media... And edits like yours make people think that oncogenes cause cancer. If they believe that, maybe they will put themselves up for gene therapy to have all their copies of MYC deleted, because that would be logical course of action.CyrilleDunant (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not say non-technical people cannot understand complicated matter, I said non-technical people cannot understand technical terms, until you explain those terms to them.

If you went to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, USA, you would see exhibits and and demonstrations that teach 10-year-old children advanced scientific concepts (like oncogenes, which isn't actually that advanced). However, the experience of science teachers is that technical terms make it more difficult for students to learn scientific concepts, and that they can explain everything accurately with non-technical language.

If you believe that my edit of Oncogene was wrong, then the Wikipedia procedure is for you to explain in Talk:Oncogene why you think it is wrong. We have many biologists on WP and one of them will see the debate and help us straighten things out.

I got my understanding of oncogenes by reading about it in Science and Nature, by going to cancer conferences, by talking to researchers who were working on oncogenes, and by writing about oncogenes for medical and scientific publications. I never got any complaints about my articles, so I thought I understood oncogenes reasonably well. I'm glad to meet someone who understands oncogenes better than I do who can fact-check my writing. Nbauman (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "An oncogene is a gene with a DNA sequence that causes cancer." I wrote "An oncogene is a gene which, when deregulated or mutated in such a way that its activity is increased, participates in the onset and development of cancer. "

Now the definition, or the crux thereof, of oncogene lies in the "activity increased leads to cancer" part of the sentence. That is the definition of an oncogene as opposed to, say, Tumour suppressor gene. I am not saying my sentence is beautiful. Or even nice. But at least it is not wrong. So we can certainly agree on a phrase both pleasant and correct.CyrilleDunant (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What's your source? I think you're confusing oncogenes with proto-oncogenes. Nbauman (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the term proto-oncogene made sense when people believed that a mutation (or, as it happens, a virus insertion) was necessary to make the gene an actor in cancer development. As it turns out, upregulating some oncogenes can also cause cancer, and the so-called proto-oncogenes are then exactly the same as the oncogenes: where, in these cases, is the "piece of DNA" in the gene which "causes cancer"? This is not a problem of being too technical, it is one of logic.

Further, one may ask why there is no proto-tumour-suppressor. Could it be because tumour-suppressors were discovered later, when mechanisms were better understood?CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what's your source? Nbauman (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[7] is an example which does not fit your definition. Many more can be found.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to Nature, so I have no idea of what you mean. Do they have a definition of "oncogene"?

I though you did, as per your comments above. They just use the word unambiguously to describe the gene in its unmutated version, because only the regulation is affected. You will find many references that make the proto- distinction and many that don't, and we can debate on the merits of each approach; this is however not relevant to the fact that your edit failed the MTAA principle "do not dumb down articles". CyrilleDunant (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but everything in Wikipedia must cite a source. What is the source for your definition of Oncogene? Nbauman (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the source of yours? I can observe common usage, but I doubt you will find a single publication with a definition of oncogene matching yours.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Readability

I don't like the word "popularizing", but Steven Jay Gould comes to mind. There clearly is a real need to make scientific and intellectual topics readable by the general reader. There is an article, entitled Human leukocyte antigen, which is a good example on WP. The lede is overly technical. It should explain what HLAs are and why they are important to people. One doesn't get that HLAs are like the immune system's Identification friend or foe (put rather simplistically) until well into the article. The rest of the article is great, if hard to read, but at least if the lede was written to the general reader, one would walk away with some level of understanding. I don't think it's patronizing to include information appropriate for different audiences in the articles. Most readers are not molecular biologists. We need to follow WP:MTAA. — Becksguy (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, HLA is pretty bad indeed. It doesn't even give any context!CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the solution is to have a process in which non-specialists review articles for readability and comprehensibility. We have reviews for technical accuracy.

The big problem is that some of the people who write these articles (many of whom seem to be graduate students) take ownership. When I try to edit the entry, they change it back. Often, that's the only other person working on the article, so there's no way to get consensus. I've tried leaving requests on the Village Pump, but I don't get responses. So we need a more formal process. Nbauman (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I agree that a readability review process by non-specialists would improve the articles for general readers. But how do we do that? BTW, I see that you added to the talk page for HLA: Talk:Human leukocyte antigen#New Introduction. Good. Would a {{cleanup-jargon}} tag help for that article? — Becksguy (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you know the non-specialist understood the article?CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also a good question. Maybe do like the jury selection process does during Voir Dire, that is, eliminate anyone that knows the subject. For example, I am very knowledgeable about computer systems, and therefore should not be not eligible to determine readability and comprehensibility for just those articles. And then ask them to rate the article on readability. — Becksguy (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this way, you get non-specialists. But how do you tell they understood the article? If I know nothing about a subject, I can probably tell if an article is legible, but not if I actually understood anything of value. I might well have made all sorts of assumption which are wrong.CyrilleDunant (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask them to write a book report?  :-) — Becksguy (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area Last: 11/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder

Your efforts to toward improving that article are much appreciated, at least by me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad somebody appreciates it. Nbauman (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion and Science Deletion Issue

Check out this deletion discussion here: [8] Bletchley (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oncogene

I find your version very good and thank you for taking the time to write it. CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive engagement. Nbauman (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Relevance

Why do you add American internal affairs to international health care articles? How Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut is related the international subject of Publicly-funded health care? [9]

There are articles Health care in the United States and Health care reform in the United States for such subjects.LincolnSt (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add American internal affairs to international health care articles. Maybe somebody else did.

In any case, I think you should discuss major changes in the article's Talk page before you make them.

These articles were written by many people over a wide range of viewpoints, and we carefully worked out consensus. Speaking for myself, I'm happy to add more contributions from people of all viewpoints.

But if you make drastic changes without understanding why we wrote it the way we did, people will merely revert your changes. That's the way Wikipedia works. Nbauman (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

LincolnSt

Hi Nbauman - I'm assuming that you have seen Tom's changes on Healthcare reform talk. I was only restoring the old page version. Tom has graciously acknowledged his mistake and made the appropriate changes. I posted the following on Tom's talk page and I'm copying you too.

LincolnSt's edits are now bordering on vandalism. He's removing links and other content wildly with no consensus. His argument for removal of See also links is wrong. I have put up the following in edit summaries where I have restored his deletions: Rv LincolnSt as per WP:SEE ALSO. See also links are even considered useful in "...subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." He, of course, ignores what WP:SEE ALSO states and deletes again. I am in the process of moving and I'm caring for two very ill family members, so I can't monitor this editor's behavior. I just wanted to let you know that he has been informed via edit summaries that his deletions are wrong. --Cosmic Cowboy (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. Glad we agree. He does occasionally make good edits, but he's going overboard in a way that isn't the Wikipedia way. Nbauman (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nbauman, your above statement concerning him going overboard is a gross understatement (LOL). BTW, as my user page states, and as I have said in talk, I'm Prowler08, but I lost access to my account. EastTN is pushing his old proposal on Talk:Health care reform in the United States‎ regarding the McCain info with an edit summary of "I'm with Nbauman on this one." As I had commented previously (as Prowler08), and as I understood you to state, we are opposed to reinstating this on the page. His edit summary implies that you agree with his position. I know that you aren't responsible for what he writes but I do believe there should be some clarification. --Cosmic Cowboy (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetization and collation

I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not a librarian. I'll look at it anyway. Nbauman (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Khalidi AN/I

Please note that I have made a report to WP:AN/I regarding the edit warring / WP:BLP issue concerning Rashid Khalidi, here: WP:AN/I#Historicist edit warring on BLP violations. This is a courtesy notice only because you seem to have been involved in some edits or discussion on the subject recently. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Goodman/Clinton interview

Please check your facts here. Juan was not in on the interview. He appears nowhere in the transcript. Please explain the justification for your change. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard the interview when it was first broadcast. The MP3 of the interview in the archive should have Juan Gonzales asking questions. Nbauman (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat myself - check your facts. Juan was _NOT_ in the interview. Check the transcripts and listen/watch it again. He does not appear in the interview. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it again. You're right. I mixed up the names of the two Gonzales. Nbauman (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychoanalyst Loses Libel Suit Against a New Yorker Reporter

FYI, You stated here, "The New Yorker lost a libel suit in a story about the Freud Archives because the reporter wrote a paraphrase as a quotation." - you're incorrect. They won the lawsuit.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E3D6163EF930A35752C1A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all GrizzledOldMan (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. The New Yorker lost the initial suit, they won a second suit, and won on appeal. Nbauman (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Antidepressants non-abusable

See here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat5.table.36258

Also the antidepressants are non-scheduled by the government.

This doesn't compare to Oxycontin which was Schedule II from the beginning in the narcotic law. Only the manufacturer claimed advantages over other Schedule II strong narcotics, due to the time-release preparation. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

First, this is better discussed in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Antidepressant_addiction.2C_antidepressant-junkies.

