User talk:WhatamIdoing

Please add notes to the end of this page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter

Hello. The RfC on in which you were a certifier of has been closed. You are encouraged to read the conclusion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter#Conclusion. Wizardman 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. Nice to know my work's being appreciated :) Wizardman 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing! Our old friend PW has created a draft version of the Da Costa article here which I've been looking over. To be honest, in my opinion, it's actually a lot better and far more detailed than the one that is currently up and I can't find anything which is COI, unsourced (97 different sources quoted!!), or biased. As much as I dread to restart anything I believe it's important to encourage editors, no matter what's happened. So could I ask you to have a look at it and gently, gently, comment on it? Thanks! Hope you're well, Avnjay^Talk 10:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Avnjay, I realize that you're not competent in the subject matter, but an editor of your experience should have noticed that he doesn't use 97 different sources. For example, he lists the same thoroughly outdated (1951!) textbook eighteen separate times. There are in fact only 24 references, assuming you count the two "references" to Wikipedia articles (one to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and another to Posturewriter's own work at Da Costa syndrome. You might also have noticed that he selectively quotes very short phrases from some of them. The most recent source is eleven years old (see WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence -- and it is about Chronic fatigue syndrome, not Da Costa's.

Would you like a detailed response? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! I went back and added the 97 bit some time after I had written my post (but not saved it) which just goes to show you should never add in anything at the last minute! So, quickly sweeping my foolishness under the carpet, I've been through and collated all the sources now and changed a fair bit to better reflect the manual of style. A large part of his article is on the history of the syndrome hence all the old sources (an exception in WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence). There is one current source in the Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary and I have added two recent (2004) ones from the current article and the Dorland's dictionary. I will let Posturewriter know he needs to add some more. As far as short quotes go, they do seem to be referenced and do make for easier reading than lots of long quotes. I shall, however, suggest he lengthen them. Do you know of any which are quoted out of context? By all means, if you have the time and inclination, give me as much detail as you can muster, but I can fully understand if you are sick of this by now! I am really keen though to keep working with Posturewriter as I do believe a better article can be produced here. Plus I think Wikipedia should be a place of unending optimism! :) Have a good day!! Avnjay^Talk 15:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried marking things that need repaired, but it's basically a disaster. The history section is much, much, much too detailed. It inappropriately blends in symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. This isn't really "history"; it's a blow-by-blow summary of selected papers whose conclusions he personally approves of. He has rejected actual works of history in developing this section (and they exist: search for "Da Costa" in this book). I see that he also "forgot" to mention that DCS appeared in cavalry (with their non-restrictive clothing and gear) just as much as infantry (who complained about their belts), and that the British Army did a massive redesign of their gear specifically to prevent DCS -- and that it did not work.

The style is horrible. Medicine-related articles do not obsessively name the year, publisher, and authors when discussing research work. That's what your citation is for. He doesn't even have complete names for some of these people. We don't blather on about "In 1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul presented a ten page history of Da Costa’s syndrome in the British Heart Journal..." This is an effort to tell the reader "You have to believe everything I say that this guy said. He's important. You should know his name. He published in a decent journal." Paul's paper was a routine review paper. Proper style skips this sort of stuff and gets to the actual point (which PW's summary seriously downplays because he's having trouble remembering that anxiety disorder is a functional disease of the nervous system, not a character flaw). PW isn't interested in fixing things like this, because they promote his POV. We can't even get him to quit bolding the years (to conform with WP:MOSBOLD) despite repeated efforts on that single, small point.

Perhaps more importantly, this draft seriously overemphasizes the body posture aspects (you remember that Posturewriter has self-published a thousand-page book on his personal theory that people with heart palpitations and fatigue would feel better if they exercised and stood up straight, right?) and it ignores or downplays all the DCS-related people that don't agree with him. You probably didn't notice that the current classification of this disease is nowhere to be found in this article? Contrary to what PW would have you believe, it's still on the books. It's a dysfunction of autonomic nervous system, but you can't fix nerves by lifting weights, so he's quoting textbooks and papers from the 1950s to shore up his view.

And he's chosen the 1950s with care, because mitral valve prolapse was finally figured out in the 1960s. MVP has a distinctive and easily identified heart "click". That click is clearly and recognizably described in a statistically significant subset of the early "DCS" patients, and it's one of the reasons that early researchers thought they had a truly physical cardiac problem in DCS patients. MVP runs in families -- note that I'm telling you have the current knowledge, not the half-a-century ago views -- is associated with deformities of the chest and spine, appears more in women than in men, is often diagnosed in young adults, is associated with a thin, lean body weight, makes the person susceptible to some particularly deadly infections, patients do better with less stress (less demand on the heart), have poor tolerance for exercise, are usually treated with "you'll be fine, just take it easy and call if you get sick" (only severe cases get surgery) -- does any of this sound familiar yet?

