User talk:Scray

New messages at the bottom, please.
If you leave messages here, please expect a response from me over here.
If I've left a message on your talkpage, and I'm slow to respond to a reply made there, please let me know by giving me a nudge here.

JFW welcoming me to Wikipedia

Saying hello

Hi Scray, we seem to share an interest in hepatitis/hepatitis viruses so I thought it might be a good idea say hello. I'm constantly planning to do more work on Hepatitis B virus but finding the time is a problem. I would be interested in your opinions of the serological responses graphs that I produced, (and any other ideas). Do you think they are intelligible to a lay reader? Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GrahamColm, and thanks for dropping by to say hello. I have found your contributions extremely helpful, in content and in tone, as I learn to edit WP. Congrats on your recent inclusion on the FA team - a well-earned distinction (and those always come with plenty of work, don't they?).

Regarding Hepatitis B virus serologies, and in particular the images on your user page, I left a couple of specific comments on Image talk:Chronic HBV v2.png. In general I like HBV serological curves because they are familiar, I like graphs, and I am very visual, but I found them daunting when I was in school and in teaching about this I have found that HBV newbies can digest tables of "+" and "-" more easily. The transitions between well-defined states are missing from such tables, but those are generally brief and hard to interpret anyway, except in retrospect. It now occurs to me that we could also use a flowchart, which would convey the same information but could also help people understand that people can move back-and-forth between states, particular when immuno-active.

Please feel free to help me with WP etiquette, as I'm not sure whether I should be responding here or on your talk page.Scray (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scray, it's completely up to you where you respond. I like to keep conversations together so here is good for me. You right about the (+) and (-), they do not convey the sense of progression that I wanted to capture. Perhaps they would be better for this article? The flow chart is a very good idea indeed. I'm not sure what you mean about back and forth between states, I never seen this, but one has to be very careful around here about neutrality ;-). Any help with these figures and any of the other articles would be much appreciated as is your constant help with fending off the vandals. Lastly please call me Graham as do the others, it's nice because it's my real name. Thanks for responding. I'm glad we've met. Graham. GrahamColm ^Talk 17:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?

I was wondering about this edit. I did not have a conflict of interest, as there was no edit war and I was merely undoing what I'm pretty sure was an IP user's removal of sourced content. I'll check if it's a legit source, but that IP user's sudden deletion of that passage was based on faulty reasoning. If it turns out that the source is a dud, then I'll let the article stay as it is. Cheers, FusionMix 13:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - in re-reading my edit summary I can see why you are confused - I worded it poorly. What I meant to say was that I agreed with the IP user's deletion, because that paragraph is unsourced, appeared to be a personal account thus violating COI policy, and in any case represented an anecdote of no general interest. So, my edit summary was meant to be a comment on the passage that had been deleted, not your restoration of it. Should I do something to clarify? I would not agree with restoring that deletion without some justification. --Scray (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see the relevant Talk page, where I explained my rationale at the time. --Scray (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my IQ question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Caltech

Thanks for your note! Caltech has been one of the most important universities with the least impressive Wikipedia article. So, I'm doing what I can to gradually change that. Amerique^dialectics 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi Scray - I've fulfilled your request. Please see WP:RBK or ask me if you need any help with the tool. Happy editing! Pedro : Chat 14:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've made this edit :) -hydnjo talk 01:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I did not know about that page. Very kind of you to think of me. --Scray (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should have been added sooner - sorry about that and you're welcome! -hydnjo talk 04:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaled Breath Temperature

Hello Scray,

I've posted a rough draft on Exhaled Breath temperature on my talk page. I'd like to get other people who are interested in this area to have a look at it and comment. I read the stuff about Afc but that seems to be for people who are not registered.

I suppose I could just go ahead and start the topic and make sure I have a decent discussion page ready and the appropriate people will just find it right?

Any chance you could take a quick look at my effort? Did I miss something in the links you gave me about how to publicise a topic to a likely bunch of Wikipedians who will be interested in this topic?

Sorry if I'm being thick I'll be fine once ~~I get used to the edit tools~~.

