User talk:Arcadian/Archive 4

If you are contacting me because I am an admin near the beginning of the alphabetical list, please first read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Arcadian (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I occasionally receive messages from individuals looking for information about a medical condition affecting them or someone in their family. I can't provide assistance in these matters (see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer), and I can't guarantee a response to each email. However, if you frame your inquiry in terms of the condition itself, I may be able to be of assistance. If you have a question and Wikipedia's page doesn't answer it, it is likely that other people have had the same question. Rather than answer the specific question via email or on a talk page, a more enduring solution would be to make the underlying article more complete or more clear. --Arcadian (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Archives

1 • 2 • 3

Paresthesia

I saw your edits at Paresthesia. Care to throw your two cents in here?[1] Thanks. Suntag (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can help you there. --Arcadian (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Hepatitis, viral, human"

A page you created, Hepatitis, viral, human, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Oliver202 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Navbox request

As a template wizard, do you think it would be a good idea to split off a seperate epilepsy navigation box from {{Diseases of the nervous system}} ? If yes, could you create one? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure -- what do you think it should be called? "Epilepsy"? "Seizures and epilepsy?" I know there was a lot of controversy on wiki recently over how we were defining "seizure", so I'd want to tread lightly here. --Arcadian (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seizures and epilepsy sounds fine. By the way, did I already ask you if you had the assessment gadget turned on in your preferences, or was that JFW? Anyway, it's useful to remind a stub creator like yourself to assess articles (thus categorising them under WP:MED). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Done - Template:Seizures and epilepsy. --Arcadian (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! However, do we need both a general CNS and an epilepsy navbox on epilepsy articles? Can we use a toggle show-hide button? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I set it up so that the 6 high-level epilepsy topics (like Focal seizures) showed up on both Template:CNS diseases of the nervous system and Template:Seizures and epilepsy, but the 17 more detailed topics (like Frontal lobe epilepsy) only showed up on the dedicated epilepsy template. In my opinion, that breadcrumb arrangement maximizes the ease in which users can narrow or broaden their focus, but feel free to rearrange as needed. Per your second question -- the default behavior for Template:Navbox is to automatically hide the details when more than one nav is on the page (see Template:Navbox#Setup_parameters for details.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

ICD10 code

Can you fix the ICD10 code at Acute alcohol intoxication? It's Y91.x, but I couldn't figure out how to make the link work. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For knowing how to fix the ICD-10 links in the infoboxes, and for using that knowledge to help me! WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Featured Topic Task Force proposal

Hey Arcadian, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't make specific commitments, but I will keep an eye on it, and help nudge things forward where I can. --Arcadian (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Help needed

Hello. Could you please edit the template Template:Antithrombotics, because I need to know which drugs from this class are discontinued. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the general answer to your question, but if you have a question about a specific agent, I may be able to help. You may also want to offer your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Drug_navboxes -- there's a discussion there about defining standards for notating experimental and discontinued drugs in the infoboxes. --Arcadian (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Titin

Thanks for this. :-) --David Iberri (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. I admire your patience. --Arcadian (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

howardbloom.net

Hi, I found howardbloom.net is used as reference in the article War against Islam. Is this RS? I found no editorial board in this site. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm familiar enough with the subject to be of service here. --Arcadian (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for dropping by - its good to know there are wikipedians out there willing to help out those just beginning. Any who, I just wanted to let you know that I copied the article to my personal Sandbox for editing (prior to public release) - User:FoodPuma/Infoboxes. Feel free to make edits there if you wish, I just wanted a place to try changing things without messing up the entire article! Cheers!--FoodPuma (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I split Osteochondritis and Osteochondritis dissecans -- since you're being graded on your contributions, splitting now would probably be less disruptive than splitting later. Good luck. --Arcadian (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey! So I have been editing [Osteochondritis dissecans]] for a little while now and was wondering if you could stop by and take a look. I just wanted to make sure that my edits have put the references and information I've included in the right place (EG: I wasn't completely sure if I should "Functional Anatomy" should be under 'Cause' or 'Pathophysiology.' Thanks again! FoodPuma (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it works under Pathophysiology, but there is some flexibility in how the rules are applied. I'd recommend that you read not only Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), but also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), so you can get a sense of how the community interprets the manual of style. --Arcadian (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I was actually doing some research at school and posted that info under surgery in the article because I was leaving and needed to save it! I was really hoping no one would see it until I got home to put the citations in... what timing eh? I had actually seen the <refname=/> just a couple of days ago but haven't had a chance to go back and clean it up yet. Again, thanks for helping me out! FoodPuma (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just checked out that citation device and it works great! Thanks for sharing the wealth! FoodPuma (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! Perhaps you remember helping me out just a couple of days ago. Well, I've improved some on my article and have now listed it for Peer Review as I prepare to nominate it for GA status. If you wouldn't mind dropping by it's peer review page, you're input would be much appreciated! Thanks! FoodPuma (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: New articles needed

Hello. Could you please create an article about the drugs gefarnate and teprenone? These are drugs used for the treatment of gastric ulcers. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ileostomy

I see that you added a "surgical intervention" template to the above article some time ago however quite a number of the links don't work. Could you have a look at it? Thanks Richerman (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the broken links. --Arcadian (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD for C9orf3

I thought you might be interested to know that I have posted a longer reason as to why I think this gene should be deleted which I did not, through niavity, include in my original arguement. Dpmuk (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. --Arcadian (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Intensive care navbox

As a specialist navboxer, I'd like your opinion and maybe copy-editing of {{Intensive care medicine}}. cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Three thoughts: First, I've updated the separators, per the new standard defined at per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Navigation_boxes. (I'm not in a hurry to convert the old ones, but for new one I try to comply.) Second, I try to minimize the use of "General terms" as much as possible, because it makes it hard for subsequent editors to know where to place content. Finally, the "Conditions" box is rather long, so you might want to divide those by system (I usually try to follow ICD-10 ordering as much as I can.) But these are just quibbles -- I think you did a good job. --Arcadian (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remember to not add a space before {{·}} ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at this?

Hi Arcadian. I have a trouble because of this ban request at the ANI. Things are getting from bad to worse, with people coming to my talk page to accuse me of WP:COI violations in Biology articles. Could you please look at the article in question and check if it complies with WP:NPOV. WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability? And of course, you are very welcome to fix any problems if necessary. Perhaps I should stop editing political subjects... Thanks a lot. I also asked Tim about this.Biophys (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have responded here. --Arcadian (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

BBS7

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BBS7, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=BBS7. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed. --Arcadian (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

BBS9

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BBS9, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=BBS9. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, rats!

I was going to suggest that you should become an administrator, only to find you already are! Also, I notice you're a medical student. Are you in the UK? I ask only because I want to follow the same route, interested in your opinions etc. :) Hope everything's okay.

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to make your acquaintance more formally, seeing how our paths cross all the time. I'm in the US, where the process is a little different. But if I had to give one piece of advice, apart from the cliches: volunteer in hospitals as often as you can. Good luck! --Arcadian (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I see you all over the place (especially with template work) so it's good to finally say "Hi!" properly. IMHO, the U.S. system sounds better in terms of becoming a doctor, I like how you have to do a degree first (I'm probably going to do that here anyway). You got any ideas of which area of medicine you'd like to do into? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I'm really interested in tumor markers, and I'd love to get involved in early screening of pancreatic cancer. But it's too early to say for sure. --Arcadian (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So something oncology related? Sounds good, the area needs some new, thorough research, given it's absolutely dismal prognosis. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Coccidioidomycosis

I had updated the coccidioidomycosis page with a paragraph on biological warfare information and you reverted the page to eliminate my updates. The paragraph was purely informative and accurate. My post also had a link to information about one of the new books and if that is not allowed, I apologize, but I still feel the biological warfare information (with the CDC Select Agent home page citation) should stay.

I had planned to update the coccidioidomycosis PRESENTATION section as well to reflect the newer information that emphasizes the severity of the disease. The newer, more severe, information appears in recent works like 2007's "Coccidioidomycosis: The Sixth International Symposium" or 2008's "Valley Fever Epidemic" but I would rather wait to update until after you tell me these updates will not be erased.

Thanks!

Micro2007 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the book link added at coccidioidomycosis would be allowable, but the symposium you mentioned looks interesting. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) may help provide guidance. Peer-reviewed articles (with a PMID) are usually much more appropriate than books or websites, but there are exceptions. Did you have a specific paper in mind? --Arcadian (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye

I am actually in school right now and I am doing limited editing as I am short on time. I planned on rewording when I got home, but your keen eye embarassed me! Heh! Sorry for any misunderstanding =) Food_Puma 17:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thank you for fixing it. --Arcadian (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

100,000

Wow, I just saw you now have over 100,000 edits on your name! That is quite an achievement. Keep going! ;-) --WS (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that this achievement is far more impressive. Congratulations! --Arcadian (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to you both ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! How many more years do you still have to go? --WS (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere between 2 1/2 and 6, depending upon how one defines "done". That said, if anyone watching this talk page is (or knows) a residency director ... my email is enabled, and I'd love to become better acquainted. :) And as long as I'm willing things into existence: if anybody needs a medical student to do scut for cancer research, drop me a line. I live in Illinois, but I have a strong background in software and stats, so if you've got access to data, we could collaborate at a distance. --Arcadian (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends if you are planning to do medical oncology (via internal medicine), radiation oncology, or one of the surgical oncology specialties. If you are interested in radiation oncology, happy to chat.Tdvorak (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear from you. You don't appear to have email enabled on your account (here or on wikibooks) so I can't email you. But I have email enabled, so if you click here and send me a message, we could then exchange contact information. --Arcadian (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal Iliopectineal fascia/arch

I just discovered Iliopectineal fascia and Iliopectineal arch and made a merge proposal. As far as I can tell they are about the same structure, but I don't know enough to simply merge them. Is "arch" more common? Hoping you know more, I invite you to do the merge or discuss it on the talk page.
Congrats to the 100.000 edit BTW, when it comes to human anatomy you are everywhere!
Thanks / Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and I commend you on your excellent anatomy contributions. (There aren't many people working on anatomy, so I'm always happy when I see your contributions pop up on my watchlist.) The two structures you mentioned are closely related but distinct, and I've added refs to make the distinction clearer. Normally, I'd recommend that they should have separate articles. However, I noticed that the IA article was a copyvio of this (one of the refs I added.) Depending on your level of interest, I'd recommend either rewriting the IA article to resolve the copyvio, or redirecting IA to IF. --Arcadian (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for both the edits and those words (when I look at my own contributions I seem to be the only editor around!)

I've removed the merge proposal and I'll try to fix the articles in question. I need to read a lot more about that region first, however.

/ Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WT:MED#Template:GPnotebook

I'd value your opinion here. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

New templates

I created a new template {{Diseases of the skin and appendages by morphology}} and put some comments on the discussion page. I plan on using this template as a guide to pages I create/work on. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated (I saw you did some work on the {{Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue}} template). Kilbad (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I created another new template {{Clinical and histological nomenclature for skin lesions}} and wanted to get some feedback about it. How do you feel about the overall content and organization? Please see the discussion page for my desired scope and rational. Kilbad (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts: use " · " as the separator, per the new standard at MEDMOS. And most navs use center alignment for the line headers, rather than text-align:left. But don't let formatting details slow you down -- I'm very happy that we have someone with your level of knowledge contributing to the dermatology articles, and the content is far more important than the formatting. In particular, I want to thank you for contributing your histology images. There really is no substitute for clear pictures, and it can be very hard to obtain appropriate images for use on Wikipedia. --Arcadian (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Location of pubic body

Hello, it's just me again.
I've been reading a lot on the pelvis lately and I'm increasingly confused. I was hoping maybe you had encountered this problem already.
In some contexts, the body of the pubic bone is defined as located next to the pubic symphysis between the two rami, and in other contexts as located next to the acetabulum laterally to the superior ramus. Here are two examples:

Anatomy and Human Movement, p 246: The pubis is an angulated bone. The body of the pubis projects laterally and superiorly as the superior ramus to join the ilium and ischium at the acetabulum, forming one-fifth of the acetabulum. A thin and flattened inferior ramus extends inferiorly and posterolaterally from the body to fuse with the ischium below the obturator foramen.

Structure and function of the musculoskeletal system, p 78: The pubis forms the anterior inferior portion of the innominate bone. It consists of the body, superior ramus, and inferior ramus. The body forms the anterior inferior one-fifth of the acetabulum. The superior ramus extends medially and also slightly forward and downward from the body to join the medial end of the inferior ramus. The junction between the two rami forms a fairly broad, flat region.

There are many more similar contradictions available. I've been googling a lot to find an explanation somewhere with no success.
I reworked the article on the body according to the information in my Swedish reference (see this diff), but I then discovered there seem to be different definitions around. Maybe I should revert myself? Is this a US vs. Europe issue? Or older literature vs. newer? The only hint I've been able to find is this brief sentence in Gray's here, section 16:

The Medial Portion of the superior ramus, formerly described as the body of the pubis, is somewhat quadrilateral in shape, and presents for examination two surfaces and three borders.

Any hint is welcome.
/ Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the "b" at the center right.

You'll have to click to enlarge. Then look at the acetabulum, on the right. On the inner lip, you'll see a label for "body of pubis", and on the outer lip, you'll see a label for "superior ramus of pubis")

A review of Netter didn't help me, and I don't have a skeleton here, so I'm limited to rotating images in my head, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I think that the inner lip of the acetabulum is the body of the pubis, and the outer lip is the superior ramus. Look at the first diagram to the right. "5" is the symphysis, "4" is the pubis, "4a" is part of the "body" of the pubis, the superior pubic ramus is where "4" meets "2", and the acetabulum is the cup where "2", "3", and "4" all converge. The question is: where in "4" is the border between the body and the superior ramus? The intuitive answer would be that it is slightly to the left (medial) of the label "b", but looking at Gray235.png, I think it has to be slightly to the right, on the lip. But I don't think you need to revert your changes. Just document what you find, provide references to support your additions, and leave it to those who come after us to resolve apparent paradoxes. This could easily be a US vs. Europe issue, but it could also be that we're approaching the end of the written record, and the remaining distinctions exist only as oral traditions. --Arcadian (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Oral traditions", sigh! Anyway, thanks for the reply, I guess no one knows why the various parts of that bone is defined in different ways. For simplicity I'll assume Gray's definition is the default.

/ Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-small cell lung carcinoma

Hi. I see that you moved "Non-small cell lung carcinoma staging" to "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". Have you seen "Lung cancer"? "Lung cancer" comprehensively describes non-small cell lung carcinoma, except for staging, which would unnecessarily bloat the "Lung cancer" article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is your objection to the presence of "Non-small cell lung carcinoma", or to the absence of "Non-small cell lung carcinoma staging" as a stand-alone article? --Arcadian (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My objection is to "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". It's not helpful to separate this from "Lung cancer". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, but it would be more productive to discuss this in front of a larger audience. Nominate it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and I will respond there. --Arcadian (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll invite WikiProject Medicine editors to comment as well. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to delete the page. I added most of the content under its initial title. I want to change the article's title. Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Way to alphabetize large list of links

I want to make this list more complete, and would prefer to just add diseases to the end of the list instead of looking where to add them within the alphabetized list; therefore, I wanted to know if there was some tag or "something" that will automatically output a list in alphabetical order? Kilbad (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my poking my head in here... Help:Sorting has some details on making sortable tables with class="wikitable sortable". --David Iberri (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

D's idea is a good one. I have converted the list into a sortable table. Also, by adding new columns, you might reduce the need for some of the detailed categorization you are working on. --Arcadian (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of dermatology articles

Do you think you could get a few more people to review our discussion on the categorization of dermatology articles? I realize the categorization scheme can be changed in the future, but I would like to get some more feedback before I start categorizing articles based on the current proposed tree. Also, I am almost ready to update the skin disease article with a complete list of all dermatologic diseases, and would like to have category headings on that page that closely mirror the categorization scheme we all finally decide on through our discussion on the medicine talk page. What do you think? Thanks. Kilbad (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage you because your dermatology contributions are very valuable, but in general, this is the sort of project that is usually better addressed incrementally. But, if you want a few suggestions: (1) Group "nails" and "hair" together under "adnexa" or "appendages". (2) Change "Cutaneous diseases" to "Cutaneous conditions" (this will help address mongolian spot and the like). (3) Don't divide "Infectious skin diseases" into "bacterial", "viral", etc. We have distinct classification systems to address those distinctions. (4) "Genetic skin diseases" will be problematic, because so many conditions have at least a genetic susceptibility. It would be better to just say "genetic diseases", and allow people to logically union. (4) In my opinion, the most important distinction in any disease (after segregating neoplasia) is inflammatory vs. non-inflammatory. I think that would make a useful high-level classification. (5) If you end up with a category that has only a couple items in it, consider deferring the decision to create a category for now. (6) Consider capturing some of this information in tables instead of categories, as described above. --Arcadian (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to your advice, I have made changes based on your first and second suggestions. However, just around the time I read your response here, I had nearly completed my update of the skin diseases article, which still divides the infectious causes of skin disease, and does not use a table. Therefore, feel free to remove the infectious subdivisions and make the list a table if you desire, or I will try to get around to it eventually. I really appreciate all your feedback. categorization scheme outlined here. kilbad (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation of dermatology articles on Wikipedia, input wanted

Hey Arcadian. Kilbad (talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look, and posted my thoughts in a response to the post above. --Arcadian (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Sex hormones}}

Hey Arcadian—I see you just removed "zerenol" from the template. That was probably a typo, it's supposed to be zeranol. I'm not sure it warrants an article, but I thought I'd leave a note just in case you stumble across it again. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've created a stub for zeranol. --Arcadian (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of a template redirect

I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to the deletion -- it was part of an typo I made in creating a navigation template (see the history.) --Arcadian (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Niemann Pick Type C Page

Hi Arcadian -- it looks like you did a number of citations for me on the Niemann Pick page -- thank you !!!!!!! -- I am new to Wikipedia as a contributor. Some new research has come out on NPC -- I have posted it on my blog Addi and Cassi Blog and Nature article is here Nature Medicine. Basically, it says that Niemann-Pick disease type C1 is a sphingosine storage disease that causes deregulation of lysosomal calcium that results in cholesterol accumulation. This is new news because the mechanism has not been known -- they talk about myriocin correcting the phenotype. The question I have for you is I am not sure how to best incorporate something like this Nature paper into the Niemann Pick page -- where do you put it? Also, it should go on sphingosine and also myriocin pages and possibly calcium. What do you suggest??

Also, Brown and Goldstein, awarded the famous Nobel Prize in 1985 for their discovery of the LDL-cholesterol receptor and its role in the control of cholesterol metabolism. Much of our current understanding of the impact of cholesterol on cardiovascular disease follows from their work and the multi billion dollar statin industry has been developed as a result of their work. They have released on PNAS very important papers on the regulation of cellular cholesterol metabolism and what they are discovering with NPC1 and NPC2. Brown and Goldstein Paper and Bill Balch Commentary on NPC1 and NPC2.

These papers need to not only be referenced on the Niemann Pick page but also on the cholesterol pages as again this very big news coming out about cholesterol I don't know how to best do this and I need some help by watching someone like you add this in -- then I can learn so when future papers come out how to do it. Would you help me with this project Arcadian? Chris | T@lk 03 November 2008

I would be glad to help. I have split Niemann-Pick disease, type C into its own article and added references to the three papers you mentioned above. You may want to rearrange them, or add more supporting text. Since you have many questions, I can only offer broad advice at this time: first read Wikipedia:Five pillars, then read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) (especially the section "Citing medical sources"). Citing medical journals can be challenging at first, but once you know how to get a PMID and feed it into this tool, it gets much easier. I recommend that you work on Niemann-Pick disease, type C for now, rather than adding information to cholesterol. The papers you describe are very important in the context of NP, but it may take some time and perspective to figure out the broader significance of these discoveries. Finally, make sure you read Wikipedia:Be bold, and if you have further questions, I would be happy to try to answer them. --Arcadian (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arcadian - Thanks for all your updates on the NPC pages, and for splitting out NPC into it's own page/ategory. I had Marc Patterson of the Mayo edit the main Niemann Pick Overview page -- he has been working on this for over 20 years. Also, he is going to review the NPC page to provide input. I am also have other experts look at the pages so they are completley accurate. How can we fix the Wikipedia search -- if you search on Niemann Pick Type C, it does not come up to the new page you created. Is there a way to fix wiki search. I am waiting for some pictures which hopefully you can help me get added in properly. Thanks against for everything! It's such a big relief to actually have accurate information up! Chris | T@lk 05 November 2008

It was probably just a caching issue -- I see it here. It is also visible to Google. When you're ready to upload pictures, I would be happy to help. The most important issue is to make sure that the owner of the copyright consents to Wikipedia's licensing. A good overview is available at Wikipedia:Uploading images, but if you have more specific questions, just ask. And thanks for your improvements to the main article. --Arcadian (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcadian: I have made lots of updates to the NPC pages tonight - Marc Patterson from Mayo Clinic sent me all the updates and edited both my page and what you did. These pages are veyr accurate -- some of the medical terms are not even on WikiPedia!! I am still having trouble with referencing papers -- I need more time to learn. Patterson wanted me to change on of our references to make it completely accurate. It's under Genetics on the main NP page

"Mutations in the SMPD1 gene cause Niemann-Pick disease types A and B, and mutations in NPC1 and NPC2 cause type C (NPC). Type D was originally separated from type C to delineate a group of otherwise identical patients who shared a common Nova Scotian ancestry. Patients in this group are now known to share a specific mutation in the NPC 1 gene, and NPC is now used to embrace both groups. The terms "Niemann-Pick type I" and "Niemann-Pick type II" were proposed to separate the high and low sphingomyelin forms of the disease in the early 1980s, before the molecular defects were described

The reference is: (Elleder M, Jirásek A. Niemann-Pick Disease. Report on a symposium held in Hlava's Institute of Pathology, Charles University, Prague 2nd-3rd September, 1982. Acta Univ Carol [Med] (Praha). 1983;29(3-4):259-67.)”

I can't make it work tonight, I am too tired. I hope you can help review both the NP and NPC pages and fix this reference. I am working to gather all sorts of images for the pages to make them complete and current. It would be helpful if you read this and determine other pages that could be linked -- there is a lot of good information here. We need some links into the cholesterol areas.

Thanks - Chris | T@lk 11 November 2008

I'm sorry, but I'm having some trouble figuring out exactly what you're looking for. I'd be happy to add or format references, but I'd need a little more guidance about what you want to add and where you want it added. It it helps, here is a formatted version of the reference you've mentioned. --Arcadian (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Elleder M, Jirásek A (1983). "Niemann-Pick Disease. Report on a symposium held in Hlava's Institute of Pathology, Charles University, Prague 2nd-3rd September, 1982". Acta Univ Carol [Med] (Praha). 29 (3–4): 259–67. PMID 6637710.

I need your help.

This user User:Cannibaloki has been reverting all of my edits in the pages related to Iron Maiden, with the excuse that "my opinion doesn't interest him!". There was this version on the lead of Iron Maiden discography here, that needed to be re-written to meet Wikipedia's quality standars. Then after several weeks he re-wrote this lead. That lead he re-wrote had many issues, grammar errors and was longer than it was really needed, because it said some information about every album that was better placed in the album's pages. I re-wrote the lead. Now it contained the most important sentences he had written, some I wrote myself taking other Featured lists as references, and then was copy edited by User:Gary King. He just reverted the edit saying " His opinion does not interest me!" here. I told him to take Nine Inch Nails discography, Metallica discography, and many others as a reference. I can see how mad he is, it was like if he was using blinders, because he doesn't listen to any opinion and every edit I make to that page he reverts it saying it doesn't interest him. I hope you can find the solution to this problem. Thank you.

PD: If you don't have time to take care of this, please recommend me and admin that could help me. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is far outside my area of expertise, and in any case, I think that administrative action would be premature. I'd recommend that you go through the options described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If it does turn out that those efforts are unsuccessful, you will at least have built the paper trail that would be needed before administrative action to be invoked. --Arcadian (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tried helping this guy. I pointed him to WP:DAB to aid some of his edits but he removed my talk post; I'm assuming he's not interested. Because of the amount of edit warring occuring, I would be inclined to block soon as a preventative measure. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Scarian, I didn't delete your comment on purpose, my idea was to remove an automated message. Your comment was added back, of course I'm interested, I know you were trying to help me. Arcadian, thanks for your quick response. The past few days I had some personal problems, I;m really sorry I brought them over to Wikipedia. You guys can be absolutely sure this won't happen again. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 05:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [2], please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

From your edit history, you have left the same message on the talk pages of over 20 users, and apparently chose me because I am an admin with a username starting with an "A". This is not the most productive approach to resolving a dispute. As described in the above post, your best approach would be to follow the protocol described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and the linked pages. --Arcadian (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(Z)-4-Amino-2-butenoic acid

...is not the same as N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside, indeed they are entirely different compounds. I'll clear it up shortly. Meodipt (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm this is quite a puzzle - it seems that both these compounds have been given the abbreviation CACA at some point, and its now hard to work out what N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside actually does, as when you search for that name in PubMed it comes up with a whole load of research which actually uses (Z)-4-Amino-2-butenoic acid! The only paper I can find that definitely uses N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside is (PMID 3440022) mentioning it as a prodrug for cytosine. Another paper (PMID 18685793) says explicitly that N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside is a GABA_C agonist but I wonder whether the authors have themselves got the two CACA's mixed up... Meodipt (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Per this link at PubChem, they are synonyms, but it is possible that PubChem is wrong. In any case, I apologize for any confusion, and appreciate your efforts to clean things up. --Arcadian (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

EBV infectious mononucleosis

Hey. Can I ask why you've moved infectious mononucleosis to it's current title? I wasn't aware we were placing virus names in disease article names. I strictly believe infectious mononucleosis is more appropriate, it's aetiology is inferred from the article itself. Although, there are no other causes but EBV. Remember that page moves probably should be discussed first. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the references I added? MEDMOS defers to ICD-10. Observe this. The article as written assumed EBV, but if the article has the title "infectious mononucleosis", then we can't assume Epstein-Barr virus. At that name, cytomegalovirus (among other agents) would be one of the causes, not one of the differentials. (And it's not that ICD-10 is out of date or doesn't reflect current usage: see PMID 18371522, PMID 15168781, PMID 15113329, etc. According to this, "Primary CMV infection will cause up to 7 percent of cases of mononucleosis syndrome and will manifest symptoms almost indistinguishable from those of Epstein-Barr virus-induced mononucleosis.") In my opinion, the rename was the smallest change possible to make the article accurate. If you want to move it back, feel free, but make sure you rewrite it as needed to remove the errors that such a move would introduce. --Arcadian (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, i'm just not entirely certain it was necessary. If we mention the causes in the article (i.e. EBV and CMV) then we could just leave the title as infectious mononucleosis and allow the reader to distinguish between the two pathologies. If we leave it as EBV infectious mononucleosis, then we should remove information regarding CMV and place it in its own article. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(Pardon me for butting in.) I see Arcadian's point about the rename being the smallest change necessary for accuracy. I much prefer "infectious mononucleosis", however: 1) it's icd-10 compliant, 2) it's the generally used term, 3) for the casual reader, the difference between EBV infectious mononucleosis and CMV infectious mononucleosis (especially in terms of clinical presentation, management, etc.) are academic, and 4) we have plenty of articles on diseases with multiple etiologies (cf. pneumonia, gastroenteritis, aseptic meningitis), giving us precedence for using the general term and simply discussing the various causative organisms. Shall we rename to Infectious mononucleosis and generalize the article? --David Iberri (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (PS: This discussion is probably better suited for Talk:EBV infectious mononucleosis.)

