User talk:Jfurr1981

Contribs

Hi Jfurr1981, good medical work there! Have you seen WikiProject Clinical medicine? You may want to join! Could I also ask you to stick to the general article outline mentioned on that page? This would be immensely helpful. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 07:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

At the moment we have a weekly collaborative article, which is multiple sclerosis. We recently worked on asthma and improved it to become a featured article. Please work on anything you like! You may wish to register your affinities on the WikiProject page, in case we need help with something. Enjoy! JFW | T@lk 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I would not refer to this as a "rewrite". JFW | T@lk 04:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether it matters... I do think it does. A rewrite is IMHO fairly drastic, and to completely rewrite a page there must be a fairly good reason (e.g. the old page was biased, incorrect or hopelessly phrased). If all you've been doing is expanding (and in a very good way too!) this is something rather different.

Talking about ITP, is it worth mentioning rituximab as a treatment used in refractory severe cases? JFW | T@lk 06:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thrombocytopenia

For heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, I took the liberty of removing the references to quinine and other antibiotics, since the page discusses HIT specifically rather than thrombocytopenia in general (where they should be mentioned). Andrew73 19:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Template

Most medical articles follow the outline you suggested: starting with signs & symptoms, diagnostic approach, pathophysiology, then treatment and prognosis, epidemiology and finally historical context. Some articles do deviate from this, generally for good reasons. The template is here on the WikiProject page. JFW | T@lk 01:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

for the help with Circulatory system. Can you enlighten me; where is the roll back-function hidden? --Ekko 05:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Perfect sense! :-) --Ekko 06:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Seattle University Law School

Hey, I removed this page from your CSD. While it is a substub, it does have coherent context that leads to expansion. At this point it could be argued that it should be made into a redirect but I think for now it should stand. You could try it out on AfD if you'd like but usually schools fail there. Does that sound okay? gren グレン 01:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats :) gren グレン 01:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia

My changes were reverted? There are a lot of things factually incorrect that I changed. For one promyelocytes are not precursors of either red cells or megakaryocytes.

Also, promyelocytic leukemia is not defined by the PML-RARa translocation, it is defined either morphologically or by just the RARa component as there are several decribed fusion partners. Guymd 05:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Neuroanatomical articles

Jfurr--I'm curious as to why you removed the categories "CNS" and "anatomy" from arcuate fasciculus and basal dendrite, and category "anatomy" from basal ganglia. The first two are most certainly located exclusively within the CNS. All three are certainly anatomical features, though I can see and argument for removing this designation from basal dendrite. semiconscious (talk · home) 00:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Your methodology sounds very reasonable, especially if the more-specific subcategory (e.g., "brain") exits within a supercategory (e.g., "CNS). Thanks for clearing that up! semiconscious (talk · home) 10:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Aarskog sryndrome

Your new article Aarskog sryndrome is under a spelling error and Aarskog syndrome already exists. Just thought I'd let you know, I rather think a merge is called for. MeltBanana 02:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce

Two articles involving medicine have been placed on your cleanup taskforce desk. (I mention it here because I don't know how often you check your desk). Please look at the articles or pass them along. RJFJR 03:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Medical analysis of circumcision

I admire your boldness in taking on this article. It certainly needs attention. Unfortunately, it's a highly controversial subject, and so it's hard to change without upsetting people.

I've moved a couple of sections that you placed in the wrong section, by the way. Jakew 13:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the introduction of the article also needs work. The introduction used to say, "Currently neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary according to professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In their view the potential medical benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not significantly outweigh the potential medical risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death)." In my opinion that introduction accurately and fairly summarizes a broad consensus that now exists in the medical community regarding the medical analysis of circumcision.

Also I think the order of the possible benefits of circumcision should be changed. No professional medical organization even mentions prostate cancer in relation to circumcision, yet it is the first possible benefit discussed in the article. The section on prostate cancer should be at the end of the possible benefits section if it is included in the article at all. -- DanBlackham 07:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In your re-write, I believe that these two sentences need to be brought into harmony:

It is believed that these are complications, as they are seen
more often in circumcised boys. However, this may be because it
is impossible to diagnose the condition in uncircumcised boys.

If the conditions are truly impossible to diagnose in uncircumcised boys, then all cases will be seen in circumcised boys, not merely more often. RussellKent 23:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Links in section headers

Hey, I appreciate all the linking you are doing, but the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Linking explicitly states that one should "Avoid links within headers. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the header." Perhaps you should switch those headers back. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation link repair heads up

I noticed you had done some DAB stuff on Native America, and I noticed a few pages that you fixed on link but left others. With Native American especially if it is linked to once on a page it is likley to get linked again (And some times with the phrase Indian or natives displaying. I just thought I would give you a heads up to look out for those. Dalf | Talk 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

cleanup taskforce

Looks like H5N1 has been getting a lot of work. You can close out the Task force entry on both the articles if they look done to you. Thanks for working on these. RJFJR 17:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience

Jfurr: I'm trying to revive the temporarily defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience. Because of your past edits on neuroscience related articles in the past, I thought I'd let you know. Cheers. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience

Hey Jfurr: I'm reviving the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and thought you might care to join us over there when you have the time. Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Human brain

About Human brain, I suggest that you just dive in and be bold. It would be nice to have a less technical introduction. --JWSchmidt 20:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Joe_gator2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joe_gator2.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.

Cleanup taskforce

The article Biofeedback has been added to your desk. Please let me know if would like to decline the article. RJFJR 22:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Connecting tubule

Hello. I noticed that you are a participant in the WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. The article Connecting tubule has been nominated for deletion. As this is an anatomical subject I was hoping to get somebody within the project to adopt the article for expansion. I could find no way to add the article to this project. I hope you or your fellow particpants would consider adopting this article to love. James084 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Joe_gator.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joe_gator.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NorthRonalsday.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NorthRonalsday.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

“Medicine” on MCOTW

After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Val dIsere.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Val dIsere.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Menorrhagia

You have provided an addition footnote in the references section, but not linked it anywhere in the article, using {{ref|FA}} - could you amend this please. Also the edit re menorrhagia being at regular intervals - I presume this is that menorrhagia occurs with regular menstrual intervals, rather than that all periods are habitually heavy. Is 'hypermenorrhea' then heavy irregular periods, or regular periods that occationally are heavy. ie is the 'regular' to the 'heaviness' or to the menstrual cycle predictability each 28 days ? David Ruben ^Talk 22:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion before removing templates

How about participating in the requested talk section/page on articles before unilaterally removing the tag? Specfically: hattiesburg, ms article. /Blaxthos 06:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Hey,

No offense was intended, but there are several gramatical errors that, when corrected, could help cut down on the runon sentences and make the article easier to read. I didn't mean to sound like there was a chip on the shoulder, but I do get short with people who go around yanking tags without even bother jumping in the discussion.

no harm no foul.

/Blaxthos 05:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED

Hi,

the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)