User talk:Colin

Click here to leave me a new message. Please remember to always sign your messages with '~~~~'

Archives
6 December 2005 – 14 July 2006 4 August 2006 – 18 March 2007 19 March 2007 – 8 November 2007 11 November 2007 – 26 June 2008 1 July 2008 – 28 September 2008 1 October 2008 – 24 November 2009 16 December 2009 – 4 July 2010

Oh happy day

Good to see you :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. You've been missed :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Glad too see you guys are still around and hope you are doing well. I'm currently reading all about Angiomyolipoma. A possible DYK if I'm quick enough? Colin°^Talk 08:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good morning Colin - it's nice to see that the sun's shining for us today. It's great to have you back. Graham Colm (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Colin, I think you enjoy using words I've never heard before! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it is the most common benign tumour of the kidney. Also on my list is the lung disease lymphangioleiomyomatosis (lim-fan″je-o-li″o-mi″o-mә-to´sis) -- or LAM for short. It has to be one of the biggest I know. It takes as long to say as most sentences. There should be a word for words that nobody ever says and that are always abbreviated. Colin°^Talk 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Today's test: who knows what a funambulist is, without looking it up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone who can bend their body into amusing shapes? Off to look it up... Colin°^Talk 15:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bzzzt ... that would be my yoga instructor (who frequently references his wife in class, probably to keep all his female students from getting overheated). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I only did Latin for 1 year at school and have evidently forgotten it all. Colin°^Talk 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A funambulist is, obviously, someone who is fond of palm squirrels. Ucucha 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheater! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard those are delicious. At any rate, I'd rather be fond of palm squirrels than make friends with the high-wire. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, who needs such ropey friends [Br Eng]. The ground is even less friendly, and is particularly unpleasant if you drop in on him all of a sudden. Colin°^Talk 16:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy it because it's my job! (Cada cabeza es un mundo!!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Armbrust's talk page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

KD

Hey Colin. Not sure whether you've seen these (you most probably have), but, if not, you'll want to add them to your reading list :)

• PMID 20647578
• doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02488.x
• doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02586.x
• doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02703.x

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fvasconcellos. Sorry for the delay in replying: got distracted and forgot. Colin°^Talk 09:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Angiomyolipoma

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Featured List Criteria section 3b

Hello. There is currently an RfC in progress at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#RfC - 3.b review in progress regarding Criteria 3b of the featured list criteria and whether it should be modified or eliminated. As you participated in a previous discussion regarding Criteria 3b when it was first introduced, this discussion may be of interest to you. –Grondemar 16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your note to me

Hello Colin. Thank you for your note. The new IP geolocates to the Philippines so I feel sure that it is the same person. As to whether it is a bot or a tool I am not computer savvy enough to know, though the fact that they only edit a couple of pages at a time may mean something. I have left a note on User:Favonian's talk page as they are the admin who dealt with the old IP. Favonian does have a wikibreak message on their talk page so the situation may not get dealt with right away. All that I can suggest in the meantime is to continue with adding warnings to the IPs talk page and report them to AIV at the appropriate time. I would also mention the block evasion in any new report. If you have any ideas other than these please drop me a line and thank you for your vigilance and thoroughness in dealing with this. The IP's vendetta against eggnog is odd. Maybe they had a nightmare about a cow, a chicken and a bottle of rum at some point in their life :-) Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry this is a couple of days late. Favonian blocked the IP so your thoroughness helped to keep wikipedia in a useful condition. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Colin. You have new messages at DiverDave's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Colin. You have new messages at DiverDave's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Colin. You have new messages at DiverDave's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Policy/Guideline at MEDRS

Thought you might want to comment here.

I'm curious if you think we should a) remove the same text from WP:IRS or other content guidelines, and b) if you think we should update the {content guideline} template to make brief mention of the policy/guideline distinction.