If that means you're volunteering, go for it. (You may want to take a look at PMID 17904463 while you're in there.) --Arcadian (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have copied this thread to Talk:EBV_infectious_mononucleosis#Causes, and agree with Diberri's comment that further comment should be directed there. --Arcadian (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pharmcology stubs

Hi. Thanks for your work on these articles. However I just noticed the pharmocology stub category is jammed full with 2600 +!! Could you please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/November and suggest ways in which we can conceivably split this category into more manageable stub categories by specific sub order. Thanks Count Blofeld 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Glycopyrrolate

Hello arcadian, I just edited the article you contributed to about glycopyrrolate to include its other name of glycopyyronium bromide. I was wondering if you could make it so that a search for glycopyrronium bromide would redirect to the glycopyrrolate page. Im a newbie to editing here and dont know how. Hopefully you can help me out. Regards, Shaun3001 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We already had a redirect from glycopyrronium, but not from glycopyrronium bromide, so I've added it. It now shows up on the internal Wiki search, but it will probably take a few days for it to show up on a Google search for "glycopyrronium bromide". I've also added several references to the glycopyrrolate article. --Arcadian (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again Arcadian, thats great! Im trying to get into editing and contributing to medicine related articles. You have been a great help. Regards Shaun3001 (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename list of skin diseases

Thank you again for all your help with the dermatology content on wikipedia. With regard to the list of skin diseases, would you support a renaming of that article to something like "Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system"? I would like to rename it to something broader so that conditions of the adnexa may remain in the list. kilbad (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Have you read Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Renaming_.2F_Moving? If you're looking for technical help, or if you need a statement of support somewhere, just let me know. --Arcadian (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Myocytes

Would you be able to motivate why you reversed the template about cell types? What do you think myocytes are and why do you think they are part of circulatory system? Why then there is such a thing as skeletal myocytes [3]? (unsigned comment, from User talk:96.237.4.57

Thank you for your feedback. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Wikipedia:Five pillars. Usually, when brand new, anonymous editors start editing templates without leaving edit summaries, those edits usually get reverted. You don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, but you may find that having account helps you achieve your goals. --Arcadian (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I too recommend you understand what you are doing. I don't understand how will an account make up for the loss of time incurred by your arrogant incompetence. When you mindlessly reverted my edits, it did not matter that I did not have an account, it was more important that you are still unable to understand the difference between muscle cells (aka myocytes) and myocardocytes. News for you: myocytes are not in any way specific to heart muscle. Your edits on myocyte show you still haven't grasp it, and you continue to waste everybody else's time. (unsigned, from 71.174.180.186)

Vuerqex

Evil tendencies are early shown. Vuerqex (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A hypocrite deceives no one but himself. Vuerqex (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. --Arcadian (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Vaptans

Thank you :-) It never ceases to amaze me how many new drugs keep on being invented the whole time, but I think we are finally starting to get most of them covered! Good job on arranging them all into categories. Meodipt (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Foreign body

In the Foreign body you deleted too much ! --Tamás Kádár (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not deleted; it's in foreign body in alimentary tract. --Arcadian (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dietary mineral

Hi, I am writing about my substantial edit on dietary mineral. This topic sometimes generates strong feelings, in part because of commercialization of dietary supplements and in part because of suspicion of biochemistry by some. So if you strongly disagree or want to discuss what I did, please leave a note here. I have been working intermittently on this article for years, and periodically various exotic elements creep in, like Li, Al, V, Cr, As, Te, Sn, Ge, Cs, Rb, Bi, W. Beats me, but I can only guess that vendors of these supplements are driving such edits, as we found on chromium picolinate, a multimillion dollar product. In any case, let me know. Best wishes,--Smokefoot (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me. Thanks for the update. --Arcadian (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Physical dependence

Good work adding those references. The are still some issues, especially if tolerance alone is sufficient to declare physical dependence. See Talk:Physical dependence. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already put in just about all I know and all I could find from reliable sources, so I probably can't help you on that Europe issue. --Arcadian (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Disease

Hi, hoping you can explain why our Mitochondrial Disease Symptom Guide for Clinicians link keeps getting removed? Is it because MitoAction is a charity? Because you have to register to view the guide (this is for legal reasons - medical advice, etc etc)? The resource guide is a clinical document written by doctors and we feel one of the best resources online for doctors who often find themselves faced with diagnosing and dealing with this often previously un-dealt with disease. Can you please offer a few words of explanation? (unsigned, from User talk:Accessionmedia)

There are a few different issues with the addition, but the major one is discussed at Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration, which states "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference.". Your site states "Proceed to the Clinician's Mito Symptom Guide (you will be prompted to login/register and accept terms of use)". Also, per MOSMED#External_links, if a Open Directory Project page exists for the condition (as it does here), then Wikipedia links to that instead of linking to each individual charity. --Arcadian (talk) 17:31, 22 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) 14:22, 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...

Penicillin G

Would you mind my moving this to benzylpenicillin (the INN?) I hope you and your loved ones enjoyed (or are enjoying :) the holidays. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Should Penicillin V also be moved? --Arcadian (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely :) By the way, I've been meaning to ask you for a while now—it's just a nitpick, but I'd really appreciate it if you could use {{drugbox}} and {{pharma-stub}} instead of {{chemistry-stub}} when you create new stubs on drugs. Using {{drugbox}} instead of {{chembox}} helps WP:CHEM's data curation efforts (which have separate lists for chemicals and pharmaceuticals), and sorting with {{pharma-stub}} gives WP:PHARM an adequate picture of 1) the number of articles under its scope and 2) how far we still have to go on article assessment. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Penicillin V is now moved. Per the other issue, I use drugbox/pharma-stub for approved drugs, but I currently think chembox/chemistry-stub may be more appropriate for investigational agents, and I'd prefer to be conservative about identifying molecules as "drugs". But if you could push a sentence through over at MEDMOS, I'd be happy to work with the consensus. --Arcadian (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's your reasoning, I think it's quite appropriate. I personally use {{pharma-stub}} even for investigational agents because {{chemistry-stub}} shouldn't be used for organic compounds, regardless of their application (we have {{organic-compound-stub}} and its subcategories for that), but feel free to continue using the chembox if you prefer. There's still a lot to work to be done regarding our categorization of compounds as drugs (I recently had a minor argument over it at WT:CHEM), and perhaps I would be wise to follow a more conservative approach myself. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interventions infobox template

Hi, I've just been looking at the above template and trying to understand it. What is the reason for the ICD-10 field? ICD-10 does not have an interventions classification. Canada, Australia, the UK and the US have all developed their own - none of which are called ICD-10. This is not the same as ICD-9-CM in which the procedure classification is a part of the base classification. The WHO have taken the Australian classification and released a highly simplified version of it as ICHI (International Classification of Health Interventions), but it is really too broad to be of much use on Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the ICD-10 field in the Template:Interventions infobox was for ICD-10 Procedure Coding System procedure code. --Arcadian (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• What should the uppermost pharm category be (i.e. the category that should contain all pharm-related content... not just drugs)? I posted this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization. kilbad (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's define Category:Pharmacology as level-1. First, I'd recommend looking at Template:Pharmacology. This is a good summary of many of the subjects which relate to pharmacology in general (and usually appear in the first section in any pharmacology textbook) but not to any organ-specific section or mechanism. The book I have in front of me calls this "general principles of pharmacology", but that's not useful for a Wiki category, so I'd recommend something like "pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics" as a level-2 category. The other two level-2 sisters could be "pharmacological agents" and "pharmacological mechanisms". The agents would be the individual molecules (or monoclonal antibodies, or polymers, or vaccines) and the mechanisms would be for pages like neurotransmitter uptake inhibitor and channel blocker. I'm assuming your interest is in "pharmacological agents", so we won't worry about drilling down the others right now. At level-3 under "pharmacological agents", create two categories: "pharmacological agents by organ system" and "pharmacological agents by mechanism". At level-4 under "pharmacological agents by organ system", follow ATC as closely as possible. At level-4 under "pharmacological agents by mechanism", follow DrugBank as closely as possible. Don't worry about trying to classify by chemical structure (unless the mechanism is unknown and so we can only infer a mechanism from the structure), because the fine folks at WP:Chemistry have been and will be doing this independently of your efforts. --Arcadian (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I put an outline of what you're proposing at WT:PHARM:CAT, and posted a follow-up comment. Thanks again. kilbad (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I posted a on outline for first level ATC sections --> category names at WT:PHARM:CAT. What do you think? kilbad (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a note indicating my support for the proposal. --Arcadian (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I replied... also, are you watching that page? If so, I will stop bothering you here? kilbad (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have that page on my watchpage (every page I edit is automatically added to my watchlist). I both appreciate and support the classification work you are doing, but I'm not going to be able to offer feedback at every stage of the process. --Arcadian (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcadian, thank you for your help in the past with WT:PHARM:CAT. Some additional progress has been made with the proposed categorization scheme, and I just wanted to leave a few follow-up questions here, if you had time to give me feedback. However, I have read and appreciate your last post of this thread, and understand if you are too busy at this time to give me a comment!

Some specific question I have for you are:

• With regard to your initial suggestion for a "Pharmacological agents by mechanism" category, which has slowly evolved to "Drugs by mechanism of action," had you envisioned subcategories of it to contain subcategories that are (1) broad in scope, like Category:Receptor agonists or (2) more specific in scope, like Category:Serotonin receptor agonists? I posted this question in the current discussion, but there is no clear consensus yet.
• Right now, most of the ATC level one category names have been agreed on by rough consensus (I will request more "support or oppose" threads in the discussion as time goes on), and ATC level 2 categories are under discussion now (...still needing a lot of work). From my perspective, those are all the ATC categories I need for my project, but do you think the third ATC level and/or deeper levels should be somehow integrated into the categorization scheme as well?
• Finally, another issue that has come up in latter discussions is what to do with longer category names like "Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system, and sex hormones" and "Systemic hormonal preparations, excluding sex hormones and insulins?" Attempts to remove the term "sex hormones," etc., from these names leaves articles pertaining to sex hormones without a clear cut ATC category. How is an editor or reader going to know where to find them?

Well, thanks again for all your help. Also, I replied back with a direct fb link... kilbad (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:PBB/7273

Thanks for your quick response to my request to semi-protect the Template:PBB/7273 page. I was becoming tired of reverting all the "non-word" nonsense ;-) Best regards, Boghog2 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'm just being selfish -- all that time you spend fighting vandals could be better invested expanding my gene stubs. :) --Arcadian (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica

Thank you for your edits, not least the section headings. I should try and improve the clinical and patient care parts in future revisions of the article. Courrege (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your additions to the article. --Arcadian (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WASH6P

Hi. The WASH6P article is about a pseudogene and therefore is probably not notable. I hope you don't take offense, but I would suggest that this article should be deleted. The rest of your stubs were interesting and taught me something about the pseudoautosomal region which I was not aware of until now. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. I have deleted it. --Arcadian (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica could use your help!

Strombollii from the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 could really use your help on his current project: Osteitis fibrosa cystica. He has had trouble finding suitable information (in both verifiability and quantity) for the topic and is relatively unfamiliar to the style and formating for medicine articles on Wikipedia. As a friend, I told him I would gladly message those who I respected as fellow wiki-editors and who I believed could add to his medicine related article. You, of course (from your help and critizim in Osteochondritis dissecans), were one of my choices. So if you can spare the time, I am sure your help would be much appreciated. Again, thank you for your own help in my article... without you and several other editors, I would have never made GA. Cheers! Food_Puma 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. You did a wonderful job on your page, and I'm delighted to see you mentoring other students. It looks the OFC page is in reasonably good shape. I added a ref, fixed a spelling error, and put it on my watchlist. (Does your friend have journal access? If not, have him try this search.) I'm a fan of tables, and the Pathophysiology section of the article might be clearer if put in that format. --Arcadian (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

eMedicine template usage

Thanks for noticing :-) I came to this because I could not set up {{Infobox Disease}} on a new article for the new eMedicine website structure. I've now corrected in sequence {{eMedicine}}, {{eMedicine2}} and {{Infobox Disease}} along with documentation & talk pages too (ugh)!

Please have a look at {{Infobox Disease}} discussion page thread I've set up and improve the documentation if required :-) David Ruben ^Talk 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Brucellosis vaccine

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Brucellosis vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/aug05/aug15/Studyaimstofindnewvaccineto.cfm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag placed in error; removed. --Arcadian (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Plague vaccine

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Plague vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.drugs.com/cons/plague-vaccine.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag placed in error; removed. --Arcadian (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yellow fever vaccine

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Yellow fever vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccineInfo/vaccine_detail.cfv?id=28. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag placed in error; removed. --Arcadian (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Did you catch my note about Amoebiasis at WT:MED? I (respectfully) disagreed with your edits and provided a few sources, but you don't seem to have responded. Entamoeba has asked for MarcoTolo's opinion on the matter—just letting you know in case you missed by original post at the project. Best as always, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added more content at Amoebiasis in the last couple of weeks to help clarify the relationship between Entamoebiasis and Amoebiasis. When I posted at WT:MED, I asked for feedback at Talk:Entamebiasis. I (respectfully) disagree with your response at WP:MED, but it didn't seem productive to move the debate to that location. It would be useful to keep the discussion centralized, so future editors will be able to follow the discussion more easily. --Arcadian (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Disease vs Condition

Would you mind taking a look at a category renaming I proposed, and adding your input? Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_10#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages I ask, because I am most likely going to be proposing other renames in the future, and want to get a great consensus regarding the use of the word "condition". kilbad (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note there, supporting your proposal. --Arcadian (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. kilbad (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you still feel the same way, would you mind commenting again at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_26#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages as the first CfD was inconclusive? kilbad (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating unconnected vaccine stubs

I notice you have been creating a lot of disconnected stub articles about vaccines lately. Rather than creating a one sentence articles that aren't connected to the article about the item being vaccinated against, seems like it might make more sense to add the vaccine material as a section in the main article (with a redirect, as appropriate), until enough material collects to warrant a separate article. (Talking about things like Brucellosis vaccine, Japanese encephalitis vaccine, Tick-borne encephalitis vaccine, etc.)

At the very least, please add links to the new vaccine articles from the pathogen or disease article in question. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks and citing tool

Thanks for improving my cite at Dientamoeba_fragilis. Can you tell me what citation tool you use to do this quickly. I still haven't found a good one. I find manually filling in citweb very slow and guess there must be a better way.Mccready (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. The tool you're looking for is at User:Diberri/Template filler. --Arcadian (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I had used it before but didn't realise the best route might be via PMID, which I found from your remarks above. BTW congrats on an incredible contribution here.Mccready (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Borna disease split

When you split Borna disease into Borna disease virus, the most natural article name is actually Bornavirus. On top of that, there hasn't been (to my knowledge) a consensus in WP:VIRUS to separate the disease from the disease causing agent, and most of the articles aren't necessary long enough for a split to occur anyways. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Bornavirus. Per Borna disease: do you think the article is better now, or how it was two days ago? --Arcadian (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was better before the split; the information about Bornavirus was all grouped together rather than dispersed among the two articles, this makes it easier for the reader to access all(I think some readers won't be able to jump around so that can be another issue). Same applies to several other article, and it would have been helpful if you left a note in the discussion to help remind us which and what sections. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When you say "it would have been helpful if you left a note in the discussion", to what discussion to you refer? Only one message has ever been left at Talk:Borna disease, and that was almost two years ago. And both WP:Viruses and WP:Microbiology are essentially dormant:

WP:Virus's last 50 edits go back 416 days.

WP:Microbiology's last 50 edits go back 678 days.

By comparison, WP:Medicine's last 50 edits go back 2 days.

Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Before I made my edits, the article (which was created on 20 April 2004) had exactly one in-line reference, and that was to a dead link. The current version of Borna disease isn't perfect, but it is much closer to MEDMOS compliance. There is a general consensus that tiny articles without references should usually have the virus and the condition on the same page, and that larger articles with many references should usually have them split. Unfocused articles improve much more slowly than focused ones. But there isn't a consensus as to the exact dividing line. I wish there was an active and centralized microbiology community on Wikipedia with clear standards and a defined style guide, but there isn't one yet. But if you'd be interested in building one together, I'd be happy to collaborate with you. --Arcadian (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(ouddent) I said it was helpful, not policy. When I was looking at the article wondering what happened the virology section, I almost copied and paste it back in — and it took me a while to figure out where you've split it to (edit summaries work too, but discussions are more direct). I don't necessarily agree that splitting the disease and the disease causing agent will cause the article to be more focused; right now I think we should move virology back into Borna disease and then csd move it into the Bornavirus.

I've been to WP:MEDMOS and they seem more intent on getting the language right than worrying about how to draw the boundaries for articles. When I referring to other articles, I was a bit ambiguous, sorry about that. I understand why Rabies was split, but the virology section was grossly incomplete and I don't think it was a bit excessive to split it into Rabies virus. IMO the general consensus is essentially implied in WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOFF; however I don't necessarily agree that splitting off the virology would necessarily allow the article to be more focus.