Second, your link doesn't answer my question: what is the evidence that these drugs are non-abusable? This is just an assertion by a government agency. What scientific evidence do they have to support that assertion? Nbauman (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It can not be scientifically proven that they are non-abusable. It can be proven that they are less abusable than alternative meds such as Benzos.

Signed for 67.133.55.18 by his nanny 70.137.151.133 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, how do they prove that? Nbauman (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

They prove it by an enormous number of patients over 40 years, with only a handful abuse cases reported. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is called statistics. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You said that it can't be scientifically proven that they are non-abusable. That answers my question. Nbauman (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No thats not me thats 67.133.55 without signature 70.137.151.133 (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

NB, perhaps you are new to statistics, but it is generally agreed upon that nothing can be proven. However, things can be determined to be likely or unlikely. Thus, the statement "It can not be scientifically proven that they are non-abusable. It can be proven that they are less abusable than alternative meds such as Benzos." I suggest looking up hypothesis testing signed for 24.15.179.168 70.137.151.133 (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I get most of my understanding about evidence-based medicine from BMJ and NEJM, and from seminars on EBM and regularly talking to experts on EBM. I think I understand scientific method well enough.

What is your authority for saying that "it is generally agreed upon that nothing can be proven"? The people I talk to don't agree with that. Nbauman (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Listen, wake up now: look at the edit history of this page, then you see that another guy said that! And tricyclics have a long history with only a few abuse cases reported. Look at the tricyclic antidepressant article section Dependence to find the refs. And you are talking to THREE different people here, damn look at the edit history. Te guys didn't sign so that it looks like me talking. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the story with the cross-eyed judge:

Three accused standing in front of the cross eyed judge. He asks the first one "Whats your name?" - answers the second one "Myers, your honor". He snaps at him "I didn't ask you" - says the third one "I didn't say a word".

70.137.151.133 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss this on my talk page any more. Nbauman (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Kathy Shaidle

Hi Nbauman. Regarding this: I had given this careful consideration, and believed that I was following policy regarding contentious material about biographies of living persons—WP:RS#Biographies of living persons states: Do not move it to the talk page. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Erik, thanks for your explanation. Why doesn't this qualify under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Using_self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves? Nbauman (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone was sourcing her blog for self-published information about her having lupus, for example, that would be fine. But here it's not being used as information about Shaidle; it's being used in a way that violates WP:SYNTH: selective quotations that are used to advance a position not asserted by the original source (the position that "Shaidle says controversial things", or that "Shaidle is a bigot"). See the discussion at WP:BLPN#Kathy Shaidle. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Eric_Kandel

I noticed you added content to the page of Eric_Kandel. I created a page on the neuropsyhotherapist Fred M. Levin. Levin is a fan of Kandel's work. Unfortunately, the page on Levin is up for deletion. I am not asking you to vote. But perhaps you can check the Levin page to add some info. Mwalla (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

beware of anti-semitic remarks

Hi Nbauman. You said the following in the talk page on Amy Goodman:

I don't know whether you're from the U.S. or New York, since your name suggests you are from a British country. In the U.S., the views expressed in the Jewish Press are, unfortunately, not fringe views. The Jewish Press has a circulation of 75,000, they are on every news stand in New York City, they are the largest Jewish newspaper in the U.S. (most of whom would be happy with a circulation of 10,000), politicians follow their editorial line and seek their endorsements during elections. They've been instrumental in getting people fired. You ignore them at your peril.

The attitude you express here is getting uncomfortably close to the "Jews maliciously control the world" libel of classic Anti-Semitism. You seem to feel pretty strongly anti-Israel, and given your frame of mind, it's very easy to pick up anti-Semitic viewpoints without realizing them. You really need to be on your guard against this.

Benwing (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Benwing, you're putting words into my mouth that I didn't say and I don't believe, and you're basically accusing me of being anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, which is false and insulting. There are right-wing Jews who claim that everyone, including Jews, who criticizes the illegal policies of Israel's right wing is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, which is a malicious lie. I'm very familiar with how Jews and Jewish organizations influence the media, for better (like Amy Goodman) and worse. I don't want to discuss this with you any more and your advice isn't welcome. Please don't leave any more messages here. Nbauman (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Varicose veins links

Please see my response on the talk page. None of these links meet WP:EL. May they be deleted now? ThemFromSpace 19:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area Last: 03/29/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Newton's second law

Here's your WP:RS:

"According to Newton's second law, force is the time rate of change of the momentum"

[10]

Rracecarr (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that when I did a Google search. That's a blog. Blogs are not a WP:RS, according to WP:SPS. Who is Leonardo Motta? He's just some guy without any stated credentials who posts for free.

Besides, Motta himself also refers to it as "rate of change of momentum" in that link. So it's just as accurate to say, "rate of change of momentum" as "time rate of change of momentum", according to your own source, and it's simpler.

If you could find a well-known physicist or physics teacher using that phrase while addressing introductory students, I would accept it. Nbauman (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Scienceworld is generally an accurate source of information. Shortening to "rate of change of momentum" after having earlier specified "time rate of change of momentum" obviously does not mean both are equally accurate. By that logic, any object is as accurately described by the word "it" as it is by its proper name. Rracecarr (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi NBaumann. Please see my reply to you over at Talk:Newton's_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_second_law_2. MarcusMaximus (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reverts on CAT inc. page

(I've moved this message by 78.20.129.137 from my talk page to this comment page)

Look, if you want the section in, then write in such a way that it makes sense and doesn't completely destroy the logic of the section.

I don't understand why you insist on undoing my reversion. The section was fine as it was, and any addition should make it BETTER, not WORSE.

So in that logic I find the addition to be disruptive rather than constructive. If you want it back in, why don't you start a discussion about it instead of reverting my edits without and constructive argument! [--78.20.129.137]

Calm down, take some time out, and read some of the Wikipedia rules.

Remember that when you clicked on the tab "Edit this page," you got the message:

Please note:

• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

Also take a look at WP:OWN.

The rule in Wikipedia is WP:PRESERVE. The presumption is in keeping material in (and improving it), not deleting it. If you want to delete it, the burden of proof is on you to explain why it should be deleted.

I'm going to ignore your violation of that rule right now until you've had time to explain yourself.

You should also know that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors disagree with you. (And Bidgee is a complete stranger to me.) You have an obligation to at least explain to us why you want to delete it, and listen to our reasons for keeping it in.

WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason. Simply saying that it's WORSE isn't a reason.

I believe that paragraph belongs in there because it summarizes an important Caterpillar labor dispute. The New York Times thought it was important enough to write a story about it. Caterpillar is very controversial in the labor movement, because the unions believe Caterpillar is using unfair attacks to defeat unions. That's part of the story. Wikipedia must be WP:NPOV -- no exceptions. This is a possibly unflattering view of Caterpillar that is part of Caterpillar's story and should be kept in the article.

I don't agree with you that the section should be kept in chronological order. Normal writing style is to summarize the point at the beginning. Read any newspaper story. That goes back to the Greeks. Aristotle said, you don't start the story of the Trojan war with the judgment of Paris.

Besides, the whole section, with its chronological order, tends to justify Caterpillar's position, which violates WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would a chronological account of the events be biased towards Caterpillar? If an objective chronological account DOES, as you say, "tend to justify Caterpillar's position" then maybe that is because it is a position that was justifiable to begin with. In that case changing the order just to avoid that "tendency for justification" in itself is a violation of WP:NPOV in the sense that it counters objectivity.

Moreover, the added section is at best additional detail to the paragraph later in the section. Discussing the union conflicts in the 90s... That is where it should be located if anywhere...

Are you saying that it belongs in the section on labor problems, but it belong at the bottom? --Nbauman (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

3 things:

1) The part that says :"and forced the union to accept worse terms than were found elsewhere in the industry" is NOT in the source, read the article, it's not in there.

2) I find in most accounts of history of anything that a chronological account gives the best guarantee of objectivity.

3) The section already mentions the strike in the 90's "Caterpillar suffered another long labor disagreement, locking out union workers in the 1990s and hiring what it termed "permanent replacements." Mentioning this again in a separate paragraph of the same section gives the impression that it referees to 2 different occasions, which it doesn't.

Oh and a 4th:

4) As it stand now the section mentions the same strike even 3 times...

Caterpillar fought the United Auto Workers in a five-month strike, threatened to replace its entire unionized work force, and forced the union to accept worse terms than were found elsewhere in the industry.[30]

Caterpillar suffered another long labor disagreement, locking out union workers in the 1990s and hiring what it termed "permanent replacements."