Thanks

Jonathan (Singapore) --Jgeach (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, I've responded on your talk page. --Scray (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calc-sinter

I've asked about it on a couple of mineral or geological forums, will let you know what comes up. DuncanHill (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stress and stroke

You recently posted on the reference desk about the links between chronic stress and stroke. This new study says it may be mostly because of behavioral factors. Thought you'd be interested. Cheers - Draeco (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation does not prove causation. There are other studies that strongly indicate physiological impacts of stress that could trigger blood clots and other phenomena. It's not likely to be a single factor, anyway. --Scray (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2suit split request

Yo, and Happy New Year. I'm about to split 2suit from Sex in space back to a separate article. I left an over-elaborate justification on the latter's talk page, but the gist of it is that the situation was drastically changed after the merge decision when the suit featured in a History Channel documentary. Not peripherally - the bloody things were demonstrated in zero gravity.

The editor who AfD'd and merged the 2suit article has no objections to a split. Since you did object, but gave no sign of addressing this change in the situation, I'm writing this notification to make sure you have a chance to do so.

Here's something I'm experimenting with: If you lack the time or energy for a full-length reply, feel free to reply with the word "jackhammer" if you don't object so that I can get things dover with and you won't waste time. --Kizor 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I disagree with the split and explained why here. --Scray (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r^c 23:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! I can see that I am in good company. Thank you. --Scray (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Scray, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Willking1979 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo! I'm one year old! --Scray (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Firstly, thanks for your answer on the help desk. I've posted a reply there to clarify a bit. Secondly, I'm judging by your response that you're somewhat involved in the medical profession, but I've never seen you around at WikiProject Medicine. Have you thought about helping out? We could use the help :) Cheers! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyclonenim, I hope it's okay to reply here. I have particularly enjoyed your contributions on the RD. I am still finding my way around WP, and appreciate the suggestion. I'll have a look at the project. I have to be careful about saying "yes" to things... --Scray (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to reply here. Most people tend to reply on their own talk page, I'm an exception who likes to post around more :) Don't worry about WP:MED, it's not really a formal commitment, signing up only tells people that you're interested in the subject and edit articles related to it; however, keeping track of the talk page their can help you keep up to date on medical issues here. If you choose to sign up, place your name here and then from the main page you can find your way everywhere :) Cheers, let me know how it goes! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you would be most welcome, Scray. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So nice to feel the warm welcome - I'm in. Thank you. --Scray (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:

Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources
Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess
Have a look at some related WikiProjects
Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood obesity

Thanks you for the support. This editor has added these pictures 3 or 4 time and has never come to the table to discuss things. One I think is of himself.

Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This removal

I hope you don't mind, but I've removed the above question completely as a request for medical advice. Please see my full reasoning here. I just wanted to let you know as one of the responders to the question. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - and I appreciate the thoughtful notice. I replied there. --Scray (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis image update

Have simplified the antigens section.Antigens are mentioned irrespective of whether they are detected in routine laboratory tests or not.HBcAg is not seen in blood.But it has been mentioned because it is the core antigen.Please go ahead with the delete if the file is still not upto the calling.I can add a table for the same after i learn to do it.

-thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishanthb (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is inconsistent because every hepatitis virus protein is an antigen, yet you only list some of them. If you mean structural protein, the list is still not consistent (e.g. HBeAg is not a structural antigen). Do you mean antigen that is present in blood? If so then for HCV "many others" does not apply, and the list for HAV is incomplete. A table that all of us can edit is the right way to go. Help:Table may be useful if you haven't seen it yet. --Scray (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Scray, Thanks for your encouragement on the HIV talk page. It always brightens my day to read your own cogent writing on HIV, Hep and other medical topics. Keep up the great work! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Apologies for reverting you last night. I was completely unaware of the rules in Wikipedia:Categorization of people with regards to categorising Scots. No need to be as humble as you were; I also missed the opportunity to leave a useful edit summary. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 09:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi, there.

Of course you are correct about "minor" edits. Since I do so many Punctuation, Capitalization, Linking, and Markup edits, which are minor,
I recently made "minor" my default. Problem is, when I added the section, I forgot to take the check mark off. I realized it myself, but there doesn't appear to be any way to go back and correct something like that.

So, yes you're right, and I must be more careful. B00P (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Just unchcked the box for this one.)