A guideline discussing when articles should be divided and among what lines would be helpful; so let's organize our thoughts before we bring it to the community:

1. WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOFF implies when or if the article should be split
2. Virology should be split into scientific name, where as the main article would be in the common name
   1. For articles like Bornavirus where the common essentially adopts the scientific name and a spin off of the virology section would be unnatural (Bornavirus virus is unnatural), then it would be Virology of Bornavirus
   2. For articles where the the scientific name adopts the common name (e.g. Rabies), the split may be along the lines of Rabies virus
3. Epidemiology (that is the study of how it transmits, prevalence, so on) is split by similar means, but there hasn't necessarily been enough activity along these lines to draw any serious conclusions (I'm actually interested in starting an Epidemiology wikiproject if there are more people)

This is what I got. Point 2.1 seems a bit weak since we could also argue that "Borna disease" is the more natural name even though it seems unlikely that a reader would type all that into the search box (they'd more likely go through the infobox); so we could drop that one and give a "For the disease...". ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we're largely in agreement. Should we drill down to the genus, or the species? When I'm trying to figure out appropriate terminology, I often consult MeSH. Per Borna+disease+virus at the U.S. National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), "Borna disease virus" is the species, and "Bornavirus" is the genus. In my opinion, either could work as the title for a dedicated article about the virus, but I'd be happy to defer to you or others as to which would be more appropriate. (Certainly, virus classification is less mature than that of other pathogens.) Also, when you say "bring it to the community", which community do you recommend? I'm thinking we should work to try to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses and Wikipedia:WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists into Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, and then bring our thoughts to WikiProject Microbiology. (Although that project is inactive, I think it could become more active with a little creative nudging.) But I'm open to other approaches. --Arcadian (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need more than just inactivity for a wikiproject merge; the other approach would simply to let it be, and most people who are interested in the community can enroll in WP:MICRO just as easily as WP:VIRUS. I would bring it to WP:VIRUS first (also because I've been a part of it long enough to know some of the people), and then to WP:MICRO if we can get a consensus in WP:VIRUS; another reason to bring it to WP:VIRUS is that the issue have been essentially about virology and spinning off the virology section. I other news, I've redrafted point 2.1, now that our former example is no longer valid. If we have a go on points 1, 2.1, and 2.2 — then we can begin drafting the full proposal and rationale; and we can send a joint proposal to WP:VIRUS.

Ok, thanks for clarifying Borna disease virus, I'm actually quite a bit surprised that I didn't catch that, BVD is the species and Bornavirus is the genus; it's even listed in the infobox. Nevertheless, that redraws how we're dividing it, Bornavirus stays as it is; so the only issue left is to CSD move Borna disease to Borna disease virus (BVD is the most likely search term), and then writing a short virology section there. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to use WP:VIRUS, then I'm not confident that we can get enough eyeballs, but if you want to bring it there, let me know, and I will be happy to offer my support in that forum. --Arcadian (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses#Virus spinoff guideline or recommendation. I think you might be right, however I guess this can be our trial balloon to see how our idea fairs. ;) ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

MHC class I

This is the first time I have edited a page, so if I mess up please let me know. I am looking at your article on MHC class I, and noticed that you are the author of a change suggesting that sec61 transports extra peptides not displayed by MHC Class I into cytosol. Do you have a reference for this? Bfeuerstein (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved that content to its current location, but I didn't create it, so I can't affirm original sources. I've added some references to the article, but if you are aware of ways that the page could be improved, I'd be happy to work with you to make it better. --Arcadian (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MPRP

I forgot to ask, being part of the Main page redesign proposal, the project is essentially finished except for one issue, which requires a third party to help shed a new view point. This project has been going on for a while, and participation has gone quite a ways down; with this one issue resolved I believe we can get it over with. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem much different from the current version, but I have no problem with it. (I like the watermark.) --Arcadian (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good, can you add your comment to the "Header code fix" section? That's the last one essentially before we have to begin planning out a Straw Poll. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox question

Hi. I was just looking at the infobox that you added to the Zygote article way back in October 2007, and I'm curious about it. Is there any particular reason that the article should have an (essentially empty) infobox? I like infoboxes as much as the next person and I certainly don't want to be overly bold and remove something that has a purpose, but I don't understand it. The main reason I'm wondering about it is that the code has been vandalized (though it doesn't show up in the actual infobox; I stumbled across it quite by accident) and I was about to delete the vandalism, but then I began to wonder whether we need the box at all and I decided to go right to the source to find out. Also, if the box is serving a purpose, could you please explain to me why it says "Days -- 1"? That's stumping me. Thanks -- edi(talk) 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the box. --Arcadian (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your time. :) -- edi(talk) 22:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hemophilia

Why did you delete the list of support groups for the external links in this article I do not understand your comment: "Support group links: dmoz, per MEDMOS". Many of these are important sources of information, which is the purpose of this section I thought. I'm going to add back a number of the better of these unless you present some compelling argument otherwise (particularly the National Hemophilia Foundation). Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#External_links before restoring the links. --Arcadian (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ClinicalTrials

Template:ClinicalTrials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As creator, I am happy that a better version exists, and I have no objection to deletion or redirection. --Arcadian (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me just say, I looked through and categorized almost all of the templates you created. (I was bored, OK?!) You have done a huge amount of excellent work on medical and biological subjects. It almost makes me wish I had gone to medical school instead of law school.  :) (Incidentally, the legal field has been decimated by the ongoing recession/financial crisis, and there is very little work to be had. I'm guessing you doctors are probably still doing OK though.) --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 00:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but "doctor" is not a title I've earned. And I think if you saw the odometer on my car, you'd be working from a different set of assumptions. :) Thanks for the classification work you did. --Arcadian (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving chemotherapy

I'm not sure why you moved chemotherapy to chemotherapy (oncology). The page is currently about its most common use (cancer chemotherapy), and the intro already clearly disambiguates to alternative uses. Also, the move was not discussed. I've moved it back for the time being. JFW | T@lk 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind then if I move the details on that page to antineoplastic? Using "chemotherapy" as the overview for cancer pharmacology creates all sorts of cascading inaccuracies. Even when defined broadly, monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and hormone modulators are almost never considered chemotherapy (though some of these are sometimes considered targeted therapy). --Arcadian (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the chemotherapy article should only deal with actual chemotherapy drugs, but I think the term "antineoplastic" is inaccurate because benign tumours are also neoplasms. The whole world (lay and professional) refers to stuff like cisplatin or daunorubicin as "chemo[therapy]". At the same time, antineoplastic or cancer drug (presently a redirect) would be good container articles to discuss all pharmacological cancer treatment modalities (to the exclusion of surgery and EBRT). Perhaps this is good subject for a discussion on WT:MED. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on board for that. If you lay that out on WT:MED, I'll express my support. --Arcadian (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, we already have a very good container in the cancer article itself: the cancer#treatment section. Rather than creating more container articles, I have simply removed all the content on targeted therapy and hormonal therapy. Could I recommend that we turn antineoplastic into a redirect to cancer#treatment. The only content in that article that needs shifting is the section on occupational harm from exposure to cytostatics; this could actuall be merged into chemotherapy. JFW | T@lk 10:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the content at cancer#treatment is better than the content at antineoplastic, but if we merge, I think it makes sense to merge in the opposite direction. --Arcadian (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Phytic acid

Hi there

I removed the image of phytate because it is not the same as phytic acid. The image does not agree with the formula and MW in the box. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found the appropriate free acid image now, so it's moot. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Arcadian (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Drugbox

Thanks for quick responses. I think I've now got things set up for those 3 options of killed/inactivated bacteria/viruses, attenuated viruses and live bacteria. If on implementing this it looks all horribly wrong, feel free to revert the drugbox and its /doc to prior verions and we can re-work on this after my holiday :-) David Ruben ^Talk 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem -- and thank you, you did most of the work. --Arcadian (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Arcadian, I'm not sure why you changed Chronic lymphocytic leukemia to B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I left a message about it in Talk:B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

There are recent sources that refer to T-cell CLL, so I wonder why you reject them. Nbauman (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Response here. --Arcadian (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job on the Thalassemia split per WP:SS

SBHarris 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Arcadian (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans ready for FA?

I am at a loss for how to improve the article as it stands. Recently my edits have mainly been focusing on minor copyediting, and at this point I feel as though it's time to jump the cliff and hope for the best. I was advised by my teacher (JimmyButler) to wait until my diagram images have passed OTRS verification. At that point, would you support a move for FA? Kind regards, Food_Puma 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I rarely get involved in the FA process, but I think your work has been extraordinary, and I would be happy to make an exception for you. Just let me know what you need, and when you need it. --Arcadian (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I just got image rights approved by the author for OTRS and sent the forwarded copy in. Hopefully we'll have verification complete within the next couple days and I can go ahead and nominate it. In the mean time, if you wouldn't mind looking for MoS issues and/or things like sentence fluency, I would appreciate it. I find myself in a bind for time between school and work, as I'm sure you do too, so any help is always a sight for sore eyes. Amazing how far we've come, eh? :-) Food_Puma 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any major issues (though I am not as experienced with FA standards as others are). I've added a supportive note at Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans. Let me know when it is nominated. --Arcadian (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mohs surgery

Would you look at a thread for me, someone expressing concern about some recent edits: User_talk:Kilbad#Nickcoop.2C_the_GP_from_New_Zealand_is_attacking_the_Mohs_surgery_article_again kilbad (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Cyclonenim has taken care of what needs to be done for now. However, seeing that this has gone on for years, you're probably looking for a longer term solution. Here's what I recommend: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is missing specific guidelines for articles about procedures. My reading of the community is that there is a consensus that this is needed. There are new suggestions every few months, but no one has taken the initiative to drag it across the finish line. With clear guidelines, many disputes melt away. Your experience with your dermatology and pharmacology proposals have probably shown you what is needed to make this happen: you need to be patient, polite, precise, disciplined, detailed, and relentless. I have too much on my plate right now to initiate this, but if you take the lead on it, I can help put my shoulder to the boulder. (And if you succeed, it would look nice on your wiki-resume if you'd be interested in adminship at some point.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sclerosis (medicine)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sclerosis (medicine), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Sclerosis. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue

I see you've edited this template several times. I'd appreciate your input here on merging Skin ulcer and Ulcer (dermatology), and how to handle the link in the template. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. --Arcadian (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help. Also, with regard to skin ulcers, if you have a preference with regard to the actual article name and redirect, feel free to change it. I did not have a strong preference as to which was the article, and which the redirect. kilbad (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Endocrine-related skin conditions

I wanted to know if the you would review a recent CFD I posted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_21#Category:Endocrine-related_diseases_and_the_skin. I am looking to get more opinions. kilbad (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added my support. (Also, per your last message a few sections above -- I'm supportive of the most recent versions of the proposed pharmacology classification, and in my opinion, the last few implementation decisions are probably best addressed as they arise. I think it's just about ready to implement.) --Arcadian (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I think WT:PHARM:CAT is coming along. I just want to let it sit for a little longer to make sure everyone has a chance to give input. Thanks again for your help with that discussion. kilbad (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also...

Are you a US medical student? If so, have you decided what you want to go into? If not, can I talk you into dermatology? Maybe you can do an away elective at my academic institution in Chicago? ;) kilbad (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a US medical student. If you're in or near Chicago, we should have coffee. --Arcadian (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I did medical school at Loyola, am doing my transitional year at St Francis in Evanston, and am doing my derm residency at UIC, starting in June. Yeah, we should have coffee. Are you married or dating? Maybe I can bring my wife? kilbad (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. --Arcadian (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Project Charity - The Children's Rare Disease Network

Hi Arcadian: I am adding links in the lysosomal storage disease area to The Children's Rare Disease Network and now I see that these links are not up after I spend considerable time putting them on Wiki today. I added the links which are appropraite for people who suffer from rare diseaes, especially the children's diseases. This is a non profit organization that is the main hub for families who are dealing with rare diseases of all types. Some of these small rare disease states do not even have non-profits supporting them and they have no money -- The Project Charity -- The Children's Rare Disease Network will be the main non profit for families and kids to go to for support. Some diseases only have 200 kids worldwide -- certainly not a community and this is why I need to put up so many links. It's not like added links to the Cancer Page to the Cancer Society when millions are affected. This is the umbrella organization supporting Rare Diseases of all types. This site needs to be added to all the Rare Disease pages that are under represented -- this is their organization. Would you be taking down links to NORD if I put them up on Wiki? I read the rules and it appears to be appropriate given the nature of this organization and how rare each disease is. It's going to be lots of links for lots of different obscure or rare disease, many which have no organization support. I am a volunteer for them along with many other families who have children with rare disease. Chris | T@lk 26 February 2009

From my reading of the policies, the addition of dozens of links to the same exact URL (http://www.theprojectcharity.org) is not in accordance with the guidelines. I understand that you feel I am wrong in my interpretation. I am proud of our collaboration on Niemann-Pick disease, type C, and I believe that we share most of the same goals. I will recuse myself from removing this link in the future. However, I think that it is inevitable that it will be removed by other editors. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:External links (especially (Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided), which contains much more detail about the relevant policies. --Arcadian (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arcadian, I am going to look into what you say more. One of the biggest challenges I faced in dealing with a rare disease that only affects so few is that there is no community -- there are very few organizations that support rare disease that impact children. Rare disease is different than any other disease state where there are thousands if not millions of people impacted. Part of the problem is the fractured nature of rare disease. I would love if there was just one link I could put up to help people. Are you interested in helping me with the rare diseases that have no information on them? I would like to keep working with you on this! I am very committed not only to Niemann Pick Type C and Lysosomal Storage Diseases but rare diseases in general. Chris | T@lk 27 February 2009

I would be very happy to. If you send me an email (click here), I could share my thoughts in more detail off-wiki. --Arcadian (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

List of skin-related conditions

• I have been going through Fitzpatrick's and Andrews' texts simultaneously to (1) create a comprehensive list of skin-related conditions, and (2) create stubs on any red links that appear in that listing. Ultimately, I also want to do the same with Rook's and Bolognia. However, before I get too much further in the process, I wanted to get your feedback on a couple things.
• Within the listing, I am only placing intext citations for introductory sentences at the beginning of each section. I have not been placing citations next to every disease name and synonym, but am leaving it to the actual articles to do. Is that ok? My rational is that citing every disease name would get very cluttered and cumbersome.
• With that being said, I simply created a bibliography citing Fitzpatrick's and Andrews' as sources for the listing, and placed a footnote indicating so. Is this ok to do?
• What other thoughts do you have? I just don't want to be wasting my time if I am doing something wrong.
• Also, I emailed you back. kilbad (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I am a strong opponent of unlinked bibliography sections, but I see some of the nosological challenges in front of you. I think that if you have two different sources that a condition exists with the same name (excluding minor orthographic variants), I don't think you need to source the existence of a condition on a list page. You should be cautious, though, about including conditions that exist in only one one of the books. I'd also like to encourage you to create more navboxes to link the new articles together (I know you're putting most of your effort into categories, but with the navboxes, I think it's easier to convey subtle relationships.) --Arcadian (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply. With regard to that list, I will be cautious when adding conditions that exist in only one book. However, in general, all the unabridged derm books have a lot of overlap, so I do not anticipate that happening often. Also, as I go through the list and categorize the diseases, I am making sure all the disease names and synonyms are cited in the actual articles. I am big into copious inline citations of reliable secondary sources, and it was simply through editing this list that some questions with regard to referencing information came up (which I think we are addressing).
• With regard to navboxes, I do like them personally. However, being a former web programmer, and paying attention to page layouts, I wonder how many people actually use them, particularly when there are multiple boxes that are collapsed? Regardless, once I have almost all of the derm diseases listed, stubified, and categorized, I will make some more navboxes. I want to have all the diseases in wikipedia so I will be able to completely define the scope of any particular box, and not have to constantly be added to it. kilbad (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I added an intro to the List of skin-related conditions and wanted to know what you thought of it? kilbad (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Also, I was looking at the edit history for List of skin-related conditions, as I thought I had created the page (honestly I cannot remember), but the history prior to your move of the list to skin diseases is missing. Do you know what happened to it? kilbad (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Colour schemes for templates

Please see my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:CNS_diseases_of_the_nervous_system My status as a wikipedia dissident unfortunatly dictates my use of IP addresses rather than an account. Thanks 79.72.116.123 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Response here. --Arcadian (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Heart Failure

Imagine heart failure split into systolic and diastolic halves, then ponder each half split left and right. Mathematical models come to mind in an equation stretched over 70 years in good health. Adolph Fick first introduced Cardiac Output readily echocardiographically extrapolated to Ejection Fraction. (unsigned, by Lbeben)

? --Arcadian (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd editing behaviour at Babesia article

Hi. I note that you created the Babesia article. This page has been heavily edited by a temporary account (‘Nmunabi’) who apparently has knowledge of the subject. (I am not an expert in this area.) Yet he/she destroyed all the wikilinks and all the inline references. I don’t understand why. I reconstructed the references before realizing quite what had happened. So my question to you is, were this guy’s edits useful, or vandalism? What was he up to?

Appreciate your insight at the article talk page. Earthlyreason (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, Nmunabi's edits had three effects. (1) Update the taxonomy in the infobox. I agree with the edits. (Protist classification is notoriously contentious, and very inconsistently applied in Wikipedia, but Nmunabi's terms are more up-to-date.) (2) Place a greater emphasis on disease. This I disagree with. Disease-specific additions should be added to Babesiosis. (3) Undo inline citation. Of course, you and I both disagree with this, and in my opinion, the benefits of his edits don't outweigh the long-term harm done by fixed numbering of citation (though since you've already updated the citations, the issue is moot. Thank you for doing this.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I hope you don't mind if I repost this at Talk:Babesia. Your further input on that discussion would be much appreciated. We hope to sort this out, but are short of expertise. Earthlyreason (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vitellin

Hi, how are you, i think its very short article, please try to add more to it, so it will not be deleted by other editors, from other wikiprojects than medicine, for me i appreciate the importance of every contribution to the project Maen. K. A. (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Valvulitis

why there is no article?? I guess many lines can be written about this subject Maen. K. A. (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. My only involvement in that article was to categorize it. I was not involved in creating it, or in blanking it. General policy questions would be better directed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. --Arcadian (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thalamocortical radiations

Hi. In the course of typo fixing just now I came upon this article and corrected several typos and made links in the last paragraph. Looking at the whole article I then noticed that (a) this paragraph was out of place, (b) it was added only four days ago by an IP who has no other edits, and (c) though it seemed to make sense, it wasn't clear to me that it was directly relevant to the article. I see from the history that you have edited the article and are maybe qualified to decide what to do about this addition. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at the addition, it seems relatively accurate and germaine (see D'Arcangelo G, D'Antuono M, Biagini G, Warren R, Tancredi V, Avoli M (2002). "Thalamocortical oscillations in a genetic model of absence seizures". Eur. J. Neurosci. 16 (12): 2383–93. PMID 12492433. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)). I'd recommend throwing a fact tag on it, and then see if the author comes back. --Arcadian (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've done that. JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hepatitis B Virus split

I know that this is getting to be a bit of an issue again, but I oppose the split in Hepatitis B virus. Described in greater detail in the discussion, I think we need a clearer line as to when a split may be done. In my opinion, including the virology along with the medical aspects and so forth is an effective method of allowing the reader to see the entire subject, before they specialize into what they're looking for. Obviously there are some limitations to that, such as audience sophistication—as whether or not the can actually understand the section Microbiology. So I believe we should hold off on dividing articles unless it proves necessary. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Response here. --Arcadian (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Meat Loaf discography

In the last few weeks anonymus users made several attempts to write new data without source. Plese help (for example: you could partial block this article so only users with account could change this article).

Sunset2007b (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had no involvement with that. I see you've already left notes on the talk pages of five administrators. As I've written at the top of this page, "If you are contacting me because I am an admin near the beginning of the alphabetical list, please first read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution." --Arcadian (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHARM:CAT: I am ok with moving forward...

I left a response to your comments and am ok moving forward with the categorization of pharmacology articles. kilbad (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Protbox disease?

Hi, I was cleaning up some of the templates in the category:medicine templates and came across {{Protbox disease}}. I am not sure what it's purpose is, but it doesn't seem to be used for anything at this point. Since you originally created it, thought I would ask what it is for (if you remember way back when), or whether it should just be deleted at this point. (Didn't want to propose it for deletion if still useful.) If still useful, maybe we could add a line or two explaining purpose? Thanks. Zodon (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected it to Template:Protbox. (It was part of a modularization process that has since been superseded.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Turbinate or Nasal concha?

Hi, I was puzzling over why the article was moved from "Turbinate" to "Nasal concha", as I am long familiar with the former but not the latter. (Also, I googled both terms, and "Turbinate" gets about 10 times as many G-hits.) The name change isn't mentioned on the talk page, but I finally spotted the page move in the edit history, with your edit summary, "more general term". Could you take a minute and elaborate on that? Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nasal concha" is Terminologia Anatomica, as shown at Template:Google books with page, and per MEDMOS, that's the recommended standard. That said, if you're sure that "Turbinate" is more appropriate, and you want to move it, I won't revert (though "Nasal turbinate" would be better than "Turbinate", because without the qualifier, it can simply refer to a shape.) --Arcadian (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for turning my attention to that, and i moved it here :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Arcadian (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome ;-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mastitis Splitup

Hi, thanks for the work on this, however I am wondering if the splitup is not into to many articles. From the nonpuerperal section, some forms have common aetiology/pathogenesis including treatment, likewise much of the literature applied for several sections at a time.

The classification in medical literature is so ambiguos and overlaping that separate articles may make sense by lexicologic or historic criteria but not otherwise. I started working on an overview of classification section recently, somewhat of a nightmare. For some authors everything is duct ectasia while other like to classiffy it into single atoms and german or italian publications use their own scheme.

Lots of stuff went missing in the splitup? From the nonpuerperal section you have retained the more exotic parts, the ordinary unspecific nonpuerperal mastitis is completely missing (or maybe that is part of the classification problem?) as is the overview of pediatric issues and mastitis neonatorum that was at least mentioned in the introduction.

If you have any thought on this please move the discussiun to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mastitis

Richiez (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit on my talk page is the only edit you've made this calendar year. I appreciate your perspective on mastitis, but ultimately these issues will have to be resolved by the community of editors, and this is not compatible with the standards defined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). --Arcadian (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit counting mode? I have done a few substantial contributions and could not care less about comments regarding quantity. Large parts of that article were written by me so I would really appreciate comments on what should be done better. I think it is a good idea to have separate articles on puerperal vs nonpuerperal mastitis but for now it might be better not to subdivide it further. The text fragments do not give much sense on their own and lack introductions. The fragment about granulomatous mastitis actually describes idiopathic GM (not your fault and fixing it was on my list for too long). Was the intro to nonpuerperal mastitis removed just by accident or was it in some way deemed inappropriate? What about the symptoms subsection? "not compatible with standards" is just too vague for me to dare any bigger contributions. Community of editors? I wish there were a few more for this article but you can blame almost everything in that article on me Richiez (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue wasn't a low edit count; the issue was that you were gone. Are you coming back as an active editor? Also, have you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)? It should be self-explanatory, but if you have specific questions, feel free to ask, either here, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. --Arcadian (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be back, have a few articles that I want to improve but no definite timeframe. I did reread the style manual and and see quite a few things that I would do better today but explicit criticism is always wellcome. What is giving me the hardest time is some kind of sensible classification of benign breast conditions. The terminology is abundant with synonyms, almost synonyms and misunderstandings. One thing that I was contemplating was a separate page like "Classification of benign breast conditions", giving not much details but collecting knowledge about synonyms and historical usage and such things. Richiez (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Category moves

Referring to your offer at WT:PHARM:CAT: Could you move Category:Immunosuppressive agents to Category:Immunosuppressants and Category:Chemotherapeutic agents to Category:Antineoplastic drugs?

Also, do you know of an existing category to move to Category:Drugs for endocrine therapy? – I don't want to create it without getting a second opinion. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For the first item: I'm so sorry -- looking closer, I realize that there is no way (that I know of) to move a category from one name to another without updating each linking page. For the second, the existing Category:Hormonal agents or its parent Category:Systemic hormonal preparations may be what you're looking for. --Arcadian (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like it will be a lot of work until we've got this categorisatoin implemented ;-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re

I replied to your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Looking_for_opinions_about_category_names. Thanks again for your feedback. kilbad (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Odds and ends

During the course of editing these past several weeks there have been a few issues that have come up, some of which I have posted at WP:MED, but all of which still need someone to sort through. Perhaps you could look at the following items and make any changes as you see fit:

• Are Childhood dermatomyositis and Juvenile dermatomyositis the same thing? If so, a merger might be in order.
• With regard to Maduromycosis and Mycetoma, should these articles be merged? I have a secondary source stating that they are the same thing.
• Are all the Acrocyanosis articles worth a merger?
• Should Carotenoderma and Carotenosis be merged?
• Recently Squamous cell carcinoma was moved to Squamous-cell carcinoma. Is the dash necessary?

Ok, thanks again for your help. ---kilbad (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes to all but the last. However, we're probably now getting to the edge of the consensus. In borderline cases, if you've got a source that says they're the same thing, then add a reference for that assertion. I sometimes find it helpful to add a "terminology" section near the top when different sources say different things. --Arcadian (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if I deferred the mergers to you? ---kilbad (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how it works. :) But if you have any questions about the best ways to move forward, I'm happy to offer my perspectives. --Arcadian (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Aldehyde dehydrogenase gene articles

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Hello Arcadian. I noticed you've created a lot of aldehyde dehydrogenase gene articles, and I think you deserve a barnstar! Rosiestep (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please visit

Please visit User talk:NifCurator1. I believe your knowledge of {{tl:Infobox Disease}} would be invaluable. LeadSongDog come howl 18:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Navboxes for peptide hormones / neuropeptides

Hi Arcadian.

Now that there are a number of selective ligands for neuropeptide receptors, I decided to make a navbox to link together the pages so far. However on completion of this box I am thinking some of these peptides like cholecystokinin are not really neuropeptides and are more peptide hormones, and so should perhaps go in your peptide hormones template instead?

I'm a bit unsure as many of these peptides like Corticotropin-releasing hormone have multiple sites of action throughout the body and brain and so do not fit neatly into either category...your advice, suggestions etc would be appreciated as always. Meodipt (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit - Ok I think I'll split them, how does this look. Meodipt (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I like them. I enjoy following your work, and I know you know more about this subject than I do. I think I see some redundancies that would require some reorganization over the far horizon, but that's a problem we can probably only solve iteratively. My only suggestion is this: these navs will probably proliferate, and we can't now anticipate everything we'd need in the future, so it would be useful to be able to find them all quickly. So, rather than put the navs in a broad category "Drug templates", mimic the initiative at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization, and create subcategories at the nav level that echo the classification of the individual drugs (so, these would go under an "agonist and antagonist" which would be under a "by mechanism". --Arcadian (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah obviously there will be redundancies in time, I just wanted to get a navbox or two made as a base to expand on. I was thinking whether I should make seperate boxes for e.g. "neuropeptide agonists" and "neuropeptide antagonists" like how there is for serotonin but decided against it for now, mainly because for technical reasons almost all drugs targeting these receptors so far have been antagonists, but I felt it would be more helpful to the reader having the endogenous agonist listed alongside. Can always be split later anyway if heaps of neuropeptide agonists get invented. Agree that these navboxes may grow quite large with time considering how many neuropeptide GPCRs there are which have yet to be studied in detail!! Meodipt (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

PETN references edit

Hey... When you did this edit you removed the main reference on PETN (Cooper's book) which was not in a ref tag above, but merely listed in the references section.

Please be a bit more careful...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Look closer. Cooper's book wasn't tied to the article. There isn't even a page number listed. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and in the future, please be a bit more careful. --Arcadian (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Doege-Potter syndrome

Greetings your magnificence (anyone over 100K worth of edits gets a title; at 150K, you get a toaster).

I've created the above page and asked for a comment at WT:MED#Doege-Potter syndrome, but what I'm keenly interested in will be how it fits into the myriad template navboxes you created. Since that seems your purview, would you do the kindness of selecting an appropriate one or selection?

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at the article, but I can't figure out if Doege-Potter refers to the tumor itself (making it an ectopic endocrine tumor) or the distal sequelae of the tumor (making it paraneoplastic). I think there should be a lower bar for adding navs to an article than for adding articles to a nav, so for now I've simply added added two navs to the article. --Arcadian (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I can skim, DPS is a paraneoplastic syndrome - a 5% circumstance where a fibrous tumour produces IGF-2. The tumour produces IGF-2 directly (so it's not a distant sequelae) but it's also not a tumour of the islet cells of the pancreas (most seemed to have been removed from patients' lungs and I'd be interested to know if that's the sole location the tumours are found). My interpretation is quite suspect because I've only read one article in its entirety, the rest it's all what I could skim from the abstracts. I gather there is at least one review article out there somewhere based on offhand comments in the abstracts, but I didn't turn it up. So overall my guess is it would be more appropriate for the paraneoplastic syndrome nav box because it's not a tumour on an endocrine gland (it's associated with non-islet tumours) but I leave it up to you and WT:MED to decide. Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

If available, your comments would be appreciated regarding 3rd and 4th level ATC categories. ---kilbad (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Barnstar

		100,000 Edits
		I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________

Thank you! --Arcadian (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Antidepressants template

I have a dispute with another editor. Your comments would be appreciated.Meodipt (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Antidepressants template

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Bacteria classification

I'm sorry. I use broken English.

Which classification system are you using?

I think that your classification system is similar to Thomas Cavalier-Smith.

This classification isn't universally accepted.

A few classes are doubtful and probably should be left off.

Moreover, Thomas Cavalier-Smith includes Dictyoglomus and Thermotoga in Posibacteria(Unibacteria). But, your classification includes Dictyoglomus and Thermotoga in "outer membrane present".

Instead, I plan to use Bergey's Manual.　--Krclathrate (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

こんにちは. Let's work together. What classes are doubtful? --Arcadian (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Did you use [4]? I think that this is a speculative hypothesis. --Krclathrate (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue this at Template talk:Bacteria classification. --Arcadian (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I used Gracilicutes and Terrabacteria in Japanese wikipedia. Thank you!