Caterpillar fought the United Auto Workers in a five-month strike, threatened to replace its entire unionized work force.[33]

The first and third of which refer to the same source. (78.20.129.223 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

This is worth discussing, and you may have a point, but discuss it on the article talk page, where everybody can see it, not on my personal talk page. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by one-on-one arguments. --Nbauman (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

At this stage I feel the need to point out that the initial change was made without going through the talk page or getting consensus as well. Are some animals more equal than others perhaps? (Lucason (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

I would be happy to discuss this on the article's talk page, where there will be a record of what we did to the article and why. I don't want to discuss it here. --Nbauman (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Though it seems you respond more acutely on this page than on the discussion page of the topic... (78.20.129.223 (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

You're not exactly motivating people to use the talk page... It seems quite ineffective as noone responds... It seems there is more activity when I just make the change... Which is, what I guess, I'll be doing then... (78.20.129.223 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

a drug is a drug is a drug,not

There is a distinction to be made between a drug and a chemotherapeutic drug. Which is why that term was used in the lead on the cipro, as well as the other fluoroquinolnoe articles. A chemotherapeutic agent is employed in the treatment of disease using chemical agents that are selectively toxic to the causative agent of the disease, such as a virus, bacterium, or other microorganism.

Whereas the term "drug", with no discreptor, could be referring to many things and employed in a variety of situations other than the eradication of a virus, bacterium, or other microorganism. Aspirin, morphine, blood pressure medications, etc., are all drugs for example but there are not considered to be chemotherapeutic agents. Whereas all of the fluoroquinolones are considered to be chemotherapeutic agents. Hence the distinction made within the article. Perhaps you would reconsider your edit or perhaps modify it to read "chemotherapeutic drug" instead? (moved text) Davidtfull (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have an on-line source for that?

Yes I do. See:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chemotherapeutic

As well as:

http://www.echemotherapy.com/chemotherapy-definition-the-basics-of-chemotherapy.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chemotherapeutic

The fluoroquinolones are also listed in the Merck Manual as chemotherapeutic agents.

The WP:MTAA which you referred to as justification of your edit also states that articles are not to be dumbed down either when they are technical in nature. And a drug article, by its very nature, is a technical article. Another issue appears to be that you are unaware that this class has been shown to be toxic to mammalian cells in culture. Inadvertent DNA damage is a very real possibility with this class resulting in collateral damage to the patient. I would suggest that reading the DNA section found within the Adverse effects of the fluoroquinolones may help to familiarize you with this aspect. Such DNA damage has also been confirmed in animal models as well.Davidtfull (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. My copy of Steadman's (paper, I admit) just says that chemotherapy is "Treatment of diseases by means of chemical substances or drugs."

My copy of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine doesn't list "Chemotherapy" at all in the index. Can't find any specific reference in the Merck Manual.

My Google search of "site:merck.com fluoroquinolone" merely shows that they call it an "antibiotic", and my serarch of "site:merck.com fluoroquinolone chemotherapy" doesn't give any reference to calling fluoroquinolone a chemotherapy drug. Similarly with ciprofloxacin. In fact, the Merck Manual seems to distinguish between fluoroquinolones and chemotherapy (which is probably where I got the habit).

The dictionaries you link to seem to use the main meaning of "chemotherapy" in relation to cancer.

You could also search the American Heritage Dictionary for "Drug," and get "A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication," etc., which would also accurately describe fluoroquinolone.

The distinction you make is interesting and important, and I made the same distinction in my edit of "Quinolone" (actually, twice since some pedant reverted it the first time) [11]

You are so courteous, reasonable and earnest that it's hard for me to turn down your request.

However, I have a very strong commitment to the idea that you should make your writing as clear as possible to everyone in your expected audience (a science editor once called it "super-clarity"). One of the basic principles of clear writing is that you should never use a big word if a small word will do, and never use an unfamiliar word if a familiar word will do.

I imagine a reader who comes upon the Ciprofloxacin page. It might be a patient who has an infection, a nursing student, or a high school chemistry student. It might be someone whose native language is not English (interesting fact: most English speakers are not native speakers). Almost everyone knows what the term "drug" means. Non-specialists might stumble at the term "chemotherapy." They might reasonably wonder whether it has anything to do with cancer. That makes it more difficult to understand. My goal is to make the introductory sentence as easy to understand as possible. If you lose them at the introduction, you've lost them, period.

Under WP:MTAA and WP:MEDMOS, we're supposed to write Wikipedia for the general reader, not the specialist. (I'm willing to ignore that sometimes, in the technical sections towards the bottom of the page, but not in the introduction.)

As to the issue of dumbing down, I agree. When I simplify something, I work pretty hard to simplify the language, not the concepts, and I try to preserve the technical language as well. But the more complicated ideas should be dealt with further down in the body of the article, not in the introduction.

(I do know about the adverse effects of fluoroquinolones. A friend of mine tore her achilles tendon. I asked her whether she was taking fluoroquinolones. She was taking ciprofloxacin. I told her that ciprofolxacin was associated with injuries to the achilles tendon. She told me she didn't think that had anything to do with it. I decided not to argue.)

The point you make is a good one. I hope I can count on you to maintain my change to the Quinolone page. But I think you lose readability when you introduce a word like "chemotherapy" in the introduction to the page. --Nbauman (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I only delete or revert once with an explanation as to why I did so. If others want to revert back then I ask that it be posted on the talk page for discussion and let others deal with it. I'm not into edit wars or forcing my opinions on others. I offer up my proofs to support my position and if they fail to do so then I wave the white flag. Rarely do I feel strongly enough about these issues to do anything more than that.

I had had this discussion with the FDA years ago in regards to the quinolones being considered a chemotherapeutic agent and that is where I had saw it listed in the Merck Manual. But that was an older edition so it may have changed since then. I will have to go buy the latest edition and see if I can find it for you. If not, no big deal.

As to Kimball's biology online the webpage states that the latest edition they are using was published in 1994, to wit:

"The first edition of Kimball's general biology text was published in 1965. Since that time it has gone through five revisions, the most recent being the sixth edition, which appeared in 1994." As such the information is at least fifteen years old.

As you will note within the mechanism of action as well as the DNA section his statements that "The topoisomerases in eukaryotes are not affected." are no longer valid. Also of note he provided no references that would support that statement either. As such I do not think it belongs in the article. Particulary in the lead when it is contradicted later on in the article.

It gives a false impression that these drugs are not toxic to host when indeed it has been shown that they are. DNA damage has been observed. But again, you reverted it after I had provided my proofs that it was in error. So again it is now up to others to deal with it. But I honestly believe you should not be using that statement particulary when you state "human enzmes". Which is a distortion of the reference as it makes no mention of human enzmes, only topoisomerases in eukaryotes.

It is a constant battle to keep these articles factual when there is so much false information being provided by spin doctors who work for the drug manufacturers, editors who lack the depth of knowledge required to even begin to edit the articles, and so on. I just assume that everybody means well so I don't get bent out of shape regarding it. I don't have to win every discussion or debate.

The facts should be the deciding factor. It either is a fact, is not a fact, or is an opinion. One of the three. If it is not a fact it should be deleted and remain deleted. If it is a fact it should remain. If it is an opinion then it should be made note of the fact that it is controversial and present both sides of the argument.

So when you made these edits, in my opinion, you deleted a key fact, these drugs are considered chemotherapeutic agents, and introduced a false statement that the citation used did not support. I took my best shot at convincing you of this and it appears that I had failed. So nothing more to be done here. It is out of my hands now. If others challenge this then they are doing so without any prompting from me.

But on a side note tendon ruptures is the least of the patient's concerns regarding the damage that these drugs cause. These drugs in some cases continue to cause serious problems years after therapy had been discontinued and result in life long disabilities, even death.

But as I said you do not have to fear me reverting any of your edits more than once and I always try to provide an explanation as to why I did so. Even I make mistakes and may delete something in error. Nobody is perfect, least of all me.

Any how here are a few more references that support referring to these drugs as chemotherapeutic agents since 1962:

Lesher GY, Froelich ED, Gruet MD, Bailey JH, Brundage RP. 1,8 naphthyridine derivatives: a new class of chemotherapeutic agents. J Med Pharm Chem 1962;5:1063-8.

Although improvements to the process for approving new animal antimicrobial drugs have been made, fluoroquinolones and other antimicrobial agents continue to be widely used in human and veterinary medicine. Judicious use of antimicrobial agents should be stressed to preserve the efficacy of these important chemotherapeutic agents. http://www.cdc.gov/narms/pdf/JNelson_FluoroquinoloneRCampy_CID.pdf (see page 4)

Echols RM, Oliver MK. Ciprofloxacin safety relative to temafloxacin and lomefloxacin. 18th International Congress on Chemotherapy. Stockholm, June 18-21, 1993;349-50. (Abst 27). http://www.springerlink.com/content/j4878x3g17093151/

Determination of fluoroquinolones in eggs using in-tube solid-phase microextraction coupled to high-performance liquid chromatography Jing-Fang Huang1, 2, Bo Lin1, Qiong-Wei Yu1 and Yu-Qi Feng1 (where it is stated in the introduction that: "Fluoroquinolones are a new, highly potent, synthetic chemotherapeutic agents...")