Procedure related articles

With the recent tension over the Mohs surgery article, I have started a discussion regarding guidelines pertaining to articles about medical procedures. If available, given your editing history, perhaps you would consider participating in the discussion? kilbad (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dermatology

Do you have an interest in dermatology? kilbad (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not more than other medical specialties. --Scray (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, np. Thank you for your response. kilbad (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Science RD

In order:

My apologies.
Good call.
Thank you.

arimareiji (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping back from it all, I think the episode was healthy for the RD community. No really harsh words were exchanged, and the dust settled quickly. Your answers on RD/S have been excellent - it's good to have you there. Cheers, --Scray (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... I've added it to my watchlist, so you may be seeing me more in the future (be afraid...) ;-) arimareiji (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the admonition re: homework, I'll try to be more mindful. arimareiji (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, you earn Comment of the Day with "On the flip side, recent experience suggests height increases within 1-2 generations of shift to higher-calorie diet, and I don't think that's because increases in calorie intake kill the short people." Thank you for the laughs; it's good to work with people of good humor. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I agree about anthropomorphizing - I was contradicting the notion that cancer cells are "particularly adept", not affirming it. And wrt the sniper analogy, I definitely wasn't trying to anthro chemo drugs - rather, the person designing them. arimareiji (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made my second edit (noting the OP's language) because I realized that my comment might come off as an indictment of what you had said, when that was not the intention - following your comment seemed like the appropriate place to place mine in the flow of the discussion. Sorry if the tone came off wrong - no disagreement intended. --Scray (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this vandalism??

Please look at his third attempt to edit this article basal cell cancer in the last few weeks: --Northerncedar (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (cur) (prev) 22:40, 25 February 2009 Nickcoop (Talk | contribs) (23,265 bytes) (I have moved the Mohs advertisment to the Mohs section.) (undo)[reply]

This is not the best way to involve editors in a discussion about an article. It would have been more appropriate to open a discussion at the Talk:Basal cell carcinoma page. I have done so, but please don't take this as an endorsement of canvassing. --Scray (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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!)

-- ~~~~

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the invitation, but my plate is overflowing and Cardiology is not my focus. Cheers! --Scray (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New questions

I have posted some new questions regarding medical procedures and, if avaliable, wanted to know if you would leave some comments there? kilbad (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you for correcting my mistake. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		To Scray, for consistently high quality answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axl, Thank you! This is really quite meaningful coming from someone for whom I have so much respect. --Scray (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full blood count

We use this term in the UK; you call it "complete blood count". ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my! Now you know which side of the pond I'm on. :-0 No doubt your first clue, hm?

In that response I did link to the WP page, which is named using the proper (U.S.) term. ;-P

Axl, it's always good to hear from you. --Scray (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperthermia therapy

This page needs citations from reliable medical sources, — and you are invited to help do that. ;-)

Seriously, I was just about to post this to WT:MED to see whether anyone wanted to help turn it into a good WP:DYK candidate. We've got five days (minus about an hour or two, as of this writing), if we want to do that. I think it's a good topic to do well because there's some overlap between outright quackery and good science in the topic.

Do you have an interest in helping out? 'hyperthermia cancer treatment' produces some 2000 reviews to sort through at PubMed, and there are 800 potential sources at Google books, so there's no shortage of sources to review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irritation

Well, I'm certainly very sorry to have irritated you; it was certainly not what I intended and had I thought it would irritate you I would have remained silent. I do think that we're here to provide information to people who need it, and my edit was intended only to do so. - Nunh-huh 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help and can I have a little more, please?

Thank you, Scray, for turning up just when some bot accused me of possible vandalism....me, a known malware and troll hunter where I come from. I had a lot of trouble getting the page with that edit to go through; it timed out on me several times. The bot now says 150,000 bytes in it, which seems more than a little excessive for the 8 or so lines I actually wrote. The bot's log seems to show I re-sent the entire earlier text of the entire page, which of course does not show up if I look at the earlier version. Do the bots normally make this kind of mistake? In case this was a hidden post caused by the trouble in posting, I am NOT reverting to my version, but rewriting it. Thanks again for hitting me with all those Welcome templates; a few I've not come across yet. KoolerStill (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot was triggered when this edit pretty much blanked the whole Science RefDesk page. On further digging it looks like you replaced the page with a single section on dimmers - not sure how that happened but it certainly doesn't look like vandalism. I also see that you had trouble with duplicated posting here. Overall, sounds like you are having browser trouble, and you might want to limit editing until that's resolved.

Regarding "all those Welcome templates", that was just one template. Sorry if it seemed excessive, but the links looked useful. I sincerely hope that your editing goes well and you enjoy Wikipedia. --Scray (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, problem solved then. Both incidents would have been caused by postdata being re-sent, the first time losing the copy of the page and sending only my addition to it. I write in an external editor anyway, so next time I'll just kill the page and start on a new copy of it. I hope in months to come blanking a whole page won't be held against me.KoolerStill (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reference desk

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		I appreciate your swift and informative answer to my question. Thanks! TravisAF (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]