You wrote of the removed statement that it is something "anyone knows after reading WP:POLICY". While new editors aren't especially likely to find themselves on MEDRS, I think your comment reflects a bit of an insider's bias. As you know, policies and guidelines are a royal labyrinth and anything that can be done to make them easier to understand, navigate, and apply is welcome. If that means less text, fine, but if more text points users in the right direction, I don't consider it trivial. For that matter, I didn't think 'litter' was a great choice of words. Although not every addition is needed, editors trying to maintain or improve policy are probably attempting to do more than that. Ocaasi (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Colin. You have new messages at DiverDave's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposal to move Autism to Autistic disorder

Hi Colin. SandyGeorgia suggested you might be interested in commenting on this proposal. Anthony (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've replied to your detailed comments at Talk:Autism under each of your points, rather than in a numbered cluster at the bottom of the thread. If that's a problem, undo it and I'll do the latter. Anthony (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Enemies

I don't really have enemies here. Everyone who's trying to write or maintain an encyclopedia is on the same team. People who try to subvert the encyclopedia for their own purposes might be the exception. In that sense, I really do get what editors of medical articles are up against. I recently reverted some multiple chemical sensitivity stuff that was spammed in unrelated articles myself. Anyway, sometimes the attitudes and actions of other editors are infuriating, but that doesn't make them my enemy, as long as they are here to make an encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well with statements like "I see absolutely no need for MEDRS to exist, and would support abandoning it entirely." you could earn your self some ;-). Such rehetoric isn't helpful, especially when there are those who aren't here to "make an encyclopedia" who would seize on that statement to further their cause. Just because something isn't perhaps at FA level of finely honed prose and terse argument doesn't mean it isn't useful. I'm glad you are here to make an encyclopedia. Too few people on policy talk pages are. Colin°^Talk 08:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for this edit. I have not yet read your explanatory post. However, simply by reconsidering your earlier comment, you have risen considerably in my estimation (for what it is worth). Such gestures open the door to much better communication and mutual understanding. Geometry guy 22:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now read your explanatory post. I'm very glad that you found WP:MANYTHINGS agreeable. Wikipedia is indeed written for the "general reader", but there is much confusion as to what this means. I believe it is an article dependent concept: the "general reader" of an article depends upon what the article is about. I turn to Wikipedia regularly to learn more about science outside my expertise: I'm so glad that our coverage includes advanced topics such as protein structure, string theory, virus lifecycles, quantum field theory, adaptive immune response, crystallography, and cellular metabolism. In every article the aim should be to make the article as accessible as possible to the general reader likely to be interested in that article. Geometry guy 23:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Hello Colin. Once again, thank you for your ongoing interest and vital assistance in copyediting the Tracheal intubation article. It is gratifying to see this article evolving and improving as a result of your careful edits and comments. Your queries are exactly what I need to bring the terminology and text into a form that can be readily understood by an intelligent layperson. Physicians are frequently and rightfully accused of using jargon in our communication with lay audiences. Usually this is because we have spent so much time in professional reading and writing that we have lost touch with the "real world" to a certain extent. Thank you for bringing me back! I will be taking a month long wikibreak starting tomorrow, so please don't be offended if your edits and comments are unanswered. Cheers! DiverDave (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Colin. You have new messages at Talk:Asperger syndrome.
Message added 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

History of viruses

Hi Colin,

If you have any spare time and the inclination, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts at the articles Peer Review. [1] Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Colin. You have new messages at Talk:Asperger syndrome.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Colin. You have new messages at LeadSongDog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LeadSongDog come howl! 04:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

TPP and stuff

Hello Colin, hope all is well. I'm just dropping a line to ask for your input in the FAC for thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. This has been on FAC for some time but with only limited responses from WP:MED. Thanks in advance for your comments! JFW | T@lk 23:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Epileptic seizure

Whenever you have a few minutes, could you take a look at whether the tags on Epileptic seizure are warranted? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dengue fever

Hi Colin,

I have sent you an email soliciting your advice on this contribution. I think the article would benefit from your input. If you don't have the time, I understand, but it's not very long (unlike some of the other ones that I have asked for you to comment on).

Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. This is an article of major global public health interest, and a fresh look would be hugely helpful. JFW | T@lk 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, though I haven't any time tonight.

Could you guys have a look at DiverDave (talk · contribs)'s Tracheal intubation sometime. It has had a go at FAC back in October but needed some work in the prose/lay-friendly department and didn't get much of a MedProject examination. I've gone through the text making it more lay-friendly. I suspect the prose still needs the hand of someone more gifted than I. But I'm also concerned some of the refs might be historical research papers that document the initial trials of some new equipment/procedure rather than perhaps modern reviews. The former have their place, of course, but I'd like to know we were citing current recommendations/guidelines/opinions. I haven't had the chance to study the refs in detail and just am not finding time to get round to it. Plus you guys will have better access to sources. Do the refs support the text? How's the MEDRS compliance? -- Colin°^Talk 20:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Will try to look at tracheal intubation tomorrow night, meatspace permitting. I hadn't realised that DiverDave is a qualified anaesthetist (or claims to be). Looking forward to the second installment of the dengue review; it seems that Graham and James are otherwise engaged, but I will happily continue to take this forward. JFW | T@lk 13:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your recommendations on dengue fever. I have just implemented most of your advice, and offered some responses to the remainder. Your ongoing input is much appreciated! I hope this will eventually get the article to FAC.

I will need to have a look at tracheal intubation at some point. It is slightly outside my (current) area of work, but sadly we have no Wikipedia anaesthetists... JFW | T@lk 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is on my list to finish. I'll have a look at what you've done when I get a chance. Need a 25-hour day at the moment. As for tracheal intubation, well you can be sure it is well outside my "area of work" too :-) Colin°^Talk 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Flyer22#Mistake?

Sorry about that, though I still don't see how it's entirely unrelated. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		To Colin, for articulate arguments here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Errors

Colin, I hope you weren't annoyed by me saying you were "in error"; I agree with you that these things are a matter of opinion. I was trying to succinctly convey my sense that your point of view seemed in conflict with my understanding of Wikipedia's goals, but I would have done better to phrase it as a matter of judgement. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry Mike. I may be wrong. I certainly appear to have a minority opinion. Colin°^Talk 17:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just catching up there myself ... I do wish I had reviewed that article :) I spose I would have, except that editor was in serious disagreement with me back during the DYK plagiarism issues, so I thought it best to keep my accessibility concerns to myself. I will generally say, though, that my accessibility concerns were honed while reading math FARs; many editors assumed they didn't follow the articles because they didn't know the math. I did know the math, and knew the articles' accessibility problems were related to poor organization and prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Polio and PPS...

Colin,

Just thought I'd mention that it's a shame that there is not some way to acknowledge all those that survived polio and are not famous. We each have our stories and, as far as we're concerned, have done remarkable things throughout our lives, given the disease. To have survived at all is sometimes a miracle.

For instance, I contracted polio when I was 4 as the disease swept through our tiny little farming town in Illinois (pop. about 100). As I have been told, every child in town contracted the virus, but I was one (maybe the only one) that was not actually left crippled. My uncle was quite wealthy and paid for medicines that were not generally available to everyone. He personally went and took delivery of the medications and brought them to the town doctor that administered them to me. I was left uncrippled, but I have had weak legs and lungs for my entire life. But there were so many bad feeling by the townfolk, that we packed up and moved to California. I never let the weakness get the better of me. Let's just say that I had a very successful career in the computer field for 40 years. I also had a remarkable early career in music and I served 4 years active duty in the Navy during the Viet Nam War. I went on in the reserves to serve in Naval Special Warfare as a gunner and "boat captain" on River Patrol Boats (PBR's) and retired from the Army National Guard as an "Ranger" in an infantry recon platoon. By the time I retired, I was suffering from Post Polio (PPS) and a number of other neurological disorders (treated for several years at the UCLA Medical Center for PPS).

I am now completely retired (living on disability). But I have not given up yet. In my later years I completed a Masters in Theology degree and I now function as a Pastoral Care Minister and a Volunteer Chaplain in Hospice. My wife and I both are Hospice Volunteers and we conduct multiple Bereavement/Grief Support Groups. Even though my legs are almost always in pain and my breathing is heavy, I will keep going until my time here is complete.