I want to use Eurybacteria. However, I hardly know Eurybacteria. Please teach me the research of Eurybacteria. --Krclathrate (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added another reference to the article. I will try to expand the article more, but it will take time. --Arcadian (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Statistics: ARP

Hi, Arcadian!

Checked your AR and ARP (also seen as AR% or EF etiologic fraction) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ARR_RRR_worksheet, values are correct but they only make sense for risk reduction (ARP gives the portion of cases attributable (and avoidable) to this exposure in relation to all cases). You might want to remove the -300% and add this explanation to the ARP-page, too, otherwise the value of -300% is quite confusing.

In the case of risk reduction the value of PF preventive fraction (or preventable fraction) = 1-RR (or 1-OR) would be correct to use.

Also the question of "how much is enough" arises, because we could start adding PAR and PARP/PAR%... which brings us a long way from the initial (simple) example ;)

T.pienn (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Set the (mathematically correct but practically unused) 300% to N/A, included PF instead.

T.pienn (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Created the accompanying article to preventive fraction. Have a nice weekend!

T.pienn (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Axillary a.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Axillary a.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Common Good (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) That was updated by Nephron, not by me. (2) I have no objection to it being deleted. --Arcadian (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Amoeba

Were you planning to update the links to Amoeba to point to the new location? I can do so if you like. –xeno ^talk 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, this is  Done. Don't forget that when you do something like this you create many links to disambiguation pages that need updated. –xeno ^talk 14:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

er? are you reversing your page move? –xeno ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the articles? --Arcadian (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you moved amoeba to amoeba (genus), they linked to amoeba. Now they link to a disambiguation page. The links should be updated to point to amoeba (genus), which is where they originally pointed, not to a disambiguation page. –xeno ^talk 17:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the articles. --Arcadian (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at them as I was performing the updates. These links originally pointed to the article that now resides at Amoeba (genus). When you moved it to that location, the links began pointing to a disambiguation page, which is generally inappropriate. Perhaps you would like to explain further your reasoning for mass reverting the fixes. Where should they link if not Amoeba (genus) ? –xeno ^talk 17:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe your assumptions are correct. Please read more carefully the articles you piped from Amoeba to "Amoeba (genus)". --Arcadian (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes.

“ Amoeba proteus, previously Chaos diffluens, is an amoeba ”

The link provided, is to a disambiguation page. Is our dear reader to guess which of the links on the page the Amoeba proteus is? Is it a software company? A distributed operating system? Perhaps, rather than speaking in vague language you could tell me a better target for these links rather than inappropriately pointing our readers at a disambiguation page. –xeno ^talk 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From Seven Seas Lagoon:

“ Swimming was also allowed in the lagoon until it was discovered that the lagoon was harboring very dangerous amoeba Naegleria fowleri ”

From Paramecium:

“ Giant amoebas, for instance, have types of endosymbiotes, ”

From Boiling:

“ Boiling water for a few minutes kills most bacteria, amoeba, and other microbial pathogens. ”

Seems entirely reasonable to point amoeba to amoeba (genus) in these cases, which are indicative of most of these links. I shall re-implement the bot edits shortly, barring a proper explanation of your irrational mass-reversion. –xeno ^talk 18:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assumptions, and I wish you'd read up on the subject before doing this, but if you want to revert, and you are sure you want that on your edit history, then do what you feel you need to do. I will refrain from editing "amoeba" or "amoeba (genus)", or any pages you move them to, for the next six months, and if you want to apply piped links again, I won't revert. --Arcadian (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of being difficult, you could explain #1 why you feel a link to a disambiguation page is appropriate or #2 where instead these links should point? When these links were made, they pointed to the article you've now moved to Amoeba (genus). I understand you've edited this page somewhat so that it now describes only the genus and not "the genus and protists that move by crawling" but the latter generic term now seems to be unrepresented in our article base. Are you going to be creating this article? Many of the links do refer to amoeba, as a genus. Some of them refer to "a protist that moves by crawling". If you create the latter, a dab could be placed at the top of Amoeba (genus), and you, or I, could review the links to Amoeba (genus) to see if they should in fact point to the new article. Again, your vague language isn't helpful here. –xeno ^talk 18:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You've just told me that Naegleria fowleri is a member of Amoeba (genus). A continuation of this discussion would not be productive. I've already told you that you may do whatever you want, and I won't revert you. I believe that others eventually will, but I think I'll sit this battle out. I will not be responding to further comments from you on this issue. --Arcadian (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well it appears that everything you read in Wikipedia isn't quite true. Thank you for your evasive, holier-than-thou attitude. It saddens me I never made it to medical school so I could learn to be arrogant as well. –xeno ^talk 18:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Butting in here: In the case of the Naegleria fowleri reference, would it be correct to replace amoeba with amoeboid rather than disambiguating to Amoeba (genus)? If so, it would be helpful, if you don't wish to fix all the links yourself, to give xeno some guidance in how to distinguish references to the true Amoeba (genus) and those that should point to amoeboid. If, on the other hand, my supposition is not correct, then the question remains: To which article should all those links point?--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi Arcadian, thanks for the good work here, I just want to ask you why did you redirect Arcella to Arcella hemisphaerica? And I noticed you also created many similar redirects. I am afraid I am strongly opposed to this type of redirects. I think leaving them as red links is the only (efficient) way to encourage other editors to start new articles on them; redirecting for the purpose of turning red links into blue kills that courage because it suggests the page does not need to have an article on its own. Mxipp (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First, let me commend you for your excellent work at Arcella. I am in complete agreement with your values, but I disagree with your assumptions. I created both Arcella hemisphaerica and the genus redirect on 6 May 2009, and you created the genus article the next day. This genus was characterized in 1832. Creating the redirect at the genus level accelerated the process of having an article at the genus level. --Arcadian (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was planning to start the article before you created the redirect. We studied it in brief last week and when I searched the English Wikipedia and found no page with the title Arcella, I started working on a new article (did not have time to post it till yesterday). Mxipp (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and look forward to collaborating with you on microbiology articles in the future. --Arcadian (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Metabolism

You do know that these were not orphaned references but a "Further reading" section, right? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to put them back, I won't revert, but I don't think they should be there. --Arcadian (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'd already reverted those unexplained deletions, and was coming here to ask you if you if this had been accidental. See Wikipedia:Layout#Further_reading for an explanation on the function of these sections. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you personally vouching for those books? --Arcadian (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When I removed the books, I'm asserting the article is better without them (and I think it is, if only for a better signal-to-noise ratio). When you restored them, you're asserting that the article is better with them. Are you sure it is? Per WP:Layout, that section is for "a list of recommended books..."; are you recommending them? None of those books are up-to-date, and none have an authoritative relationship to the article subject. The metabolism article has 123 references, many of them with live links, so the reader knows where to go to learn more. What does that list of books provide that can't be done better with a library ISBN search or Google Book Search? If we include those books, what are the criteria for books we wouldn't include? Those books were added years ago, when Wiki sourcing standards were more lax. If that book list hadn't been there, and somebody added them, would you support that addition? If so, I understand (though I disagree), but if not, we shouldn't lower the bar for legacy content. --Arcadian (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GM2 gangliosidoses

I'm not sure what your reason is for undoing the work that I did on GM2 gangliosidoses. Why don't you explain in the talk section for the article.Metzenberg (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Amoeba redux

I gave up our dispute and left it to you (with a slight tweak to the disambig page IIRC). But today I did notice an IP has made a few changes (Special:Contributions/69.86.152.95). This strikes me as a step backward, could you take a look? Best regards, –xeno^talk 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Per our discussion above, I recused myself from editing that page for six months. You are free to do as you please without my interference. You are, of course, also free to solicit further feedback from other editors. As I stated above, "I will not be responding to further comments from you on this issue." Given the tone of your prior round of feedback, I request that you not leave additional messages on my talk page. --Arcadian (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorization: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. You're comments would be much appreciated! Thanks. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. I hoped that would be useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Vaccines&diff=next&oldid=273827499 That seems to put it where I hoped it would go. Midgley (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. --Arcadian (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Biology of sodium article?

Anybody mind if I spit out the biological role? There's a lot more to say about it, but it's hard to expand in its current location. --Arcadian (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, I noticed you deleted the material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sodium&diff=286845700&oldid=286659666, but where did you PUT it? "Split out" in order to expand doesn't mean "delete and leave no summary behind." SBHarris 07:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Serum sodium and Urine sodium. --Arcadian (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please moderate the Regine Velasquez page. So many false claims, there are no citations.

So many users in that page keep on putting false claims about Regine Velasquez' achievements and talent, to the point that they make up fake 'achievements' about her so-called 'reign'. Velasquez is not famous all over the world, she has not sold one million records all over Asia. They keep sensationalizing her page by writing over hyped and false claims such as having a 'palatial house', albums selling over 10X platinum, that Regine rejected the Miss Saigon role, and so much more. Thank you.

I have had no involvement with Regine Velasquez. It appears that you contacted me because you were going through the "A"s. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for appropriate processes and resources. --Arcadian (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello, you and/or an issue you have been involved in is being discussed at the administrator's noticeboard here. Tan | 39 15:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on that page. --Arcadian (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DPWL

Glad we're moving forward... I just thought perhaps we could hack out what links to disambiguation pages you feel are appropriate. For example, in the most recent case, when the disambiguation page was at the primary location, Stropharia then linked to a disambiguation page when it should have linked to acanthocyte (mycology) [5], no? –xeno^talk 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the guidelines described at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and more generally at Wikipedia:Five pillars. To answer your second question would depend upon a more precise definition of the phrase "should have linked". If you mean that a link to "acanthocyte (mycology)" is better than a link to "acanthocyte", then I agree, and I appreciate your disambiguation of that link. But if you mean the position you posited at the Administrator's noticeboard, I remind you that you did not receive any support for your position. If you are trying to generate new policy, the best place to start would probably be at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. --Arcadian (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. The page you linked above, specifically, Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate states that ::

"The page at Michael Dobbs is about the primary topic, and there is only one other use. The other use is linked directly using a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed." (emphasis mine)

However, in exactly these cases you have been vacating the primary usage and creating disambiguation pages in its place. This is 1) unnecessary and 2) creating links to disambiguation pages. I realize that we cannot demand someone fix 2) because this is a volunteer project, but we can ask that they heed 1) - that this is unnecessary because a hatnote does just as well and in the spirit of WP:2DAB (a MOS guideline), disambiguation pages with only 2 entries are not really necessary. I hope this helps to elucidate my position and also demonstrates how guidelines support it. –xeno^talk 18:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cryptophyceae problem

Basically, it's all messed up taxonomically and systematically. I write you because I saw you disambiguated Cryptochloris, which is good, but that genus is apparently preoccupied by some grass (I suspect it's a junior synonym of Chloris or some other Chloridoideae). But online sources wildly vary. I'll try and figure out what's going on here; recent studies do not use the genus name for a cryptophyte, but the latest Cryptomonas revision does not figure it in the synonymy either. It might belong to the synonymy of Plagioselmis (which as it seems is much closer to Teleaulax than to Cryptomonas). In any case, I think if the homonymy is as given in the Index Nominum Genericorum, I should be able to figure out where the disambiguation ought to point to. That is the easy part...

Ah, the cryptophyte name has been conserved - see here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And though BLAST has little but the dreaded "uncultured" environmental samples in its vicinity, it does look like it's at least reasonably close to Plagioselmis. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Cryptomonads-haptophytes assemblage" infobox is in need of a major overhaul. The Pyrenomonadaceae (which lack Rhodomonas in the list) are the only family that any recent study finds to be monophyletic, the rest is just a mess. Pyrenomonadales would, if valid at all, be monophyletic. Here is what according to what I have seen (basically every study published within the last 20 years that has some phylo data on Cryptomonas at least) is the baseline phylogeny.

What should be done? The German Wikipedia for one is better here, and as I may well be tied down with a cryptophyte killing spree (all in the name of science) for the next half year or so, I might give it an overhaul eventually. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the German page you mentioned? --Arcadian (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cell envelope antibiotics

I noticed your rebranding of the cell wall antibiotics template to cell envelope antibiotics and the corresponding article. Is this a real distinction? It seems the polymyxins throw a spanner in the works of the accepted grouping. I notice though that the polymyxins fall into "J01X - Other antibacterials" section. Perhaps that template should remain cell wall inhibitors given the size and importance of this group, while these tricky cell membrane antibiotics would be added to the "Other" template. What are your thoughts on the distinction? (btw, they have all been extremely useful while recently revising for my medical pathology exams, so thanks!) |→ Spaully ^τ 23:36, 28 June 2009 (GMT)

I'm glad they've been useful. Per your question: I know these are always treated together as a logical class in the books I read (so I'd be reluctant to split out the membrane ones to "other"), but I'm not sure of what the optimal name of the parent class would be. One benefit of the name I used (cell envelope antibiotic) is that it is very close to the title of the web page used as a reference, and the reference is excellent (the online curriculum of the Medical University of South Carolina). I'm open to suggestions, though, or we could discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology if you'd like. When you state "accepted grouping", to which grouping to you refer? --Arcadian (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That probably is the best grouping, thinking about it. The only misgiving I have is that the template does not indicate explicitly which are cell wall synthesis inhibitors and which cell membrane disruptors; this seems especially important to me given the importance of the wide range of cell wall inhibitors. The only problem with this is that there are enough levels to that template already so I'm not sure of the best way to indicate this.

I am also looking to work on a table that might give a clear overview of how classes of antibiotics act, I think it would be of use in Antibiotic if not in a template. |→ Spaully ^τ 10:31, 1 July 2009 (GMT)

I could support that. Let me know if you need any assistance. --Arcadian (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hypertension

Hi, how are you doing??... I want your help in continuing the GA review for hypertension article, as the original reviewers seems busy, and had not commented for a while, and actually I put much effort for the hypertension article, from this to this, so I don't want it to fail, so please continue the review yourself or recommend a new editor to continue that :-) MaenK.A._Talk 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't promise that I can get it to GA, but I'll keep an eye on it and look for opportunities to help. --Arcadian (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anabolic steroids template

Hi Arcadian. The other compounds I had added redlinks for make up the remainder of the anabolic steroids prohibited by law in various Australian jurisdictions, and prohibited from use by athletes by the Olympics and other sports bodies. Some of these compounds are as you point out very obscure and do not have listings on PubChem, but still their legal prohibition alone gives them grounds to be deemed notable and encylopedic. Not too bothered whether the redlinks stay on the template or not, but I will add pages for them as I find references, ethyldienolone for instance. Meodipt (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. As long as there's a reference, then it's not a problem that it's not in PubChem (though in the absence of a CID, adding a CAS where possible would be helpful.) --Arcadian (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

P wave (electrocardiography)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of P wave (electrocardiography), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wtv-zone.com/MARCEY/EKG/ekgcycle.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a copyvio -- the copying is in the other direction. --Arcadian (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Age Ageing listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Age Ageing. Since you had some involvement with the Age Ageing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thinking of England (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to the deletion. --Arcadian (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(Cardiac) contractile dysfunction

We had a stub at this name, sadly useless, but should we have an article there? Or maybe a redirect? Many thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

Could you provide a link? --Arcadian (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Computed tomography

Can you let me know what you think about the redirects to the disambiguation page you created? I've started a discussion topic here. Thanks! Dekimasuよ! 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If "computed tomography", "CT scan", etc. almost always refer to X-ray computed tomography, lets move that article back and put the disambiguation page at Computed tomography (disambiguation). There are over 900 links to the disambiguation page at Computed tomography, but there's nothing there now to help the end user (or someone trying to disambiguate links) figure out which type is intended in any given context. I'm not sure the disambiguation page is fulfilling its intended use as a navigational aid here. If you object, please let me know, or at least visit the talk page I linked above. Dekimasuよ! 06:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

:I've split the difference with a redirect and hatnote, but if you wish to take a different approach, I won't stand in your way. --Arcadian (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, per WP:DICTDEF, perhaps the recent pages you've created would be better off as part of the main page on tomography, to which they link?  Frank  |  talk  12:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that approach, but if you wish to take them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I will abstain from the vote. --Arcadian (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If that were the next step, I'd expect you would participate in the discussion. But I'm asking here because I'm interested in your point of view. Do you realistically see these articles as full articles separate from the main topic? It seems to me they are one-paragraph (or less) descriptions that would wind up as a long list of "see also" entries in the main article.  Frank  |  talk  12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge Cerebellothalamic tract to Dentatothalamic tract?