Comparative in vitro Activity of Older and Newer Fluoroquinolones against Respiratory Tract Pathogens Silvano Esposito, Silvana Noviello, Filomena Ianniello Clinica Malattie Infettive, Seconda Università dagli Studi di Napoli, Italia http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowFulltext&ArtikelNr=7303&Ausgabe=224913&ProduktNr=223834 (where the fluoroquinolones are referred to as: "A new class of chemotherapeutic agents..."

And so on. Just about every article written about this class refers to them as chemotherapeutic agents. Except our article now.

In regard once again to Kimball his statement was refuted two years earlier, to wit:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm00103a013

So as you can see I was not doing things frivolously. There was a solid bit of research that demanded that I do so. And like any other editor here, you are more than welcomed to disagree.Davidtfull (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also take issue with:

You could also search the American Heritage Dictionary for "Drug," and get "A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication," etc., which would also accurately describe fluoroquinolone.

The fluoroquinolones are not used to diagnosis, or prevent a disease. They have but one purpose and one purpose only, that being to erradicate a proven bacterial infection. One out of three don't get it here. As such the above statement is not an accurate description. Back to the DNA issues you would also note that there are clinical studies being done regarding the use of this class to treat cancerous tumors. So if these drugs have no effect as you claim how then can they be effective to treat tumors? How do you explain the DNA damage documented by Hussy et al, and others? Some additional things to consider. As well as the fact that Nalidixic acid, the parent of this class has been documented to be a cancer causing agent.Davidtfull (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

continuing inappropriate edits

You had stated in your recent edit, once again attempting to eliminate any mention of chemotherapeutic agents, that the “Source does not use the term "chemotherapeutics"...” But this was a frivolous argument as neither did the statement you have challenged. The statement was:

“The term quinolone(s) refers to the first generation of the potent synthetic chemotherapeutic agents derived from an attempt to create a synthetic form of chloroquine...”

The word chemotherapeutics was never used. The term “chemotherapeutic agents” was used and was supported by citations that used this exact phrase. Or if you had read the second citation it had indeed used the term “chemotherapeutics”, contrary to your argument to begin with.

The first referenced used stated specifically that: “Judicious use of fluoroquinolones and other antimicrobial agents in human and veterinary medicine is essential to preserve the efficacy of these important chemotherapeutic agents.”

The second referenced used stated specifically that: “Fluoroquinolones are present considered as an important independent group of chemotherapeutics within the class of quinolones, DNA-gyrase inhibitors characterized by high clinical efficacy and numerous indications, and clinical efficacy and humerous indications, and are known as a serious alternative to other highly efficient broad spectrum antibiotics.”

The third reference that I had added again refers to this class as chemotherapeutic agents, to wit:

“1,8-Naphthyridine derivatives: a new class of chemotherapeutic agents.”

As such any further edits attempting to remove this term from these articles will be reported as repeated vandalism. You cannot continue to remove content from an article just because you personally disagree with it. There are no citations that dispute the fact that this class is commonly referred to as chemotherapeutic agents, and has been for over forty years now. As such this is the term to be used within these articles when appropriate. Even the manufacturer, Bayer, uses this term:

http://www.baytril.com/6/History.htm

http://www.baytril.com/index.php/fuseaction/download/lrn_file/baytril-history_090112.pdf

If this term has been used by the manufacturer, as well as used in the liteature for over four decades now, its use is not being disputed by anyone other than you. Hence such edits are inappropriate. There is no logical reason to be continuing to dispute this term and then delete something that is a proven fact. As such I am once again asking you to refrain from doing so.Davidtfull (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging w/o discussion

You recently re-added a coupel of tags to the Anti-Israel lobby in the United States article, with an edit summary that reads "This article is disputed because we don't have a consensus among the editors who have been working on it. I dispute it. carolemooredc disputes it. We've given a lot of reasons besides idontlikeit" - however, you have not made a single contribution to the discussion in 2 weeks, during which time the article's content has changed considerably. If there are still BLP or POV issues, please specify them on the talk page. Otherwise, your drive-by tagging will be removed. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ovarian cancer edit

Hi. I reverted your edit to the ovarian cancer web page in which you removed the part that said in most cases, the cause of ovarian cancer is not known. You asked if it is ever known, so I wanted to let you know that it sometimes is known. For example, some ovarian cancers form out of endometriosis tissue. In other cases, there is a genetic predisposition, for example. QuizzicalBee (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it seriously. The issue is, what is a "cause"?

True, some ovarian cancers form out of enometrial tissue, but why do they form?

True, there is a genetic predisposition, most notably in the BRCA genes, but the BRCA genes don't cause cancer, they're just genes for a protein that is necessary for homologous recombination DNA repair. Something else must be going wrong that has to be repaired.

I just searched the New England Journal of Medicine article on ovarian cancer and the one on ovarian cancer screening, for the word "cause", and couldn't find it. But I couldn't find a specific mention that the cause was unknown, either.

I realize what you're getting at. It's tempting to say that you've discovered the cause when you discover a gene that has such high penetrance. But I don't know if that's what doctors mean when they say that something causes cancer, in the sense that HPV causes cervical cancer. I'd feel a lot more comfortable using it if I could find a medical book or journal that used the word "cause". --Nbauman (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pt agents probably arent alkylating agents

Cis platin is not an alkylating agent, it attaches Pt to things, not alkyl groups. The complexes indeed can be electrophile]], but definitely not alkylating agents. Lots of chemists at [[12]] are ready to offer advice when you encounter this kind of jargon-filled arena. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re your comment "Can't pass the nursing school exams without knowing this." [Pt agents] "... are known as alkylating agents because they add an alkyl group" I recommend avoiding nursing school exams ;)--Smokefoot (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Smokefoot, I've been checking. It looks like you're right.

My pharmacology handbook did say that they were alkylating agents. But my other books don't say that.

I also found what I thought were authoritative sources on the Internet which refer to oxaliplatin and other Pt agents as alkylating agents.

I remember wondering in the back of my mind, "Gee, where do the alkyl groups come from?"

I see now that my more authoritative books don't describe the Pt compounds as alkylating agents.

I also see the WP entry itself discussed it further down. It might be worth drawing that distinction in the summary.

The reason I said that about nursing exams is that an RN once insisted that I identify the class for every drug I mentioned.

Thanks for the link to [WikiProject_Chemistry] --Nbauman (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Pt agents kinda act like alkylating agents, so your edits were perceptive. Chemists are persnickety about vocab (we are even harder on each other). And of course we (chemists) also can be very relaxed in our definitions, for example, you'll find that we use the term alkylating agent rather loosely, they usually are not simple acyclic hydrocarbons, see Nitrogen mustards. Later, --Smokefoot (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a curiosity—what is your pharmacology textbook? Would it be Rang & Dale, by any chance? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just a study guide that I picked up at Barnes & Noble.

I can't find the citation, but there was a review that found that Wikipedia's pharmacology entries were generally accurate, wasn't there? --Nbauman (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's PMID 19017825. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reluctant reversion of your edits to Human papillomavirus

Hi, Nbauman. I can see why you would be a bit concerned about promotion of the Qiagen test, since the statistics you removed were all quite positive. However, I don't agree that they're overly promotional, especially since they're all supported by references to respectable peer-reviewed journals. I hate to revert good faith edits, but I reluctant felt I had to because they removed quite a bit of good and well-referenced info, and introduced some incomplete information. For example:

1. "Newer DNA tests, like the Qiagen HPV test, are more sensitive": As I posted here, the test isn't so much more sensitive as it is looking for something different. While pap tests look for abnormal cells, and Qiagen's digene HPV test looks for HPV itself. You're right though that the latter doesn't necessarily lead to the former, and neither necessarily leads to cancer; both simply indicate an increased risk.
2. "Less selective than Pap smears... more likely to give a false positive result": Same point. It's apples and oranges, so sensitivity comparisons are meaningless. Also, the HPV test doesn't give a "false positive" when it detects HPV when a pap wouldn't necessarily find abnormal cells: the presence of high-risk HPV is still a risk factor, and the patient may go on to develop dysplasia. That being the case, a positive result in either test would indicate that a closer look is warranted. Also, the term "false positive" is inappropriate here: as an HPV test, it would be a false positive if it indicated the presence of HPV when there is none. The Qiagen test doesn't do that (it lacks an internal control though, so it can give false negatives).

I'll see if I can make the prose sound less enthusiastic, but the stats are genuine and valid. As an aside, there are some really fantastic HPV tests on the market that are available for use in other countries (these, for example) but the FDA (for whatever reason) won't allow them to be used here, so Qiagen has an effective monopoly. For that reason they can charge a mint for a test that really isn't all that special or novel from the scientific perspective. – ClockworkSoul 05:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I only have about three seconds to reply. I'm sorry: insanely busy today, and likely the remainder of the evening, so I was only able to skim your response. I can say that the Qiagen test is the de facto gold standard for testing for HPV type, but you're correct when you say that it's currently only approved in association with a pap test (there's a push to have it accepted as a replacement for women over 30, but I don't know the status of this effort nor its likely outcome). Despite my efforts to make my writing as accessible as possible, it can sound a little overly technical when I don't have time to properly proofread, so feel free to make any changes you like: I won't take it personally! I'm certain that between the two of us, we'll be able to hammer out the best possible text after a few iterations. – ClockworkSoul 00:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also busy today, I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

Who says it's the gold standard, other than the company's own promotional material? --Nbauman (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Any interest in IP:COLL?

Hi Nbauman. Saw your edits to Richard Goldstone and after checking out your user page, I thought I'd ask if you have any interest in applying your editing approach to articles in the WP:IPCOLL domain. We need more editors to be involved there who are interested in actually editing information so that it makes sense to the general reader and is NPOV. I thought you might have some knowledge/interest in the subject matter. Anyway, thanks for listening and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 12:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tiamut. Yes, I am aware of WP:IPCOLL and I have great respect for their mission. I've worked with some of their editors, and I will no doubt work with them again.

As the Richard Goldstone article demonstrates, editing Israel/Palestine articles on WP is more difficult than most subjects, and you have to be prepared for a battle in anything you do. OTOH, it's so much more important to have NPOV articles on this very subject. So I'm working it out carefully.

But feel free to offer me any suggestions and ask me for any help you might need. --Nbauman (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ardi etc

Hi - not only are humans descended from apes; humans are apes, unless "ape" is allowed to be paraphyletic. Anyway, I've rewritten some of your contribution to the Ardi articles; for decades no evolutionary biologist has thought that "humans evolved from chimps" per se, so it's misleading to say that Ardi shows this isn't the case. Evercat (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Evercat, did you read the Science magazine special issue? Most of what I wrote was paraphrased from that, including their words. --Nbauman (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read much of it, yes, but if there's some specific quote(s) you think I should reflect on, go ahead. As I have said though, humans "evolving from modern chimps" was never a live position in evolutionary biology. Evercat (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the authors' summaries, 326:74 "The great divides: Ardipithecus ramidus reveals the the postcrania of our last common ancestors with the African apes" Lovejoy, Suwa, White et al. talk about "the often uncritical acceptance of a Pan-like last common ancestor." On 326:64 they say, "Ar. ramidus thus indicates that the last common ancestors of humans and African apes were not chimpanzee-like." Specifically about hands, on 326:70 they say, "It has long been assumed that our hands must have evolved from hands like those of African apes." On 326:37 in the introductory article, Gibbons says, "To some researchers' surprise, the female skeleton doesn't look much like a chimpanzee, gorilla, or any of our closest living primate relatives." She quotes White saying, "We have seen the ancestor, and it is not a chimpanzee."

So according to those authors, "some researchers" thought that humans descended from a Pan-like last common ancestor. --Nbauman (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Pan-like, but not actually Pan. Evercat (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, White says that some people today thought the last common ancestor was chimpanzee-like, but they were surprised to find out from Ardi that it wasn't. --Nbauman (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: are you convinced that it's a fair summary of the Science articles to say that some researchers thought that humans were descended from a chimpanzee-like ancestor, but they were surprised to find out the contrary from Ardi?

Given the time period between MRCA and Ardi I'm not entirely happy that the conclusion is safe, but since they seem to be saying that, we can go ahead and report that. Evercat (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just re: whether Ardipithecus could be an actual ancestor of humans, this does seem to be one of the possibilities in White et al: "Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids", Figure 5. Evercat (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your ideas are very interesting. However, for you to say that it is "conceivable" is your own interpretation and original research WP:OR. Nowhere in the Science articles do they use the word "conceivable", or say that it is conceivable. They do say that "some researchers" thought that humans descended from a Pan-like last common ancestor. A WP article has to follow WP:RS, and not our own ideas. I think we should follow the wording of White, Lovejoy and Science more closely, and give the ideas as they present them. I think my version follows them more closely. --Nbauman (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already conceded that some scientists may have thought the MRCA was chimp-like, and both articles say that (cites would be good though).

Regarding whether Ardipithecus could be ancestral to us, "There are no apparent features sufficiently unique to warrant the exclusion of Ar. ramidus as being ancestral to Australopithecus" and our article on Australopithecus says it may be ancestral to Homo. So yes, it's conceivable.

By the way, do you think we could consolidate the evolutionary ramifications into a single article, preferably Ardipithecus? Evercat (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edits to your contributions to the Trastuzumab page

After doing some research, I plan to replace some of your wording to the effect that "In some cancers... the HER2 receptor is defective and stuck in the "on" position," and ascribing the effect instead to overexpression of HER2. I wanted to give you a heads up and chance to comment, first.

I have described the research in the last section in trastuzumab's discussion page. Overexpression of HER2 can upregulate MMPs which cleave the extracellular domain of HER2, leaving the cytosolic tail to activate pro-proliferative, anti-apoptotic, and other tumorigenic pathways. However, Trastuzumab or other drugs can prevent this only by binding uncleaved HER2 before that sequence of events, so it seems in any case confusing to state defects in HER2 are the tumorigenic mechanisms. Dimerization of HER2, without cleaving, also activates the same pathways. I found no reference indicating that the cleavage mechanism dominates in effect over activation by dimerization.

I like your emphasis on writing Wiki pages so that the average lay-person can understand them. I hope I can live up to that ideal. I think it is especially important for pages that describe therapies, because patients often read them for much-needed information that can empower their decision making and help them understand what is happening to them.

C4dn (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hi, thanks for expanding colorectal cancer. Could I draw your attention to WP:CITET and citation templates? It makes articles easier to access and creates a degree of uniformity for citations on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JFW, I knew about it but I couldn't figure out how to use it (or where to find it). Do I go to that link and copy and paste every time Can I generate it automatically from PubMed?

And how do I use <ref name=name/> with it? --Nbauman (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This will save you an enormous amount of work and insures that the citations are displayed in a consistent manor. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Boghog, JFW has also been nagging helpfully encouraging me. I think the web-based tool is what I need. I'll copy that link to my user page and try it out. It does look as if it would be much easier once I figure it out. --Nbauman (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Found link to Fraser Institute URL in Wayback Machine

See my answer at Talk:Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#Fraser_Institute. I found your web URL at archive.org. It may be wise to add URL's to webcitation.org so you are sure that we have the exact copy of what we referred. Nsaa (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis

I do not own the article: post the comment in the talk page and feel free to edit the article's language to make it simpler as long you maintain its correctedness or to point out those sentences that you find most inaccesible and we can try to fix them.--Garrondo (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no known cure for MS. Treatments attempt to return function after an attack, prevent new attacks, and prevent disability I believe that the lead right now is a good summary of the article, your addition broke the order followed in the text, repeated facts that are soon said in the lead and had factual incorrections (there are not many: exactly six approved medications). Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have mildly edited your talk page adding a title to the next question , which although posted in my comment had nothing to do with me. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be an expert in communication and you have English as your mother language; which I do not, so I hope that my reversion does not stop you from pointing out (or changing) any sentences that most likely are not going to be understood by lay readers. We should try to make the lead or the article as accessible as possible. However from my point of view your latter change did not really change accesibility and had an incorrection. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the incorrection? --Nbauman (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you have (almost) convinced me: go ahead and re-add your sentence however I hate the "many", it would be more appropiate as there are only 6 an not very effective to say something like "but there are drugs that can slow the progression and treat acute attacks" or "but several drugs...". Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Medical question

Do I go to the emergency rm if I detect what might be herpies. My fiance that I have a child with decided to cheat a month ago and stupid me decide to make up with him and blame myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.180.74 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me. Wikipedia doesn't give medical advice, only general medical education. Read the Herpes simplex article. I do think it's safe to say that you should see your regular gynecologist, if you have one, or to an STD clinic at a local hospital if you don't. There are some drugs that can help if the symptoms get too bad. --Nbauman (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidents at SeaWorld parks

I'm curious about something. In at least half of your comments and/or responses in the various discusions, you mention the victim's name, even though we all know who is being discussed. What are you hoping to accomplish? I think you suggested why in an earlier response, that you're trying to bump up search results on Google; frankly that sounds rather unethical to me. Next, what stake do you have in this? Considering you've shown no prior interest in editing this type of article before, now you come through hoping to change the entire way it's handled, because of this one incident, and based on how you repeat it, this one individual. Sounds like this is either (a) personal or (b) part of an agenda. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I'll put aside your violation of WP:Assume good faith.