So, there you have my brief story. There are many others out there have have done even more with their lives after surviving polio. It sure would be nice if there was some place that we all could just give a very short bio so that others can see what can be done as survivors.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and for listening to an old man ramble.

Pax et bonum

Rev. Philip E. Evans Touch Of Compassiona Ministries Comanche, OK

68.235.140.115 (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for sharing your remarkable story. It is indeed a shame that the lives of celebrities are acknowledged when they may be no more deserving than many others. That's just the society we have I suppose and Wikipedia isn't really able to change it -- our policies (WP:V and WP:NOR mainly) mean we can only write about stuff that other people have written and published. So you won't find the biography of a great man or woman here unless it has already been printed elsewhere. I wonder if some of the polio and post-polio support organisations are able to publish or somehow record the amazing stories of less notable people?

I sincerely hope that the polio eradication efforts succeed before too long, and this terrible disease can be consigned to the history books.

Best wishes, Colin.

(talk page stalker) That's not really within Wikipedia's remit, but there are other websites that do this. You might consider joining Patients Like Me or Web of Stories as two reasonably reputable options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Colin. You have new messages at Jmh649's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ordering of content

Wondering which ordering of content if any you would generally wish to see used per discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Order_of_content? I guess we could not have any recommended order but I think have consistency would improve the general accessibility of our articles (we do have recommendations for disease articles). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources on melatonin

It's a rhetorical question. I just don't think it is appropriate to tag it with that.--Netheril96 (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Because you think that tag isn't the right one for the problems in the article, or because you disagree that there are problems in the article? Either you should have replaced it with a more appropriate tag, or else discussed the issues on the talk page. Colin°^Talk 10:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The hyphen again...

I am not sure if you were in support or against it but Kwani states you think we should hyphen articles. Is this your view? Thanks [[2]] And here at ANI if you could [3] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

KD

Just a heads-up that I have arranged for an WP:Edit notice at Ketogenic diet, which I hope will redirect the enthusiastic body builders to the correct page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it works. I think the key difference for the body builders is that their diet is high protein and the difference for the weight-loss folks is, well, the weight loss -- too few calories. I'm not really finding any free time just now to investigate some of these issues to try (again) to find reliable sources that discuss the various diets that are ketogenic.

BTW: I'm a bit disappointed at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people. I thought this would be a big issue given the mention in the Signpost but there's not been enough response to say what consensus is. Makes one wonder if many people even know about the guideline. And permission -- where does Commons deal with that? I've seen loads of medical photos on WP and Commons, many using antiquated black bands on the eyes, or copied from some random physician's website. I'm extremely doubtful that patients agreed for their images to be used for any purpose whatsoever, which is what Commons is about. Colin°^Talk 21:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I figure that the edit notice won't stop the body builders, but it might slow down the number that make this mistake. I think that the low-carb diet page needs to address the naming problem, too. The more people we educate about the difference, the fewer people who will make the mistake.

I've heard that Commons has a permissions system (developed to comply with some anti-child porn law), but I believe that it pretty much amounts to the uploader swearing at the time of the upload that he has the subject's permission, with a sort of "cross my heart and hope to die" level of verifiability behind it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dengue fever at FAC

Hi Colin, just dropping a line to let you know that dengue fever is on FAC. Your advice on readability has been extremely helpful. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I will try to review this. Sorry I didn't get very far last time. Colin°^Talk 07:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Colin, should I wait for your review? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies all round. I will have some time later this evening to do this. Colin°^Talk 17:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Consent