When you look at the old work, and you see that a paper reports that, say, a sixth of his patients have that distinctive click, then you really have to toss everything he's said about the "typical" patient, because he's talking about two different and unrelated diseases. It's literally like saying that you've studied the behavior of girls in school, but didn't realize until decades later that every sixth "girl" in your study was a boy. And in fact, that's what the modern sources have done. PW just didn't choose to tell you that.

The few modern papers frequently have nothing to do with DCS. One person -- a person that does not represent the scientific or medical consensus on this point (I know: you couldn't possibly have known) publishes his personal theory (in an editorial, not a peer-reviewed article) that DCS is kinda sorta an early description of chronic fatigue syndrome. PW uses that to justify his inclusion of selected CFS resources as support for his POV. (See, for example, the non-RS-compliant "disease of a thousand names" website that he cites three times).

I realize that these problems aren't obvious to a person with no background in the field, but the entire thing is so full of his POV that I would honestly recommend scrapping it and starting over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Avnjay, I encourage you to read one of the newly added sources for yourself. Its contents are being seriously misrepresented. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see the stretch from "similar to" to "the same as". I am about to remove most of the CFS stuff as the sources don't stand up - the JAMA editorial says "it has been speculated...". However, the above source does seem to suggest that the condition can have a genetic cause, which would make it more than a manifestation of a mental disorder, wouldn't it? Avnjay^Talk 10:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentally, your premise is entirely false. There are hundreds of conditions with a genetic cause that are not mental disorders: for example, breast cancer due to a BRCA1 mutation.

Have you ever stood up too fast, and almost blacked out? That's (acute) orthostatic hypotension.

Now imagine that you don't have to actually stand up too fast to get something of the effect; your body just has a little trouble getting enough blood up to your head, say, if you sit or stand still for a long time, or if you get hot, or if you don't stand up very slowly. That's orthostatic intolerance, which is what the OMIM page is about.

These are functional disorders of the nervous system -- like dyslexia (which also has a genetic component), where the nerves just don't work quite normally. Unlike dyslexia, these are disorders of the autonomic nervous system, which is what controls how fast your heart beats, whether or not to sweat, and that sort of thing -- including changes that keep your blood from pooling in your legs, and that send extra pressure up to your head so you don't black out every single time you stand up. The system works well in most people, and not so well in some people.

Depending on exactly how not-so-well is works, you'll get different symptoms. Some people, for example, will stand up too quickly (there are many more triggers, but it makes a nice example) and end up temporarily unconscious on the floor. In others, the same problem will immediately trigger a release of adrenaline and stimulating the heart to beat much faster (150-200% normal speed) in an effort to (temporarily) raise the blood pressure as much as possible and to get that blood up to the brain as soon as possible. In others, they muddle through, but the strain of coping with the problem is exhausting. (Most people develop odd behaviors to reduce the impact, like fidgeting when standing in line.)

Orthostatic intolerance is one of the major modern interpretations of DCS (after you remove all the MVP patients); PTSD and HVS are the other major ones. Da Costa's actual patients could be a mix of all of the above.

You are entirely right to remove the CFS stuff: you technically can't have CFS if you have OI, because OI is known to cause fatigue, and CFS is a diagnosis of exclusion. Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sommers article

WhatamIdoing: thank you for fixing the RfC, that was very helpful. It would be helpful if you could comment on the talk page discussion too. Skoojal (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Eucalyptus oil: alternative therapy or pharmaceutical?

Hi Whatamldoing, I noticed that you recategorized Eucalyptus oil as an alternative therapy as opposed to a 'medicine', and I'm not sure whether that is the case. While eucalyptus oil is not a prescription medicine, it has a long history of recognition as a decongestant and antibacterial by medical authorities, and in fact there is pharmaceutical grade of eucalyptus oil. If it's not a medicine what's it doing in the British Pharmacopoeia? I think the confusion may lay in the fact that essential oils are typically associated with alternative medicines, but in the case of eucalyptus oil I don't think this is the classic alternative therapy because it has conventional medicine recognition, allbeit more aften self-administered in lozengers etc, but so is aspirin. Cheers.John Moss (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