I was thinking of merging A to B (an article you created hence why I am messaging you) based on the articles similarity with each other. The giveaway was the alternate name given in the cerebellothalamic tract. However, that page is unreferenced so I am unsure how accurate the info is and hence whether it should merge or not (in addition to the merger, a few of the other names should be made into redirects as well). Finally, if it is to be merged should all the info that is not on the main page be merged as well (or not?) considering it is unreferenced? Your opinion (or better yet, you agreeing and merging the articles!) would be great. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd support merging A to B, but I'd be cautious about how much of A to copy to B. According to BrainInfo, the terms aren't synonyms (BrainInfo lists "cerebellothalamic tract" as an alternate term for "cerebellorubrothalamic tract". In this context, "rubro" refers to the red nucleus.) And here's a free review: PMID 18193279. Note how the title uses the plural "cerebellothalamic tracts". In ambiguous cases like this, I'd recommend merging A to B, but adding fact tags for the merged content, so that if no one can support it, it can eventually be deleted without causing too much additional confusion. --Arcadian (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rhizaria not a Kingdom

Rhizaria, a taxon within the Protista, essentially emmends the Class Rhizopodea and too belongs at the rank of taxonomic class. Rhizarea (ex-Rhizopodea)unites three groups that are thought of as orders, the Cercozoa, Formaminifera, and Radiolaria and falls within the concept of the phylum Sarcodina.

Reverting back from my taxobox edit of 9/21/09 simply reinstates an inaccurate and misleading picture.

J.M. (JMtalk)

You put Rhizaria under Amoebozoa. It may be productive to solicit feedback from the broader community at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life. --Arcadian (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Animalia

In June you edited the Template Animalia, which ended up with Lophophorata appearing twice. I have tried to correct this, but I don't know if it's correct. You might want to check. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my error. --Arcadian (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A mini stub

Back in May 2007 you unredirected the article Galactan from Galactose. Since then the only edits have been bot ones, and none in the last year. Unless there is a good (i.e. scientific) reason why this one sentence article should not be redirected again to Galactose I think it should be done. I will leave the decision (and action?) to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why this page would be deleted. If you feel it should be, please raise the issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Arcadian (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of EMedicine

The article EMedicine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article does not meet the general notability guidelines - for inclusion, an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only source here is a primary source, hence the article is not verifiable. The references cited are not in relation to the organization. Please see WP:ORG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  10:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want this deleted, please propose it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, instead of using the abbreviated process. --Arcadian (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of EMedicine

I have nominated EMedicine, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMedicine. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Chzz  ►  21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I need your help

I'm editing an article about my department in Paraguay that is the Misiones Department. I'm having a problem with the infobox. Hope you can check it and help me. Regards.

Thanks

Hey, just a quick thanks for the good job that you have/are doing on Template:Cerebral cortex, its on my watchlist that's all ^_^ I would love to give you a cookie (::) because everyone deserves to feel appreciated, Regards, Captain n00dle ^T/_C 18:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

serotonin pathways

Hi -- I've been noticing your good work on neuroscience articles -- in this case though I'm having difficulty seeing any justification for having an independent article here, as opposed to a redirect to serotonin. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (PS, consider archiving some of the old stuff on your talk page?)

Let me express my appreciation for your work as well -- we don't cross paths very often, but I am quite aware of your excellent contributions. I agree that right now that serotonin pathways is sparse. However, I've got the goal of being able to create the pathways out from Raphe nuclei, and it would be a lot more self-documenting if that page could remain in existence. Could I beg your indulgence for now? (Also: do you know the formal names for the fibers projecting out from the raphe? I've been hunting, but haven't found much yet.) --Arcadian (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well; as you wish. Regarding the names of fibers, I don't recall any being given in any papers I've read. I'm not sure they form distinguishable bundles, as opposed to mixing with other things. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How are things going?

How is school? Did you get your Step I back? Any thoughts about pursuing a derm residency? Feel free to drop me an e-mail if you need any help with the residency application process.

Also, I have no doubt you are busy with clinicals, but if you have some time, perhaps you could help us with the Bolognia push 2009? I can e-mail you the login information for the online text, plus it would be a nice intro to derm for any future electives you choose to do.

Just a thought...

Brendan ---kilbad (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Up for lunch this weekend? I have a rare free Saturday coming up on the 21st. Drop me a line if you are. --Arcadian (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I dropped you an e-mail, but in case you did not get it, I could definitely do lunch this Saturday. Just e-mail me the time and where. ---kilbad (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Got your response. See you then! --Arcadian (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tubercle of the femur

Would you care to provide an oppinion to a query over at the Tubercle of the femur talk page? Thank you.Calaka (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Terminologia Anatomica, there are two tubercles listed under femur: quadrate tubercle, and adductor tubercle of femur. The best way I could think of to deal with the ambiguity is to move Tubercle of the femur -> quadrate tubercle, disambiguate, and then rewrite quadrate tubercle with a couple of references. --Arcadian (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Brain infarction

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've changed Brain infarction to redirect to Cerebral infarction instead of Infarction. Best wishes. Neurotip (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree -- thank you. --Arcadian (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hormones template

Good evening, Arcadian! I've started a duscussion about the three growth factors listed in the hormones template. You may be interested as author of numerous (great) templates. Best regards, --CopperKettle 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. I've also left a message on the talk page. --Arcadian (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tricyclics and Tetracyclics

Hello. I'd just like to say I completely disagree with your merging of the tricyclic antidepressant and tetracyclic antidepressant articles and I'd like to revert the changes. Thoughts/opinions? el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 02:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a recent, peer-reviewed publication that treats tetracyclics as a distinct named class with shared unifying characteristics? --Arcadian (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Talk:Tricyclic_antidepressant#Tricyclic.2Ftetracyclic_antidepressant. --Arcadian (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cerebellopontine angle

Hey, just to let you know, I tagged Cerebellopontine angle with {{copyvio}}. It looked too good to be true so I googled a random sentence (in quotes) and it brought up this page as an exact match. Just to let you know. Best regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 17:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Rather than go through the deletion process, I've created a new stub. --Arcadian (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Balanitis plasmacellularis

Hey, it was great meeting you the other day!

Also, I had a question... with regard to the condition balanitis plasmacellularis (see the actual stub for all the synonyms), my understanding from looking at Bolognia and Andrew's is that it can affect the glans penis or the vulva. Bolognia discusses the condition under the header "Zoon's Balanitis/Vulvitis." Therefore, I wanted to know if the article should be moved to another title that includes both the words "balanitis" and "vulvitis", and, if so, what the title should be? ---kilbad (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure meeting you as well. I'm no dermatologist, but I've added a few refs and done some reading, and here's my take: the balanitis form is the product of dubious nosology, but the vulvitis form is even more dubious. This just means inflammation+plasmacytosis. Everything else is just an attempt to regress common features based upon what was observed histologically. There's no common mechanism to pin down for a definition this broad, so the condition can only be defined relative to Zoon's original case. If there was a consensus in the literature then we'd need to reflect that, but since there isn't, I think it would be best to mention "Zoon's vulvitis" in the article, but not enshrine it in the article's title. I'd recommend using "Balanitis circumscripta plasmacellularis", because that's what eMedicine uses. --Arcadian (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Exanthem

You removed varicella from the list of exanthems in this revision [6] I am looking at the same text mentioned on the talk page (Murray et al) and it is certainly listed as one. Also, if this was intentional, you should probably remove it from the prevention section as well. Thank you JoshuaTree (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a quote of the sentence in question? --Arcadian (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The prevention section states, "Vaccinations now exist against measles, rubella and chickenpox." This is the only mention of varicella (chickenpox) on the page. So what do you think, remove chickenpox from this list or add varicella back to the list of exanthems? I am favoring the latter based on the Murray reference on the talk page, "The classic childhood exanthems are roseola infantum (exanthem subitum [HHV-6]), fifth disease (erythema infectiosum [parvovirus B19]), and, in unvaccinated children, varicella, measles, and rubella." Thanks in advance for your input, JoshuaTree (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and I apologize. Varicella is not one of the classic, enumerated exanthema, but you are correct that the term "exanthem" is also used in a broader sense. I do not object to its inclusion, and defer to your judgment. --Arcadian (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Genius

Well done for this very clever circumvention of the thorny copyright issues![7] JFW | T@lk 19:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And now... yes, you've guessed it

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And peace to you, my friend. --Arcadian (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Two redirects you created at RfD

Those would be J. Urol. and J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. Since you were never notified, I was wondering if you'd like to opine. For the relevant page, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 26. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to these redirects being deleted. --Arcadian (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey...

How's is it going? How is school?

Question: Would you consider moving Cherry hemangioma to Cherry angioma (or to any of the other diease synonyms: De Morgan spot, Senile angioma). I think the term angioma should be used, not hemangioma. Perhaps the term cherry hemangioma should not even have an article/redirect? Any thoughts? I will e-mail you the Bolognia login if you would like to investigate the issue in that particular source. ---kilbad (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Move_requested. --Arcadian (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Limbic lobe

Hi. I see you have replaced the reference to Terminologia Anatomica's description of "limbic lobe". I don't have access to any edition of the book at present. I've searched Google's scan of the 1998 edition but can't find its description of the limbic lobe. Are you able to get an edition and page number? If it's a hassle, don't worry. I go back to uni' in a couple of weeks. Cheers. Anthony (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Click here, and scroll down to "A14.1.09.230". That source doesn't include the footnotes, though, so here is the relevant footnote on the bottom of page 126 of the book: "Lobus limbicus: consists of structures which form a continuum on the most medial aspect of the cerebral hemisphere. These structures are not located internal to a bone of the same name, and therefore, do not share this feature with most other lobes of the hemisphere. However, structures forming the limbic lobe, as is the case for other lobs of the cerebral hemisphere, have functions that are characteristic of, and unique to, that lobe and are separated from adjacent structures by named fissures. Where the when the term lobus limbicus is not used, its constituent parts are considered as the medial portions of the frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes. --Arcadian (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have incorporated it as best as I can. Anthony (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase

There appear to be two articles with the same enzyme name:

• 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase
• 3-Hydroxyacyl CoA dehydrogenase

It seems to me they should be merged into one article. (Is there some reason they are separate?) I'm not sure I have the expertise to do it, but I would be willing to try. (You look to be pretty busy!) I'm guessing the first name would be the preferred one, so it should probably be the destination page? --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable trying to do this myself, since I'm not very familiar with this kind of very technical article, so I added "Merge" templates to both articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I've merged the articles. --Arcadian (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Neutropenia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Neutropenia , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation project

Hi there, I've started a list of the articles we should aim to include in the first wave of this project. We are aiming to start off by transferring about 100-200 articles into about several developing world language Wikipedias. It will hopefully expand after that. I've started a list here User:TimVickers/Article list. Please add articles that you think will be useful, and of reasonable quality. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Heparin

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Heparin/GA1. It appears that large parts of the article are copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bacillary peliosis

The article Bacillary peliosis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

obviously not notable and obscure

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 07:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The prod you added incorrectly stated that there were no references provided. --Arcadian (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Eye neoplasms

I just wanted to stop by to thank you for moving/renaming "Ocular oncology" to "Eye neoplasms." I never liked the previous name, especially since ocular oncology is a discipline and not a condition, and I'm glad to see the improvements in citations and links.Mdonken (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy to be of service.--Arcadian (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bladder pain syndrome (aka interstitial cystitis)

All new research refers to it as BPS or BPS/IC. See for example PMID 20025029 ► RATEL ◄ 05:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Note also that the name was officially changed by European Society for the Study of Interstitial Cystitis (ESSIC), see PMID 17900797 ► RATEL ◄ 05:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Response here. --Arcadian (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay!

It looks like the Javier Arias Stella DYK nomination is good to go. :3 Silverseren^C 13:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the expansion and formatting! --Arcadian (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just glad I was able to help. :) Now, onward! To other articles! Silverseren^C 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK credits for Javier Arias Stella

On March 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Javier Arias Stella, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Drug and med templates

Interesting idea, this (and similar edits). What do you think about expanding the abbreviations? They might seem a bit cryptic to the newcomer. Regards, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That could work, though it does run the risk of becoming too long, though. (I'm trying to keep the system-based-navs short enough to fit on a single line on most monitors.) But if you wanted to experiment with the appearance, I wouldn't object. And I'm certainly open to suggestions as to how best to deal with some of these that sit on the seams. (You might have noticed me slicing-and-dicing on ATC G lately, towards these ends.) --Arcadian (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I'll try and think of something readable and concise and let you know if I get a flash of inspiration. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Article you created sent to afd

Just letting you know, I nominated the page you created Extends for deletion, in case you wish to comment. Dew Kane (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I created it as a redirect, and it subsequently became a disambiguation. I'm not sure why you want to delete it, but I'm happy to defer to the consensus of the community. --Arcadian (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Zonule of Zinn

It is very sad that the zonule of zinn's article is 2 lines long. I tried to start a comprehensive article, both physiological and historical (with the appropriate references) but was deleted in its entirety by Lox, which I undid... and then again by you. Please let me know which portions you consider copyright violations (and why). Maybe we can figure a way to get this info out there. I studied the zonule for years, and was the first one to use eSEM to study the zonule. I have been published in peer reviewed journals on the subject, and wish to contribute to the wikipedia project. I even have some amazing eSEM images to share... Please advice. (Unsigned, from User:AnBeCa)

I'm sorry that you've found the process of contributing to Wikipedia frustrating, and I would be happy to mentor you and collaborate with you to help you achieve your goals. If you look at this link, you can see the content I deleted. When when content is added to Wikipedia using Parenthetical referencing but without including the actual references, it's usually because the content has been copied out of the body of a paper. Even when that's not the case, the content needs to be deleted. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", which means that there must be enough information provided to permit subsequent editors to confirm the accuracy of what has been added. Figuring out citation formatting can be one of the most disorienting aspects about contributing to Wikipeida, but I don't want you to give up. The technical details are available at Medmos#Citing_medical_sources, but in the short term don't worry about that. Do you still have the full references? --Arcadian (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sulci

Hi Arcadian. I agree that my inclusion of Cingulate sulcus in the merger of Cingulate gyrus into Cingulate cortex was over-enthusiastic – thanks for your attention to this.