Thank you for your comments over at the Commons deletion discussion. I think you encapsulated the point much more effectively than I did. I wasn't aware of the GMC guidelines until you cited them, and I don't know if any similar blanket guidelines exist in the US (I doubt it), but the guidelines jibe pretty closely with my personal sense of what's appropriate in these sorts of cases. I don't for a moment question Jfdwolff's or James' good sense or good faith in that discussion, and I see their perspectives as sensible, but I tend toward extreme conservatism in this case. Especially in light of its odd aspects (apparent Photoshopping, Flickr uploading without any clear educational purpose, etc) on top of the apparent lack of patient consent. Anyhow, just wanted to thank you for your comments, since they made me feel less like I was a crazy voice in the wilderness on this (which is how I'd felt up till now). MastCell ^Talk 03:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been a "crazy voice in the wilderness" a few times on WP so this doesn't mean you're not one too. -- Colin°^Talk 08:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) MastCell ^Talk 15:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Arthur K. Shapiro - Tourette's Syndrome Study

("SandyGeorgia," another editor, suggested I try you on this. Thanks!)

Regarding Dr. Arthur K. Shapiro, I wanted to know if you could answer a question for me, please. I found online the results of a study regarding Tourette’s in which Dr. Shapiro was the lead author. It was published in Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 35, No. 5 (Sept.-Oct. 1973). My question is: Is this a reprint of the study that Dr. Shapiro originally published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1968 or is it a later study conducted by him? (I have been unable to find the 1968 study online thus far.) Here is the link (PDF) to the study I found:

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/35/5/419.full.pdf

One other question I have is that the Wikipedia article states that his 1968 paper had been first rejected by American publications before it was accepted by the British one. Would you happen to know why?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The 1968 study is:

• Shapiro AK, Shapiro E. Treatment of Gilles de la Tourette's Syndrome with haloperidol. Br J Psychiatry. 1968;114(508):345–50. doi:10.1192/bjp.114.508.345. PMID 4384341.

I don't have access to it, but someone else, or your library, might be able to get it for you. The abstract says it is "one detailed and two brief reports of patients", which would make three cases, whereas the later papers are on 34 cases. My guess is that these first three are part of the later 34 set of patients.

According to Kushner (in A Cursing Brain), the main case report in the 1968 paper is covered in a more accessible manner in the first chapter (pages 1-9) of the book:

• Gilles de la tourette syndrome, by Arthur K. Shapiro, Elaine S. Shapiro, Ruth D. Brunn, and Richard D. Sweet, Raven Press, New York, 1978.

Wrt your second question, much of Kushner's book is a study of the psychoanalyist vs neurologist arguments and Shapiro was instrumental in turning the focus towards an organic origin and treatment. On p 172 he says:

“ In their 1968 article reporting successful treatment of the young woman with haloperidol, Arthur and Elaine Shapiro not only argued that the etiology of these symptoms was an "organic pathology of the central nervous system," but also, at Arthur's insistence, presented their findings as evidence of the therapeutic and intellectual paucity of psychoanalytic psychiatry. In retrospect, it is not surprising, given the dominance of the psychoanalysts on the editorial boards of American psychiatric journals in the 1960s, that the Shapiros' article was rejected for publication by every major American psychiatric journal, finding a home only in 1968 in the British Journal of Psychiatry. ”

From the paper you cite, you can see the forceful language used could be regarded as quite insulting:

“ Our study confirmed others that common psychopathologic factors or dynamic conflicts did not characterize patients with Tourette's syndrome, were unrelated to the etiology, useless for the diagnosis, and irrelevant to the treatment of Tourette's syndrome. ”

BTW, Kushner notes that Shapiro tried haloperidol amongst "thirty-six other neuroleptic and antidepressant drugs and combinations of drugs" because of previous reports in journals concerning five patients successfully treated. The poor woman was hospitalised for several months while all this experimenting was going on! A search of PubMed confirms several papers in the 1960s on this treatment. So the Shapiros were by no means the first, just the most influential.

Regards, Colin°^Talk 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

—-Colin, I am most appreciative as to your input and most impressed as to your obvious erudition. You are a credit to Wikipedia and a tremendous asset to it.

Although I absolutely agree with Dr. Shapiro’s dismissal of psychoanalysis regarding TS, I dispute his conclusion that TS is organic in nature.

I strongly hold to behavioral therapies in the treatment of the affliction, especially CBT and CBIT. I fail to see how any sort of talk therapy could possibly have any efficacy in treating a physical condition (without, that is, resorting to a “New Age” paradigm).

I suspect that this is why I have seen hostile reactions to relatively recent reports extolling their virtues, though I am gratified to also see TSA seemingly becoming more accepting of behavioral therapies (though without repudiating the organic paradigm established by the Drs. Shapiros; the logic of which eludes me as assuredly as has the alleged causative anomaly within the central nervous system eluded generations of medical researchers.)

In regard to “antipsychotic” medications mitigating the symptoms of TS sufferers attesting to the afflcition’s organic nature, my favorite rebuttal to that logic is an analogy. A pair of handcuffs would do wonders in preventing smokers from indulging in their insidious habit. Therefore, would one conclude that one’s hands are the cause of one’s urges to smoke? How then does chemically restraining the brain prove that TS is organic?

The subjective elements manifestly inherent within the study (along with the self-acknowledged lack of a blindly assessed control group when reading EEGs and making assessments of alleged neurological abnormalities) I linked to have done nothing to mitigate my degree of skepticism. I shall search for the 1968 article, though I rather suspect your conclusion is correct and therefore unnecessary. Anyway, thanks again. You’re a gentleman and a scholar.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of some help. Thanks for the praise but I suspect you may quickly realise the limits of my erudition. I'm afraid I'm not very knowlegable on TS beyond Kushner's book and from reading some papers when helping Sandy out on the WP article. I don't have many original opinions on the matter, they are thoroughly second hand and limited by my own lay understanding. If you are specifically interested in TS then Kushner's book is well worth reading and accessible. It was eye-opening to read about the suffering inflicted on TS patients and their families from both psychoanalysts and surgeons (where focal infection theory led to patients having all sorts of bits of their bodies removed to no avail).

I agree that medication's effectiveness does not demonstrate its organic origin. However, a study of the causes of TS would probably be more productively done using modern papers rather than some from 30 years ago. The patient population-set has changed and grown considerably for a start. It must be a tricky problem if our best minds haven't much of a clue. Colin°^Talk 15:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

—Colin, although I appreciate your modesty as much as your kind assistance, I noted all the accolades and appreciations on your user page.

Although this is not a forum appropriate for such comments, I wanted to just briefly address two points you made in your replies.

Is it not more than a tad ironic that in light of the fact that when Dr. Shapiro first advanced his new paradigm dismissing the psychoanalytic school in favor of an organic one in regard to TS that he faced so much (entirely predictable!) resistance and hostility that any who challenges his now established one faces the same reaction (and, I might add, for the exact same reason: the threat to the status quo in which so many have such a vested interest)?

Alas, hasn’t such always been the case with science? Who was it who observed that by and large new ideas are not accepted by convincing those who hold to the old, but rather when the old guard gradually dies out and the new replaces them?

Science has reversed itself so many times in the past that at times it seems to have little more solidity than religion. Is it any wonder why it is so difficult to persuade a cynical and distrustful public regarding issues such as global warming?

As far as there being a greatly expanded pool of TS subjects in modern times, that is certainly true. By eliminating the criterion that TS symptoms have to be debilitating in order to merit the classification, voila the affliction was suddenly lifted from orphan disease status which greatly enhanced both donations to charitable institutes and governmental funding.

Not only is this true with TS, but the number of now recognized mental health afflictions as classified within DSM has grown exponentially over the last thirty years or so. This has come from pathologizing personality traits to the point that one wonders if there is anyone left who might be termed “normal.” Of course, many of the victims of said newly formulated afflictions might require treatment and their afflictions research.

Thanks again. Your input has been most helpful to me.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Google claims it was Max Planck who said "Science advances one funeral at a time". There's some truth in that but inertia isn't entirely a bad thing. It acts as a balance against the attractiveness of the new, which may be no better, or indeed worse, than the old. Plus, in thinking about change, we are biased towards remembering the successful attempts, particularly when there's a good story such as the maverick overturning the establishment. David and Golliath. For each successful new idea, business, or medicine, there will be many unsuccessful ones that were never written about or have been forgotten. And there will be disasterous ones like the Wakefield MMR affair.

Science hasn't "reversed itself so many times": that argument conflates a method for discovering truth with whatever is the current consensus. And the degree to which that consensus is ever evidence-based is probably overstated. Fashion is important in science just as it is in clothes, writing or art. In areas where our understanding is most limited (such as diseases of the mind like epilepsy, autism, TS) there will be more fluctuation than areas where there is a solid foundation. I'm optimistic our greater understanding of these diseases will bring rewards. Colin°^Talk 08:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Just wanted to draw this change to a number to your attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that the IP made two edits and the first is clearly helpful. So I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and check when I get home to look up the paper. However, I'm packing for my holiday tonight so might not get round to it till I get back. I really should get hold of a bunch of newer sources to see if anything requires updating -- it may be that the protocol for the MAD has changed. Colin°^Talk 07:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Epilepsy Society amends

Hi Colin Thank you so much for your help - I am really grateful. I have changed the intro to the National Society page (simple when you know how) but still couldn't seem to get into the title. However as my web editor job is allocated to Thursdays and Fridays, I will return to this later in the week. Thank you for restoring my changes on the epilepsy page - this had been quite frustrating. Also for the suggested reading material which I shall explore this week. Once again many thanks. I am sure I will be back to you with more questions.

NicolaNicola Swanborough (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

epilepsy society

Hi Colin

Thank you for that useful feedback. We will be happy to look at the epilepsy-related pages on Wikipedia and see where we can make improvements as well as adding any appropriate links. If you are around would you be able to advise me on changing the title of National Society for Epilepsy to epilepsy Society on the relevant page? Many thanks Nicola Nicola Swanborough (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Above user

This above user seem to be only promoting her own website. This is WP:COI. Their website has a please donate sign. I consider these edits spam. Will ask for further input at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The references do not support the text they are being placed beside. Check out this text

Seizure types are organized firstly according to whether the source of the seizure within the brain is localized (partial or focal onset seizures) or distributed (generalized seizures). Partial seizures are further divided on the extent to which consciousness is affected. If it is unaffected, then it is a simple partial seizure; otherwise it is a complex partial (psychomotor) seizure. A partial seizure may spread within the brain - a process known as secondary generalization. Generalized seizures are divided according to the effect on the body but all involve loss of consciousness. These include absence (petit mal), myoclonic, clonic, tonic, tonic-clonic (grand mal), and atonic seizures.[5 ]

The ref added was this [4] This is bullshit and just generating work for someone else...Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a charity attempting to drive traffic to their own web site. Thus I have removed these refs from medical pages replacing most of them with better sources.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Will be more careful :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you

here. Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)--

Hi Colin Thanks. Yes I will add text as appropriate, particularly on the epileptic issues page which must be one of the ones you referred to as being poorly written. Totally appreciate the need for new text and working on this to back up citations. NicolaNicola Swanborough (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

There are two words I removed, "fraudulent" and "discredited".

Wikipedia articles should always be worded in the most objective sense possible. If there is any controversy over any sort of issue, the text should be worded in a way which avoids taking a particular stance on the matter.--Cyrrk (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In reliable sources there is NO controversy at all. We follow those sources, not what unreliable sources say. Wikipedia is not taking sides in the matter, just documenting what all reliable sources say. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Up to you but "sane" could probably be dispensed with without harming the thrust of your comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC) On second thoughts, it seems apt. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

About convassing and dead horses

Sorry, I didn't know about canvassing. I stopped. I also realize that the horse is dead and will acknowledge that in the discussion at WP:MED, along with replies to my posts, and proposals. By the way, than ks again for considering my case on its merits and for your support. Presto54 (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ELs in infoboxes

You indicated an interest in discussing ELs in infoboxes. As you know, I'm currently immersed in EL-related issues. What do you have in mind? Presto54 (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)