Second, the reason I always use Dawn Brancheau's name is because (a) I think it should be used for the reasons I gave, and I don't like to self-censor; and (b) because I've had >30 years of getting paid to write for editors (and lawyers) who all gave me Strunk & White and told me that it was important to give the specific details, particularly names, in everything I wrote. It's hard for me to go against 30 years of training.

Third, yes, I have an agenda which I already stated openly in Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks where you could have found it:

For me, the specific SeaWorld article is a secondary concern. My primary concern is the integrity of Wikipedia. I write mostly about medicine, and it's very important to me and other Wikipedians to prevent WP:COI parties from deleting WP:NPOV information.

The SeaWorld article is a classic example of WP:COI manipulation, as documented in Talk:SeaWorld:

SeaWorld is acting unethically, and if we tolerated it, it would destroy Wikipedia. They should expect that I and other Wikipedia editors won't tolerate it.

And finally your theory that I'm trying to bump up search results on Google doesn't work, since Google doesn't index Wikipedia talk pages, as you can confirm by a Google search for Dawn Brancheau on Wikipedia: [13]

Concerning your motives I will WP:Assume good faith. You seem to be a booster or enthusiast of theme parks, and that's fine, but you never learned that in good writing you have to give the favorable with the unfavorable. In good writing, you can't make everybody happy; if you tried to make everybody happy, you would have bad writing. --Nbauman (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF only goes so far, especially when there is the appearance of an agenda (supporting one's opinion is one thing; mentioning the victim most every time is another). As to the content of the SeaWorld article itself, it needs work ... no question. Clean out the marketing spin and focus on SeaWorld's history prior to its acquisition by Anheuser-Busch (at which point it became part of Busch Entertainment Corporation, which is now SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment). As to "favorable vs. unfavorable," if that's truly how I felt, such incidents articles wouldn't exist. I've gone through with SpikeJones and other editors to keep everything consistent, first getting involved with them after the monorail accident in July 2009, when this exact same issue came up, and again consensus was that leaving out the victim's name didn't damage the article, nor did it add any significant value to it (at which point, tie goes to "leave it out"). After that, it was the rash of lewd-behavior incidents at Central Florida water parks ... again, if I was trying to protect the parks, I wouldn't have allowed the information in, as if it were completely up to me, anyway. Heck, I added a number of them into their respective articles, and I fleshed out others with more details and more source information to back it all up! (In the interest of full disclosure, the victims in those incidents were generally minors, which (a) wouldn't have been named by the news and (b) if some unscrupulous person had gotten a hold of the names, I have no doubt the names would be expunged immediately and nobody who really had the project's best interests at heart would put up a fight. In not so many words, while also incidents, they did have special conditions that don't make them good examples in this dispute.)

These incidents articles are based purely on what's in the local newspapers, with no candy-coating, no PR spin ... save one thing, which has been followed with almost all the incident/accident articles I've reviewed, both theme-park and non-theme-park. Unless they were already notable, victims' names aren't included, because they aren't necessary to, as you put it, tell the story. There are, of course, exceptions (such as the victims of the Titanic), but the theme park incident articles are consistent.

Lastly, as to your assertion of WP:COI, I'd welcome any proof you'd care to provide in regards to edits being made currently. Previous COI edits, such as those that inspired the newspaper article you cited, should indeed be expunged and replaced by neutral point of view information. But that's an issue for another day. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Get to the point. You still haven't given me a good reason for not including the name of somebody whose name is already as well-known as Dawn Brancheau, except to say it's not important or that it's a minor detail. She's not a minor, and she's not a sexual assault victim. We include Tilikum's name. Why is Dawn Brancheau's name not important as Tilikum's?

(P.S. You will note that I specifically used Dawn Brancheau's name again. The reason is that I don't want you to go off on a tangent about minors, sexual assault victims or people who are not notable except for the one event. That's the way lawyers taught me to ask questions.) --71.167.241.161 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof in changing consensus lies with you, not with me. Consensus amongst the editors of the theme-park incident articles (which, until recently, as you yourself said, you weren't) is that victim names are left out as they are not necessary to explain the events that took place. You are seeking to change that consensus, therefore you must provide the reason for why it is so essential that the name be included, especially when so many key details that fully explain the incident are already there. It is upon you to show how the context of the article is irreparably harmed by not including the name. As of yet, you have been unable to show this, instead using arguments such as "her name is in the news" (mine has been in the newspaper too, so do I get an article?) and "her name is a search term" (so is mine--try Googling yourself, it's fun--so I get an article too, eh?). If you are capable of showing how, 5-10 years down the road, long after the victim's name is forgotten, the context of the incident simply falls apart without her name, to where a user with a normal grasp of English won't have any clue what happened after reading the article, then I'll support inclusion. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus. That's why we had an RFC. There is no consensus in the RFC either. People are disagreeing, and they haven't convinced each other.

There is no formal Wikipedia policy prohibiting the use of names either. SpikeJones claimed there was -- an arbitration -- and then it turned out he couldn't cite it.

You're trying to establish a new policy. You can't do it because you have no consensus for a new policy.

There is an affirmative policy of WP:NOTCENSORED, which I think would justify using the names. According to WP:NOTCENSORED, you can't delete something merely because you're offended by it. And that's your basic argument.

In a debate, the first goal is to give the other guy the burden of proof. Most of the time, you can simply make the burden of proof higher and higher, and the person who has the burden of proof loses. I'm not going to accept the burden of proof. I think WP:NOTCENSORED is enough proof, at least to put the burden of proof on you.

Saying that the burden of proof is on me is conceding that you can't meet the burden of proof yourself. --Nbauman (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations

When adding a reference (e.g. here) please use the {{cite journal}} template and include such information as the DOI and/or PMID for ease of access. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

With your encouragement, Jfdwolff, I have been using the diberri template-filling tool. However, sometimes when I enter a citation (especially for the latest issue) it doesn't work. Yesterday PubMed was actually overloaded and wouldn't give responses for a while. Sometimes I intend to get back to it and never do. I forget what the problem was with this one. But feel free to remind me. --Nbauman (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Donald Berwick

Hello. I noticed you've edited the page for Donald Berwick, CEO of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). We're trying to find someone willing to post a new entry on IHI itself. We have the content...would you be willing to post it? THANKS. Jjsmall (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)jjsmall

Who's "we"? It sounds as if you are saying that you are affiliated with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, and you are (unlike many organizations) ethically following WP:COI rules and not creating a page about yourself.

I have actually never created a new WP page before, but I'm willing to try it. Unfortunately I don't know that much about the IHI and its policies. I think the Wikipedia protocol in adding material about yourself is that you can identify yourself and suggest links in the talk pages. If I see a good article about IHI in Science or someplace I can add it. --Nbauman (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, guilty as charged. I'm the VP Communications for IHI. I've asked a few others who may be more familiar with our organization and therefore more comfortable doing this...will wait to hear from them and let you know. THANKS for replying. Jjsmall (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)jjsmall

So noted

You are correct that I need to work on my civility. And I concede that you did have valid sources to draw a general connection from Shepard's to SCI and Google. On the other hand, your original interpretation of your sources was rather loose and bordered on Whig history, which is strongly disfavored among most historians of science. (I studied history of science with one of the most prestigious history departments in the U.S.) Plus the quality of your citations was poor, but I don't have the time to fix them myself (e.g., the lack of a pinpoint citation to the page(s) for the SciAm article). --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. Just let me know. ---kilbad (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say that I saw your de-spamming efforts at Sarcoma, and to say thanks for doing what's all too often a thankless task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So this time it wasn't thankless. Thanks. --Nbauman (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sipuleucel-T

Regarding Dendreon I don't understand your insistence on referring to Longo's Editorial in the NEJM as "the article"--they are distinct entities. The Article--which is the lead for the issue, by the way, publishes the results of Provenge's Impact study, which resulted in FDA approval. The results demonstrate the largest survival benefit EVER in this patient population and with practically no side effects--certainly far less than Taxotere, the only other approved treatment. The editorial--which in the NEJM routinely has as its object to point out study weaknesses--is one man's opinion, and does NOT have the imprimatur of the NEJM, as the study results having been peer reviewed and accepted DOES. Longo ignores that two earlier studies produced the same results. Neither is there cause to eliminate references to the breakthrough that is represented by Provenge's success training the immune system to recognize cancer as foreign and attack it. This is going to prove to have been the breakthrough of the century and will probably result in a Nobel Prize in medicine for the vaccine's developers.

There is no reason likewise for you to object to the FACT that patient lives were significantly extended by Provenge and that many men lived years longer. You should read Stephen Jay Gould's article about the significance of "median" survival in cancer and the patients' quest to get onto the right hand side of the curve--where lives are extended for years.SaulK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.195.112 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

SaulK,

I can't find anywhere that I referred to Longo's editorial as "the article." Academic journals don't usually use the term "imprimatur". The editors say that publication (of a report or editorial) in a journal means that the peer reviewers thought it met their criteria for scientific methodology, not that it's true or false.

I don't think the NEJM used the word "breakthrough." That's a term I've usually seen in press releases. I don't like to use it myself.

I don't think the NEJM used the word "significantly" either. I was looking for that. Is 4.1 months more median survival (25.8 months vs. 21.7 months) significant? I don't know. Longo mentioned PROSTVAC-VE, which prolonged median survival by 8.5 months, in a phase 2 study.

I changed the edits not because I disagreed with their conclusions, but because they didn't meet Wikipedia style. Realize that you can only add something to Wikipedia if you can support it with a quote from a reliable source. This is explained in WP:RS. People sometimes say that Wikipedia editing must meet standard of verifiability WP:VERIFIABLE, not truth. You can add what you want to the entry, but you need a WP:RS. That's a firm rule. If you don't follow WP:RS, someone will always come along and revert it.

So if you can find a WP:RS in which somebody authoritative says it extends survival "significantly", put it in.

I did read Stephen Jay Gould's article about median survival. It was a mathematically rigorous way of explaining the difference between the glass being half full or half empty. His curve had a long tail.

In this case, almost everyone seems to have died over 60 months. Look at Figure 2(A) on p. 418. If I read that correctly, there was 1 survivor in the sipuleucel-T group and 1 survivor in the placebo group (although there might have been survivors they didn't track).

I'm glad you're interested in this subject and have some insight into it, and I welcome you to contribute to Wikipedia. But make sure you understand the rules (which can sometimes seem counter-intuitive). --Nbauman (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding whether Provenge extended lives significantly I am certain I can find a source that supports that and I intend to provide it in a future edit.. However, I must take issue with your rationale that the tail on the Provenge curve ends at 60 months in the Impact study and therefore the life extension was not significant. Are you forgetting that this is a trial in late stage cancer and everyone in the study has a life expectancy of 18 months or so? Everyone in such studies dies relatively quickly compared to studies in healthier people and always everyone is going to be dead at the end. The proper question in looking at a K-M curve is how soon the curve separate and how long they stay separated before everyone dies (as always happens). In the case of this study the curves separate very early and stay apart for years. At three years 32% of the treatment group were still alive vs. 21% of the "placebo" group. I put placebo in quotes because they weren't getting pure placebo, but 75% crossed over to frozen Provenge and also had life extension compared to their Halabi nomogram expected survival. The treatment group had a median 14.2 month survival advantage over the men who elected not to cross over to frozen Provenge--a fact that was also in the NEJM article and which I included in an earlier version that another editor eliminated for no apparent reason. Is 14.2 months of additional life "significant" life extension, when the earlier approved treatment, Taxotere, extends life for 2.5 months?

I know this subject intimately and I thought this website existed to provide useful information. The way the entry is currently written is inaccurate on many scores. I would like to rewrite it to be accurate and I can provide sources for everything I write. Are you going to allow me to do that or should I just give up and let the inaccuracies stand? I have many friends who suffer from this illness and I know it is important that when men with prostate cancer come here they are provided with the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.195.112 (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You can add whatever you want as long as it complies with WP:RS and the other Wikipedia rules. Remember, WP:RS means no blogs. And WP:OR means that you can't do your own interpretation of the data. You have to find an expert's interpretation.

I don't run Wikipedia and I don't have any power to allow you or not allow you to do something. But if you add something that violates Wikipedia rules, lots of people will come by and revert it.

On the issues you raise, I can't find anything in the article that says that anyone had a 14.2 month survival advantage. I even did a text search for "14.2". --Nbauman (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

14.2 month survival advantage

Here it is directly from the NEJM article:

"Therapies Received after Study Treatment Of the 171 patients in the placebo group, 84 (49.1%) received APC8015F as the first additional anticancer intervention after the completion of the study treatment, and a total of 109 patients (63.7%) received APC8015F at some point. The estimated median survival in the placebo group was 23.8 months for patients who were subsequently treated with APC8015F and 11.6 months for those who did not receive APC8015F."

Since the median survival in the treatment group was 25.8 months, obviously the survival advantage versus the "pure placebo" group was 14.2 months.

Sometimes just searching for a term doesn't get you what you're looking for.

It's not good form to quote selectively. You left out the second half of the paragraph: "Since this comparison was not randomized, the effect of frozen product APC8015F would need to be evaluated prospectively."

The NEJM article doesn't say that these patients had a 14.2-month survival advantage. That's your interpretation. That violates a Wikipedia rule against doing your own interpretation of the data -- in Wikipedia terms, that's WP:OR. Only a doctor or scientist, writing in a WP:RS, would be qualified to make that interpretation.

I also used the term "surprisingly," because I was quoting Longo's editorial. Longo thought it was surprising. You think it isn't. Longo is an authority on this subject. You are not.

I see you're also making revisions to Dendreon which, as several editors pointed out, don't follow Wikipedia rules. I think you ought to slow down. When somebody reverts your edits because they violate a Wikipedia rule, it's very bad form to repeatedly change them back without it first in the article's talk page. If you violate the WP:3R rule, you may be prevented from editing for a while. --Nbauman (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing with an agenda

What are you talking about? My revision did contain the rest of the paragraph regarding non-randomization of the placebo group vs. the salvage group. Is it that you didn't understand it? Or what? Further the 14.2 month advantage of the treatment group vs. pure placebo was by no means "my conclusion", but was simple math. What is 25.8 minus 11.6? Doing math on figures that are contained in the article does not violate the Wikipedia policy against original research. The treatment group median was 25.8, the pure placebo group median was 11.6. That yields a difference of 14.2 months. Do I need a source to say 25.8-11.6=14.2? The rule example says I don't need a source for "Paris is the capital of France". How is 25.8-11.6=14.2 any different?

It seems apparent to me that you either have some agenda to keep this information buried in the article, or you have some ego driven need to have your revision stand even though it is innaccurate. You have shown by your past revisions that you don't even grasp the difference between "mean" and "median" and that you cannot understand the significance of patients with 18 months life expectancy by Halabi nomogram living for 5 years. The article I referred you to earlier had nothing to do with "Glass half full"--it dealt with the real life struggle of cancer patients to extend their lives beyond the population median--which the author did for years.

I am new to this website--please be so kind as to inform me to whom I complain regarding your unjustified pontification over this entry. As you have written it, the image is presented that Provenge has small benefit and is facing a skeptical medical community, when in fact it has been hailed as a major breakthrough in cancer treatment and was almost instantly accepted by the NCCN as firstline treatment for the on label indication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulK (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is explained in WP:DR --Nbauman (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Hi, I'm responding to your request for a neutral third opinion. I've read through the discussion above and grasped the basics, but I'd appreciate it if you could summarise briefly if there's something specific you'd like me to comment on, such as the 'original research' discussion, or whether it's broader and I need to look at the revision history. Thanks! ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 09:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't request a third opintion, but I assume SaulK did, and that's a good idea.

There are two issues, first the clinical interpretation of a study, and second how the Wikipedia rules apply to editing Wikipedia.

First, Sipuleucel-T (brand name: Provenge) is a new treatment for prostate cancer. It was recently approved by the FDA on the basis of a study which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 29 July 2010.

According to the summary in the NEJM, the abstract of the article, a commentary (editorial) in the NEJM, and every WP:RS, including many news stories, the patients who got sipuleucel-T had a medial survival of 4.1 months longer than the patients who got a placebo.

SaulK says that there was a subgroup with a survival advantage of 14.2 months. Neither the NEJM or any WP:RS mentions a 14.2 month survival advantage. The study created a separate frozen preparation of sipuleucel-T, called APC8015F, for the placebo group, and gave that preparation to the placebo group after the formal study was over.

SaulK gets the 14.2 months from the following paragraph in the NEJM article (page 417):

Therapies Received after Study Treatment. Of the 171 patients in the placebo group, 84 (49.1%) received APC8015F as the first additional anticancer intervention after the completion of the study treatment, and a total of 109 patients (63.7%) received APC8015F at some point. The estimated median survival in the placebo group was 23.8 months for patients who were subsequently treated with APC8015F and 11.6 months for those who did not receive APC8015F. Since this comparison was not randomized, the effect of frozen product APC8015F would need to be evaluated prospectively.

I don't quite understand this paragraph myself, but it clearly does not say that a subset of users had a survival advantage of 14.2 months. SaulK gets 14.2 months by subtracting 11.6 months from 23.8 months. I don't think that's valid because the two groups weren't randomized, and neither the NEJM article nor any WP:RS makes that claim. If there were such spectacular results, somebody else would have mentioned it.

Do you agree with me so far?

Second, SaulK has made that change to the Sipuleucel-T article several times, and other editors have reverted him. So he has not yet achieved WP:CONSENSUS.

Perhaps you can do a better job than me of explaining to SaulK why (1) This study doesn't demonstrate a 14.2 month survival advantage and (2) Even if it did, you would need a WP:RS to include it in the Sipuleucel-T entry. In addition (3) Doing your own calculations like this is WP:OR, which you're not allowed to do in Wikipedia (4) If most of the other editors disagree with you, you have to achieve WP:CONSENSUS before you change things. Thanks. --Nbauman (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here. I agree with everything you have written above except for "(3) doing your own calculations." WP:CALC clearly allows trivial calculations. The issue is not the calculation itself, but rather whether the result of the calculation is meaningful. A simple subtraction is not considered original research. On the other hand, since the two treatment groups were not randomized, the survival advantage implied by the subtraction is not meaningful. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Boghog, that's a better way of putting it. --Nbauman (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Answer to 3O question

Nbauman has admitted he does not understand the paragraph in the NEJM that I have gotten information from and am trying to convey in the entry. The paragraph does, in fact, set out that the treatment group had a 14.2 month survival advantage over the group of patients who did not get salvage frozen Provenge (something else Nbauman doesn't understand or didn't read carefully enough--the placebo patients were offered frozen Provenge after their disease progressed, not after the study was over--they were still in the study). I have not asserted that this survival advantage was statistically significant, nor that it was generated by pre-specified, randomized groups. Still, the fact that the advantage existed is surely of interest to physicians, researchers, and patients--this is why it was included in the NEJM. It is surely hypothesis generating--since it seems to at least suggest (while admittedly not proving, yet) that the frozen Provenge itself helped patients live longer. If this is true, it means the expected effect of Provenge is probably even greater than the 4.1 months found by the study. There is no reason on earth to NOT include this information--which is clearly referenced in the paragraph I cited.

Nbauman seems to have some agenda here to make Provenge not look like the breakthrough it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulK (talk • contribs) 02:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read WP:RS and WP:OR? -- Nbauman (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I have read both. And just as you don't understand the information I am trying against your ego driven wishes to include in the entry, you don't understand that performing a simple arithmetic function--subtraction--on available data does not constitute "interpretation" or "original research". The facts I have reported about the survival advantage vs. pure placebo patients in the study is clearly verifiable (since it is in the paragraph you admit you don't understand) and it is important because doctors and patients need to know when deciding whether to try Provenge, given its expense, that its survival advantage was attained not against just pure placebo, but against as well a salvage product that may turn out to itself have conferred a survival advantage.

Do you even understand how salvage treatment by cross over works in a late stage cancer trial?

Because if you don't, and it seems pretty clear to me you don't, you shouldn't even be presuming to edit this entry. SaulK (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you the only one who has ever made this calculation of a 14.2 month survival advantage? Or is there anyone else who agrees with this calculation, who is a WP:RS? -- Nbauman (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, David Miller of Biotech Stock Research, a well respected analyst of the biotech industry, has reported this figure. But that is not even relevant. The NEJM article itself reports it and as the other editor has advised you doing that calculation does not constitute original research. You have given NO reason to try to limit the valid, verifiable information that is included in the entry except that you personally don't want it there. What is your rationale for denying patients access to that info from the NEJM? I'm tired of you being high and mighty with me when you have admitted you don't even understand the paragraph you are trying to suppress. You are the one who has improperly edited my original piece every day without justification. You too can be blocked and I have requested mediation and intend to try to get you blocked. Particularly since you persist in refusing to articulate why you are trying to have there be as little information in this entry as possible. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulK (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC) You also keep referring to the 14.2 month survival advantage, when the version I most recently wrote does not even contain that figure, but instead paraphrases precisely the information conveyed in the NEJM article regarding the possible effects of salvage frozen Provenge. How can you revert the entry based on your supposed objections to my math showing a 14.2 month survival advantage, when I compromised by removing that figure and letting the readers do their own math?

Obviously you have some other agenda. What is it?

Please answer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulK (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the above and I've looked up the article in question on the NEJM website. SaulK is correct in saying he can make basic calculations without it being considered 'original research', but your calculation is not correct. The figures involve the median survival rates, not the mean rates and as such, simply subtracting one figure from the other produces an inaccurate statistic. The median survival rate is simply the middle point between the two extremes - so if one person died after one year and one person died after two years, the median survival rate would be 1.5 years, even if 99% of people died after 1.1 years. Therefore, your figure implies something that is not the case.

The abstract explicitly states the following:

This reduction represented a 4.1-month improvement in median survival (25.8 months in the sipuleucel-T group vs. 21.7 months in the placebo group).

I think that if the survival advantage was 14.2 months, much more attention would be drawn to this figure, rather than the only figure to be highlighted of 4.1 months. Based on this, I'm going to agree with Nbauman. Whilst I can't force you to drop the subject, I recommend that you stop reverting edits and if you feel it is necessary, request further arbitration. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 23:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've come to a further conclusion having gone back far enough to see the original edits made by SaulK - amongst all the reversions a crucial explanation appeared to be missing which I have now found, which highlights that the derived figure is not conclusive and warrants further research. This is an accurate portrayal of the article, and as such I'm going to reverse my position in light of my finding, and agree with SaulK. Sorry about the confusion, a full discussion is available on my talk page. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 11:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

attempts at consensus

Why are you not having a dialogue with me and instead Googling me? Wiki dispute resolution requires you to attempt to reach an understanding instead of just reverting my entries. Please respond. Why are you determined to keep reliable, verifiable information out of this entry? I have requested arbitration--will you agree? SaulK (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't Googling you, I was trying to find out if there were any bona fide WP:RS that would support your 14.2 month claim. Instead I found out that you have a blog in which you urge people to buy Dendreon stock, and you own Dendreon stock yourself. Under WP:COI, this should stop you from editing the Dendreon or sipuleucel-T pages, especially with the kind of edits you're making.

You're also violating Wikipedia:Etiquette. I don't particularly care to have a dialogue with somebody who accuses me of having an agenda, and accuses me of not being competent to edit this article, all of which violate Wikipedia:Etiquette.

In a dialogue, you listen to what other people are saying, and respond to their points, as per WP:CONSENSUS. I don't see you doing that. You are instead simply repeating yourself, insisting that you're right, and reverting your edits back to the way you want them after other editors change them. -- Nbauman (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative news on quippd

Hey, I noticed that you listed yourself as invoked in the WikiProject Journalism project, and I hoped that you could help out on another collaborative community edited project.

I run quippd, a collaboratively edited social news site, which mixes elements of Wikis, social networking, and social news sites. You can get some more information about what we are doing at: http://quippd.com/about/intro

Basically, we want to get good coverage on news stories, collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. We are trying to take the ideas of WikiFactCheck -- to make news less biased and speedier (unlike something like Wikinews). By combining social elements to the project, we hope to bring the benefits of wiki enabled fact checking and npov ideas to the masses.

I hope you check us out -- and feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns.

--Yoasif (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-20/Sipuleucel-T

I have volunteered to mediate this dispute, if that is acceptable to you. Please confirm your acceptance, or lack, on the mediation page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

XRumer

XRumer was an uncontested PROD. I assume that you are contesting it so I've restored it. Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 08:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is a boilerplate message. For the record, I merely got caught in this broad IP block. I have never used more than one user name, or been accused or suspected of doing so. -- Nbauman (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Value-added modeling

About this from back in September, I thought you might be interested in Value-added modeling. I read the LA Times' articles on the subject when they came out at the end of the summer, and overall I enjoyed them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Diberri's tool

Seeing that you often contribute to medical articles it wouldn't be a bad idea if you started using citation templates. In the case of the Neurology article (PMID 21482920, doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182166ebe) things are a bit tricky because the document has only appeared online, and the abstract has not yet been uploaded to Pubmed. One can always copy & paste {{cite journal}} from the template page and populate the relevant fields manually! Let me know if you need any further advice/support. JFW | T@lk 16:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I catch up reading the NEJM I'll figure it out. Aren't there any copy editors on Wikipedia who enjoy fixing citations? --Nbauman (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I often spend time fixing citations, and it is fairly pleasurable mindless grunt work that can be done without too much concentration. I bet there are others. Rjwilmsi (talk · contribs) has built part of his spectacular edit count on fixing citations, DOIs and other bits. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello there! Love what you've done on the Hallmarks page - much better. I might go and have a little edit of a few things but in general its a massive improvement. While I'm here, I was wondering what you thought of the controversy on the microtubules page - have a look at my comment on the Talk page and chip in if you have an opinion - tricky one! Nice to make wikicontact (?) with you anyhow! Cheers, HenryScow (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry, thanks. Nice to be appreciated. As to the microtubules, It doesn't seem to meet WP:WEIGHT, and it's unlikely to be on any biology exams. I have occasionally written about fringe theories, but it's too hard to follow. I'll stick to the hard science, and leave the cutting edge to the New Scientist. --Nbauman (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam

Please see there and discussion. 70.137.129.34 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Sarah Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)