BP lists many things that are not within the scope of WP:MED. I will reply on the article's talk page. In the absence of clear information that this plant extract is actually considered a pharmaceutical drug, WPMED's banner (and probably WP Pharma's) should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The eucalyptus oil standard in the BP is in-fact cited in the peer-reviewed Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmocology [1]. It clearly implies acceptance as a pharmaceutical.John Moss (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am replying on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC/Kainaw

I have a bit of a problem. I want a few people to look over Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kainaw and tell me if I'm being too mean, too rude, too vague, too wordy, too anything. However, I do not want others to defend me. You appear to know the RFC process well. Is there a Request For Review without comments? I have no intention of continuing any discussion on the RFC as it is just going in circles, but I do want to know when I am actually in the wrong. -- kainaw™ 17:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that exactly what you have in mind exists. You might consider Wikipedia:Editor review.

As for your conduct in this particular incident: You obviously failed to "win friends and influence people". There's a very large gap between that and being "wrong". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your thoughtful comment on that RFC, which I've endorsed. I hope I didn't hijack your view with my comment (that certainly wasn't my intention). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Query

I'm now in the process of creating a whole new page. It was previously deleted due to accusations of a lack of notability(there were only 1 or 2 notes at the time). I recreated the page again recently (but with slightly different text) and someone put it down for a speedy deletion. I objected in the talk page and gave my reasons, plus I found the time to greatly expand the page and add numerous references so as to make it notable by wikipedia's standards. Trouble is that, apparently, my refutation of the speedy deletion comment on the discussions page may not be enough, as wikipedia states that the article might be deleted, anyway.

My question is:- after having added sufficient text/notes etc. to make the article notable, and given an explanation, am I allowed to remove the "speedy deletion" tag from the main page via editing, or is this only legally allowed by the person who put it there in the first place. It's just that, having fixed everything, I don't want the page "posioned" by an outdated claim at the top of the page.Loki0115 (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Forget it, I've just read that I'm not allowed to remove the comment as I'm the creator of the page.15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

help with deletion of a article

I created Emergency Medical Dispatcher it was a good well written article with a significant amount of links and was cited with 6-7 links. I have been away a while and come back to find some one under handed it and WP:PROD. I know that you have some experience and would like guidance on how to get the article re-instated, a simple google search shows it meets WP:V and WP:N. thanks for your help in advance Medicellis (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I was able to get the deletion author to restore the article. If I may ask what you think I can do to improve the article to make it less likey to be included in a AfD....thanks! Medicellis (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing? I've just followed your suggestions on Emergency Medical Dispatcher, and as always, it looks great. I've done a bit to internationalize it further as well. Let me know what you think! Cheers Emrgmgmtca (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness acquired diarrhea

Hi!

I noticed in your last edit summary for this article that you wrote, "Rearrange, start the encyclopedic-style summarizing work". I just realized that if I do any editing on this article I should try to understand what your plans are so that my efforts would be coordinated with you. So perhaps you could help me in this regard with more info about what you plan to do?

I had a couple other questions that you might be able to help me with too. Do you have any info about the status of the merge or an opinion about its likelihood? Was Calamitybrook blocked or the subject of any other official Wikipedia action? It seems like that editor has stopped editing, at least under the name Calamitybrook.

Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Regarding your remarks about the Causes section, how does the following look as a place to start for making a better Causes section:

==Causes==

There are three vectors for human infection by pathogens that cause WD: fecal-oral transmission, water, and contaminated food. The major factor governing the amount of pathogen pollution in surface water is human and animal activity in the watershed. The most common pathogens that cause WD are Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Other infectious agents may play a larger role than generally believed and include Campylobacter, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis E virus, enterotoxogenic E. coli, e. coli 0157:H7, Shigella, and various viruses. More rarely, Yersinia enterocolitica, Aeromonas hydrophila, and Cyanobacterium may also cause disease.

Giardia lamblia, a common cause of WD, does not tolerate freezing and can remain viable for nearly three months in river water when the temperature is 10°C and about one month at 15–20°C in lake water. Cryptosporidium, another WD pathogen, has been shown to survive in cold waters (4°C) for up to 18 months, and can even withstand freezing, although its viability is thereby greatly reduced.

Many other varieties of diarrhea-causing organisms, including Shigella and Salmonella typhi, and hepatitis A virus, can survive freezing for weeks to months. Virologists believe all surface water in the United States and Canada has the potential to contain human viruses, which cause a wide range of illnesses including diarrhea, polio and meningitis.