It does raise an interesting issue though: 'sulcus' may refer either to a 'depression or fissure in the surface of an organ' (as defined at sulcus), or to the cortex contained therein. This leads to oddities such as the current text of Superior temporal sulcus: 'The superior temporal sulcus is the first sulcus inferior to the lateral fissure. It is involved in the perception of where others are gazing.'

Do you think this is potentially confusing? If so, should this be explained at sulcus, or should each '...sulcus' article be reworded, such as 'The cortex within the STS...'? Or am I making something of nothing? (I suppose 'gyrus' has an analogous pair of meanings, and that doesn't bother me so much for some reason...)

Thanks for your input as ever. Neurotip (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be a useful clarification to add to Sulcus (neuroanatomy), something like "although in the most formal usage, the sulci refer to demarcations between gyri, occasionally the name of a sulcus is also used as a landmark to describe the cortex on either side of the gyrus, in the same way that geographical borders can refer to land near the border on both sides." --Arcadian (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Mental and behavioral disorders

Hi Arcadian, I found a format that doesn't use extra vertical space. Please let me know if there's anything you don't like about it. —Codrdan (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've responded at Template talk:Mental and behavioral disorders. --Arcadian (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert to Myxedema

Hi, Can you explain the revert you did to the article??, and I cant understand why you didn't notify me before reverting my edit. please replay to my talk page MaenK.A._Talk 21:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take a closer look at the edit history. The reversion wasn't just of your edit, but of all the edits subsequent to the edit by Orlandoturner, which introduced many problems into the article, but was not noticed at the time. Further discussion would be best handled at Talk:Myxedema, to make it easier for other editors to follow the discussion. --Arcadian (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Myeloid blood tests

{{Myeloid blood tests}} is really very badly named. Nobody calls these tests by that name - it creates a level of organisation that does not exist in real life. Perhaps you could find a way of naming it better, but please change it. At any rate, coagulation has extremely little to do with myeloid lineage tests, unless you want to make it all dependent on platelets being myeloid. Again, wouldn't you prefer to organise this in a slightly different way? There are enough coagulation tests to put them in a separate box. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to putting the coagulation tests in a separate box. I also don't object to a different name. The goal was to get the old "blood tests" nav down to a more reasonable size, and to find the cleanest seams for the split. I do notice when reviewing paperwork and reference books that the tests involving RBCs and those involving platelets are almost always consecutive, so I do think this reflects a legitimate level of organization, even if the name for it is uncertain, in that they both affect conditions of the blood, and not just information found in the blood. But feel free to rename or regroup as needed. --Arcadian (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

mivacurium chloride

Arcadian-two comments - I noticed that you had added the ref for discontinuance of mivacurium in the US - that is not true in fact. It is still available in the US - it is just that it is not promoted heavily as it once was in the 90s - primarily because Glaxo got out of the anesthesia market in 1998/1999 - although the company still markets the portfolio including mivacurium in the EU. I therefore would like to have that false reference removed if possbile. Secondly, I have added material to atracurium, gantacurium and mivacurium - but I am handicapped by the lack of knowledge on drawing chemical structures on Wiki to illustrate some of the textual information - how can I solicit help from someone with this? Is there a sandbox equivalent for drawing chemical structures on Wiki? Thanks--Sanjay (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) I have removed the link. (2) A good place to start is Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing workgroup and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing. --Arcadian (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Sanjay (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I appreciate the fact that you're referencing your additions. You may find that User:Diberri/Template filler helps you in that process. --Arcadian (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

template:DSM personality disorders template:ICD-10 personality disorders

er excuse me. Its a cheek to merge these 2 templates without any prior discussion. You need to make the case first and it needs to be supported by others. I created template:ICD-10 personality disorders and did a lot of work on the template:DSM personality disorders.--Penbat (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't "make the case first" for your move. Wikipedia has guidelines against Wikipedia:Content forking. If you are certain that there should be two different templates providing different groupings of an almost identical list of conditions, I encourage you to get a consensus either at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia talk:Content forking. --Arcadian (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, please stop including external links in navboxes, per Wikipedia:Navigation_templates#Properties. --Arcadian (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alcoholism and alcohol dependence

Hi Arcadian, I see that you undid my redirect of alcohol dependence to alcoholism. Currently the alcohol dependence article has listed ICD10 which says that dependence on alcohol is alcoholism but you say they are not the same. What difference is there between alcoholism and alcohol dependence in your view?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Alcoholism is a term with no defined medical meaning. I've noticed you've referenced http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/who_lexicon/en/ a couple of times. Here's the first half definition from the World Health Organization: "alcoholism (F10.2) A term of long-standing use and variable meaning, generally taken to refer to chronic continual drinking or periodic consumption of alcohol which is characterized by impaired control over drinking, frequent episodes of intoxication, and preoccupation with alcohol and the use of alcohol despite adverse consequences. The term alcoholism was originally coined in 1849 by Magnus Huss. Untill the 1940s it referred primarily to the physical consequences of long-term heavy drinking (beta alcoholism in Jellinek's typology). A narrower concept is of alcoholism as a disease (see alcoholism, disease concept of) marked by loss of control over drinking, caused by a pre-existing biological abnormality, and having a predictable progressive course. Later, the term was used by Jellinek and others to denote the consumption of alcohol leading to any type of harm (physical, psychological, or social; individual or societal). Jellinek subdivided alcoholism thus defined into a series of "species" designated by Greek letters (see Jellinek's typology). The inexactness of the term led a 1979 WHO Expert Committee* to disfavour it, preferring the narrower formulation of alcohol dependence syndrome as one among a wide range of alcohol-related problems. Alcoholism is not included as a diagnostic entity in ICD-IO (see dependence syndrome)." When terms with precise meanings like alcohol dependence get merged into terms without precise meanings like alcoholism, it becomes very difficult to make the accurate distinctions needed in the linked articles. --Arcadian (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Arcadian. I think we are singing off of the same hymn sheet. I have requested additional views from wiki med to try and get consensus on the talk page one way or the other.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pulvinar nucleus

Hi Arcadian, I was wondering what you thought about moving Pulvinar to Pulvinar nucleus (of the thalamus)? I was going to place it on Wikipedia:Requested moves, but I figured you could move it over the redirect if you agreed. Thanks. Cmcnicoll (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Pulvinar. --Arcadian (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Another medicine barnstar

		The Medicine Barnstar
		You deserve another one because of your tireless and valuable contributions (especially the navigation bars).

Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge CVI?

Hi, I put a comment on Talk:Cortical blindness about your suggested merge (am I supposed to let you know here as well?) Silas S. Brown (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Medicine navs

i just posted an insignificant little blurb there. by the way you do great work.

Chemical elements

Hi Arcadian, you split out the toxicology section of several articles. My question is now was this near 100% removal necessary? The chromium article staes now that III is not very toxic while VI is carcinogenic. This two sentences are a little weak for a Goodarticle on chromium. The link to a Hollywood movie Erin Brockovich was left in and this is for the toxicology of chromium the for me least important fact. I would like to have a little bit more than two sentences on toxicology in the article. The splitting of articles for example arsenic and radon was done when the health part overwhelmed the rest of the article not at a point where it was a equally represented section.--Stone (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't object if you want to move some of it back. --Arcadian (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your US CODE question answered

Hi Arcadian. You asked a question on the Davis Bacon articcle about where the act was codified. The answer is 40 U.S. Code §3141. Hope this helps!

Wildcard6 (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Barbiturates

Hiya again Arcadian. I noticed that this article is mispelt.Barbituate overdose It should be Barbiturate overdose but I am not an admin so I cannot move the page over the redirect. I believe that you are an admin, perhaps you could fix this issue? Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank so so much for noticing it -- I've moved it to the proper spelling. --Arcadian (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would you consider adding small one line intros to the new subsections of List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Parasitic_infestations.2C_stings.2C_and_bites? ---kilbad (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, now that I have been working on that section a bit more, how strongly do you feel about having the phylum subsections? Would you be opposed to going back to just one section for infestations? I am just not sure how important the phylum subdivisions are to people reading about cutaneous conditions? ---kilbad (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions#ICD-10. --Arcadian (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

dyslexia template

thanks for all your work on the template, it looks impressiive. due to my own form of dyslexia I do not do any text editing if I can help it, I just do the research and provide the information and references dolfrog (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to be of service! --Arcadian (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also

How's school going. Any developments on what type of residency program you are looking for? ---kilbad (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just saw the new letter headings at the list. I am not a huge fan. Perhaps we could talk about is more on the talk page before implementing it? ---kilbad (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you leave a message at Talk:List of cutaneous conditions, I'd be happy to respond there. --Arcadian (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done... I replied again... ---kilbad (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Keratodermas

You may want a navigation template just for the palmoplantar keratodermas. Just a thought, but they can be fairly overwhelming for an editor. Also, if you want my Bolognia login, just let me know. ---kilbad (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cutaneous condition templates

Would you consider adding your cutaneous condition navigation templates to the bottom of the list? I think that might be another nice improvement. What do you think? ---kilbad (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

They're in such flux right now I'm hesitant to copy them over now (it would mean another place they'd have to be updated anytime they're split), but if you wanted a list of them, they're available at the bottom of ICD-10 Chapter XII: Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. --Arcadian (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

When they are better established, would you consider adding them at that time? ---kilbad (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Diabetes Nav Box

I sort of liked the nav box for diabetes. I am not sure how this could not be seen as the main topic area? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The challenge with the upper-right-hand-corner boxes is that they introduce challenges when there are overlapping areas of interest (as with the relationship between diabetes and pregnancy, diabetes and dermatology, or diabetes and cardiovascular disease, to name just a few.) The navboxes are much better suited for these functions, and the overwhelming majority of new navigation boxes created across all projets are in the navbox format. --Arcadian (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this possible

I posted a tread at the medicine talk page. Is that possible? Could you help me? ---kilbad (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the request is beyond my technical abilities -- sorry. --Arcadian (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bleeding worksheet

I tried updating the Template:Bleeding worksheet and making it more user friendly. I also added the template to the wiki page for each disease listed as well as the 4 coag tests. I'm not 100% fluent in wiki-formatting, but i gave the table my best shot with adding the v-d-e and the sortability etc. Plz lemme know what you think. Thanx, a fellow med student AZDub (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! --Arcadian (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Table at Kawasaki disease article

Hi the table you removed was added after a discussion here, so please give us a reason why you removed it?? MaenK.A._Talk 10:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that table was redundant, inaccurate, and off-topic, but if the consensus is to keep it, I don't object to my edit being reverted. --Arcadian (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding pityriasis lichenoides, etc

Could we talk about their placement in the lymph-related category before you remove them? ---kilbad (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Per ICD, pityriasis lichenoides chronica, pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta, and retiform parapsoriasis are grouped with the other papulosquamous disorders, not with lymphatic conditions. I also removed "Category:Lymphoid-related cutaneous conditions" from polycythemia vera, cutaneous myelofibrosis and myeloid sarcoma because these are conditions related to the myeloid blood lineage, not the lymphoid one. That said, if you want to restore the categories, I won't revert. --Arcadian (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they are also considered papulosquamous disorders, so I can include them in that category as well? ---kilbad (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question; I don't believe there is currently a category for that. But you might want to create a new category, Category:Papulosquamous disorders, put it under Category:Cutaneous conditions, and add pityriasis lichenoides chronica, pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta, and retiform parapsoriasis to it. Then you could put Category:Psoriasis, Category:Lichenoid eruptions, and Category:Papulosquamous hyperkeratotic skin diseases as subcategories under that new category. --Arcadian (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Article

I managed to expand your one sentence article Epidermophyton floccosum to start class and nominated it for DYK. If you want me to add you to the credits, let me know. I was also wondering if you could find anything else to add. Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hypopharynx vs. Laryngopharynx

Please see the discussion page for Laryngopharynx, as my proposed change affects an edit you have made a couple of years ago. Plamoa (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rickettsia japonica

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rickettsia japonica, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.cfsresearch.org/rickettsia/research/diagnostic-assay-rickettsia-japonica.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Palmoplantar

Okay, before I undo what you did, why don't you explain why you made the changes you did at Palmoplantar (including the move)? Why do you think it is inappropriate to call it a list of conditions instead of a disambiguation page? It's not a disambiguation page because none of those conditions would be called just "Palmoplantar." Making it a list of conditions provides a solution for anyone who does try just searching on that term. Propaniac (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And why did you take out most of the content? Why did you not see the need to explain these changes? On that basis -- that you took out content for absolutely no coherent reason -- I'm changing it back. (Also, I don't know when you archive your Talk pages, but may I suggest you do it soon because this page is insanely long.) Propaniac (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in my edit summary, the content was not removed, but moved to a more appropriate page. The page included Palmoplantar keratoderma and also several subtypes of Palmoplantar keratoderma. I moved the types of Palmoplantar keratoderma onto the Palmoplantar keratoderma page. My page move simply restored the page to the name it was at before your move of April 5th. --Arcadian (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to look at keratoderma and merge that content in somewhere if desired. The PPK's are just the worst, lol. Also, if anyone wants the login information for Bolognia's online "Dermatology," which discusses the PPK's at length, just e-mail me for it. ---kilbad (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is is just incase you want it (user: bojilov45 [AT] gmail [DOT] com | pass: start). ---kilbad (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, "All I did was undo the improvement you made" is not an explanation for why you did that. Yes, I had moved the page. There was a reason I moved the page. Do you always go around undoing people's edits with no explanation? As to moving the subsets of keratoderma into that article: fine. Your explanation was extremely vague and did not inspire trust when combined with your apparently irrational page moves. Now that you have actually explained it, while I don't totally support it, I will undo my reversion of that edit. Propaniac (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My subpage info

Hello Arcadian. Could you or do you have the capability of seeing deleted pages? If you would be so kind as to go to the deleted content of my subpage at User:CircafuciX/Lyrics and email the content back to me. I don't want to sound like I didn't understand policy but it was deleted because it was unacceptable for wiki since I released those rights to creative commons as poems/lyrics. I only wanted them there temporarily but never found a site to my liking where it can be more private and whatnot. Just so you know, I was here for about three years so I'm definitely not new to this process. Much appreciated. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Veins_of_the_torso

I noticed you did all of the leg work on this template. Nice work. I'm a bit confused on why the Internal and External Jugular Veins are not listed as tributaries to the Brachiocephalic and Subclavian Veins, respectively. Should this be added or was it intentionally omitted because they are in the emissary vein template? Adamlankford (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)