It may be difficult to causally associate a particular case of diarrhea with a recent wilderness trip lasting only a few days because the incubation time may take longer than the length of time of the trip. Studies of long trips into the wilderness, where the trip time is much longer than the mean incubation time of the disease, are less susceptible to these types of errors since the diarrhea is more likely to occur while the person is still in the wilderness.

References

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Disease template

I looked at the template that you mentioned and it looks like a reasonable way to organize the article. Furthermore, if the other related articles up the hierarchy chain (Traveler's diarrhea, Diarrhea, and Gastroenteritis) also used the same section headings of the template, then there could be better coordination between the articles. [But I suspect that I'm mentioning something that you have already thought of. : ) ] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation ref name format

Hi!

First of all, it looks like things are going well over at WAD (knock on wood) and I recognize the good work that you've been doing.

I thought it might be worth expanding on the explanation of an idea that I mentioned in an edit summary regarding a format for ref name.

First a little background. When I started editing on Wikipedia I used a form for ref name that used the PMID for the ref name, e.g. <ref name="PMID12321">{{ ... }}</ref>. When there was more than one citation to this reference then <ref name="PMID12321"/> could be used alone for the subsequent citations. So on the edit page there were various instances of this form, e.g. a <ref name="PMID12321"/> here or there and for another reference there would be a <ref name="PMID98789"/> here or there and a <ref name="PMID54345"/> here or there. This seems all very systematic, which it is, but I found that it wasn't so convenient to identify what the corresponding reference was for each one when I was editing the edit page. Also, when I had to create a <ref name=PMID.../> it was somewhat inconvenient to have to find the right PMID and copy it into the new <ref name=.../>.

By using instead a form <ref name=Smith2001/> it was much easier for me to find and identify this citation on the edit page and distinguish it from <ref name=Jones2003/>. Also, I didn't have to look up the PMID from the original <ref name=...>{{...}}</ref> and copy and paste it, or enter the numbers from memory. With <ref name=Smith2001> the process is much easier for me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed some comments on a talk page that reminds me of an old message board admonition, "Don't feed the troll."

Here's some nice background music for building a good article like the Amish built a barn in the movie Witness".

Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ADA of 1990 and ADAAA of 2008

Thanks for removing all those supporting organizations from Americans with Disabilities Act... I wanted to remove the original list, but figured someone would complain. So I added the newer (huge) list instead. Now you, a much better known editor, have removed both lists. Mission accomplished. (I won't make a habit of doing things that way. Promise.)  :-) --Hordaland (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hooray!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award you with The Tireless Contributor Barnstar for being a tireless Wikipedian and a great contributor both in terms of quantity and quality. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Too many links" and the Bibliography in Michigan lighthouse articles

Dear WtmIdng: I noticed that you have been kind enough to post on a number of lighthouse articles the observation that there are "too many links" and the suggestion that we should improve the article by using in line citations. That makes some sense. Indeed, if you actually look at the links, you will find that all of them are there for a reason, and that they are the basis of good on line research by anyone who wants to learn about the particular lighthouse, and even enhance the article. They are the keys to the kingdom. They contain all the relevant on line information. Until the articles are greatly expanded, these provide -- at the very least -- a place for reader to find what he/she needs to know about a particular light. With respect, your suggestion (and I'm sure you mean it in the kindest and well meant way) reminds me very much of the conversation between the Emperor and Mozart in Amadeus, which went something like, 'The problem Herr Mozart, is that your work contains too many notes." Certainly there is nothing to prevent anyone, even you, from beefing up these articles. I am trying to deal with over 100 Michigan lighthouse articles in Michigan (some are very scanty), and a lot of important lighthouses that are not documented in Wikipedia at all. So you are invited to help, and it would be most appreciated. However, the implication that these links were put in willy-nilly is just unwarranted. These links might be moved around, if someone finds the time to greatly expand the articles, and then they'll be references and footnotes. But just removing links (if that is what your are contemplating or suggesting) is, in my opinion, not well advised. As to the Bibliography that has become the subject of your ire, these are not just repeated ad nauseum. If you take the time to look, you will discover that they vary by location, and that articles that are specific to the particular lights are often included. The general coverage of some of these works does not diminish their usefulness, and does not justify any presumption on your part that they don't specifically address a particular light. (Certainly it would be wonderful for someone to pull out all the books on all the lighthouses and put in lots of page citations. As an aspiration, I am with you.) On the other hand, this list can give the readers some direction and guidance. I think it is better to err on the side of over inclusion than under inclusion. Note also that we've included ISBN numbers, to help our esteemed readers find the books at their vendor and local library. I hope that you will give this matter some thought. I've given it a lot of thought, a lot of effort and a heckuva lot of edits. I of course welcome constructive collaboration, as that is what makes this encyclopedia work. I am writing this tome to you simply because I don't want us to have a misunderstanding. Best regards to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

NOTICE: The question has been posted on the RS noticeboard.

Hello. I have decided that at long last we have a good enough question to ask the notice board and posted it. here The question has been negotiated and all parties have had input. It is possible to comment further on the notice board so any other questions or concerns can be raised there. I think that the question that I posted which is evolved from drafts of mine, Jokestress's and James_Cantor's is a good framing for the issue and gives all the information that the uninterested RS editors will need to make a determination.

I took this action because we could end up negotiating the content of this question and have about as much success as we have had with the article itself. Someone had to say enough. So I say enough already. I hope that we can resolve this question and move on to more productive editing of the article in the near future. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, WhatamIdoing. I think you were exactly correct to add at RS/N the prior related discussion on Wyndzen. However, that issue appears to be distracting folks from the inclusion of the other 22 commentaries. I hesitate to say anything there, since it was your comment. If you are seeing things the same way, let me encourage you to help focus input on the 22.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User notice npa-2

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you apparently think that this reply is a personal attack. It says nothing whatsoever about you or any other person. I quoted the actual guideline, identified the relevant words, and asked you whether you could agree on classifying a specific example as falling into the obvious category. There is not one word in my response about you or any other person. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Absence notice

Very interesting observation on this topic on your User: page, and probably too true! You have been doing a lot of editing for me, and if I suddenly disappeared, I was afraid that you might miss me...lol. Just to let you know, I am going to be disappearing offline for about two weeks. I have a teaching commitment at a university in another province, and so will be over on the Atlantic coast, enjoying the fresh air and the waves. I'll let you know when I'm back. I may get a chance to look in on things, but won't likely have time to do much editing, between lecture prep and reading papers! I will make sure that the others on my Task Force are aware of why I'm gone. Try not to miss me (and all that evaluation work!) too much! Enjoy the rest, and I'll see you when I get back. Cheers! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that you'll be back. BTW, in the future, you could leave messages like this at the WT:EMS page; I expect that most people you deal with watch that page, and it would save you some trouble. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Med tag

Curious why you removed my WPMED tag from Talk:Habit reversal training? Piacentini, for example, is a professor of psychiatry, working in neuropsychiatry, as are most TS researhers.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A brief glance at it left me with the impression that it was better classified as psychology than psychiatry. You can certainly change it if you prefer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I left both (that should work). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Response- WAD

Hi! I just responded to one of your remarks in the Recent editing section of the article WAD. I'm only mentioning it because it is somewhat buried and you might not notice it. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Wilderness acquired diarrhea (WAD) keeps dropping off my Watchlist for some unknown reason. Have you had this problem too? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation of dermatology articles on Wikipedia, input wanted

Hey WhatamIdoing. 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)

No. I don't have an opinion on this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've just seen you make a lot of posts in the past to WP:MED, thought you might have been interested. My mistake. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind getting your note; I just unfortunately can't be helpful in this instance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. What're you areas of interest? Just for future reference. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My interests are probably too disorganized for you to bother with keeping track of; they don't really line up neatly with a particular medical specialty. Here are a few facts that might be somewhat responsive to your question:

I'm not a healthcare professional and have no plans to become one. If it's big enough to be seen with the naked eye, it's probably not very interesting. I dislike anatomy and anything else that is handled primarily by memorization (I'm good at memorizing things, but I won't bother memorizing something that I can look up). I'm typically useless in cardiology, dermatology, radiology, and surgery; by this statement I mean that I can contribute at a very basic level, such as copy editing or reviewing sources. If it's important, I can become an "instant expert" on more or less any narrow subject, but organizing the general field requires more than the bits and pieces of information that I have.

As I said above, I don't mind getting notes like yours, and I'm willing to do my bit to help. I don't pretend to know everything, and if I don't have, or can't get, enough information, then I'll decline to stick my fingers in the middle of the pie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

You deserve another barnstar. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Axl. It's very kind of you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Transparency (behaviour)

Thanks for your third opinion and the alternative suggestion -- I think they are helpful. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There may be a perfect solution out there, but until then, I was hoping to just find an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened?

you wrote on the AfD discussion page for Vienna fingers. Everyone seems to have stopped talking. Do you know about anything?Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle