User talk:MAlvis

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your edits at atherosclerosis are very good, too.
I think you would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine.
Have fun. :-)
-- PFHLai 19:00, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

Re: Atheroma

Hi MAlvis
Sure, I can help, but it seems User: 80.128.54.96 has solved your problem at Atheroma and posted a new article (moved from meta-wiki). I think it should be easy to incorporate your text there now.
Happy editing. :-)
-- PFHLai 00:13, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Cardiology diagnostic tests and procedures

Cardiology diagnostic tests and procedures is now nicely enriched. Excellent. :-) -- PFHLai 06:17, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC )

Another doc!

Hi MAlvis, pleased to have a cardiologist on board. I see you've met Patrick Lai, and I trust you've seen work by User:Ksheka, who has done tremendous work on the electrophysiology and antiarrhythmics pages. Would you perhaps be interested to join a lot of other Wiki-doctors at the WikiProject "Clinical medicine". This is a general forum for the medical content of Wikipedia, and it has been quite succesful in raising standards of many medical articles. JFW | T@lk 16:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi MAlvis, I twiddled a bit with your edits on myocardial infarction. In general, I would advise against inserting new sections into an article that has already been structured. Although some participants of the WikiProject disagree, I feel that pathophysiology info should come after the clinical section (signs/symptoms/diagnostic tests). JFW | T@lk 08:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

EBT

A redirect is also a page. When you've been redirected to Electronic Benefit Transfer, there is a link beneath the title that leads to the redirect. You can then edit the redirect. I've turned it into the disambig you desired.

I've just been copyediting some of your new additions. You're writing very useful stuff - I know too little about atherosclerosis, and that's after a year being a data collector for a major study into familial hypercholesterolemia. If you don't mind, I'd like to give some stylistic comments:

Once you've linked to an article, it is generally unnecessary to link every future instance.
Please double-check when you link to initialisms and abbreviations. CAT has a long disambig page beneath it, not just computed axial tomography. DNA is a nice exception. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your talk message. When it comes to units, Wikipedia has pages that employ the scientif notation for some - Orders of magnitude (mass) and the pages that link there may be a nice start. For volt and derivatives this is not (yet) the case. JFW | T@lk 19:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Hi MAlvis. I just discovered that you created Cardiac Output and Stroke Volume, while there were already pages extant without the capital (e.g. cardiac output and stroke volume). I therefore changed your pages into redirects. As far as I could see, the content of these pages was reflected in their older counterparts. Most of these pages were written by User:Ksheka, a rather thorough fellow from New York who is doing a fellowship in interventional cardiology.
Please also proofread your contributions for typos! JFW | T@lk 19:10, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for obliterating the detail you'd added. I should have read it more closely, and indeed transfer those things to the respective talk pages. The capitalisation issue is not really a "problem" of the wiki - it allows for parallel pages to be created where the one is the simple term and the other is a book/movie etc. by that name.

Generally, all titles are lowercase unless there's a good reason not to. I've been moving pages on diseases to lowercase titles for some time now (apart from the eponymous ones, of course, like Rendu-Osler-Weber disease.

Your cardiovascular imaging and physiology knowledge is very much appreciated. These are very hard subjects, and it is an art to represent these subjects in a comprehensive yet understandable manner! JFW | T@lk 08:32, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

CT Scanners

Thanks for the response. I'm a journalist and had to quickly make sense of CT & PET for an article I was writing. --Roisterer 05:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:E-Speed_EBT.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:E-Speed_EBT.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

--Imaek 07:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for providing a source for this image. Unfortunately, that image doesn't appear to be free for our use. Do you use one of these devices in your professional setting? If so, perhaps you could take a photograph yourself, and upload it here? Then we would be assured of having a free image of this device. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're back!

Hi MAlvis. Good to have you back. JFW | T@lk 18:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nice to see another doctor

Apparently we don't cross paths much. I reverted your explanation of types 1 & 2 of diabetes mellitus because they were somewhat out of date and not entirely accurate. No offense intended. I would be happy to elaborate here or on article talk page if you are interested. alteripse 23:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You would be the right person to write something about tirofiban! JFW | T@lk 11:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on my talk page probably meant for alteripse (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your lengthy message on JFW's page about my reversion (I wasnt snooping-- but I was watching yours for a reply to my note). Your painstaking response made think I was perhaps too quick on the revert trigger on an article that has too many insertions of much more objectionable material. I certainly did not intend to impugn your patient care. You took enough trouble with your reply that I felt I owed you more of an explanation on talk:diabetes mellitus about specifics. I did not intend to give offense and am open to compromise or modification. alteripse 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New category

Based on your user page, this may be of interest to you: [[Category:Wikipedians who are pilots]]. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source for particle size etc

Hi, I've noticed that on many pages you have made the point that lipoprotein particle size is a stronger predictor of an atherogenic lipid profile than lipoprotein concentrations. I don't dispute that this is correct, but some relevant sources would be very helpful. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I attract your attention again to the lack of references in your contributions? Electron beam tomography, for example, really needs journal references to back up the numerical claims made in it. On hypercholesterolemia you keep on inserting that LDL particle size is relevant, but despite my above message no references have been provided. Do any professional guidelines in the USA expect practicioners to use lipoprotein particle sizes? Has its use been clinically validated? Is it cost-effective?

Please address my concerns. The relevant policies are verifiability, reliable sources and cite your sources. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 18:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedal Thread Pitch

"with 20 TPI (a thread pitch unique to bike pedals)." - MAlvis (22:46, 15 November 2006)

While Sheldon Brown confirms the 20 TPI, my Sears/Craftsman 50 Piece Tap and Die Set (hardly anything fancy) contains dies of size 1/2 x 20, 7/16 x 20, and everyone's favorite 1/4 x 20. Also, my Park Tool pedal taps are labeled only 9/16 x 20 (LH and RH), and the pitch matches exactly the right hand 1/2 x 20 tap that comes in the Sears set. I'm skeptical of the claim that 20 TPI is "a thread pitch unique to bike pedals." Do you have a source or additional information? -AndrewDressel 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, with evidence that 20 TPI is not unique to bicycle pedals, and no evidence that it is unique, I've taken that statement out. -AndrewDressel; User_talk:AndrewDressel 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need your sources

Hey MAlvis, good to have you back. I read your new contribution vulnerable plaque. I would like to remind you to please provide reliable sources for every contribution you make. I don't dispute a single word of your sterling work, but for readers and fellow contributors to understand the background, as well as providing an opportunity for elaboration, sources are absolutely crucial. A Wikipedia article is not complete unless every pronouncement made therein can be traced to good sources.

I have asked you a while ago to provide more sources on the lipoprotein particle size material that you added to cholesterol. I've actually had to remove some of this material, because the ongoing absence of sources made the article unreliable.

There is a simple trick to add sources. Every journal article has a PMID, as you will now. If you go to Diberri's template filler, a small applet will generate a full citation of the relevant article at the press of a button. The resultant {{cite journal}} template can be copied to the article you're editing. JFW | T@lk 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cleanup on atherosclerosis

Nice cleanup on Atherosclerosis. It needed it. Thanks.

I'll second JFW's suggestion — check out the DiBerri template; it makes PubMed citations soo much faster and easier. David.Throop 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cholesterol

When someone removes your edits, be sure to look in the page history for the edit summary. I removed some of your additions to cholesterol for very specific reasons, and am rather surprised you are simply adding them back without discussion. The terms LDLipoprotein etc are not commonly used and I find them confusing. Likewise, you should not insult the public in an encyclopedia article by calling them ignorant. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAlvis, you are violating NPOV with your edits to cholesterol. Standard guidelines do not insist on measuring lipoprotein particle size as part of the management of dyslipoproteinaemias. To insist that this should be done is using Wikipedia as a soapbox.

Your continuing use of non-standard terminology ("LDLipoproteins") is also not acceptable. This is not the first time I have brought this up with you.

Why do you keep on inserting "There has long been confusion among the public [...]" in the cholesterol article? Unless you can give us a source that documents this "confusion", it is highly disdainful to the readership to insist that they are ignorant. Someone with half a brain will realise on reading the article that they are perhaps not completely informed, and it is again soapboxing to emphasise this point. JFW | T@lk 06:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soapbox again

On sulfonylurea you added that Ralph DeFronzo and colleagues are opposed to the use of sulfonylureas as they accelerate beta cell loss. Of course I appreciate DeFronzo's contributions to diabetology, but that article is really not the place to cite his achievements in such detail. It would be much more helpful if you could produce a reference to support your claim, namely that SUs actually deplete beta cells, or at least a paper in which a recognised expert makes those claims. JFW | T@lk 08:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point of my message. I am happy introducing controversial or advanced issues, especially when they are as far-reaching as the possibility of SUs causing beta cell depletion - if this is true then we are in effect harming people. That is, as long as it can be adequately sourced. In this case, a talk in front of 30 physicians is not exactly ideal as a source, because it is not easily verifiable (this is a Wikipedia core policy). What I was hoping for was a suitable published reference to support your claims. If you would be able to identify this source, that would be fantastic. If Ralph is happy writing letters on your behalf he might be persuaded to reveal the data behind his statements.

Your strategy to stay well ahead of guidelines is laudable, and guidelines themselves should be deviated from if there is stronger/higher grade evidence available. I wasn't for a moment doubting your professional standards, and your work for Wikipedia is appreciated. I'm sorry if I came across grumpy for one reason or another. JFW | T@lk 06:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling Defronzo + Sulfonylurea doesn't quite give me the stuff I was hoping for. JFW | T@lk 06:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfonylurea again

I have temporarily removed your edit to this page. If you insist on discussing atherosclerosis modification by sulfonylureas you will simply have to provide sufficient context for the lay reader. I don't find this in your work, and I do not wish to be tidying up after you. Wikipedia is not intended primarily for healthcare professionals. If you wish to inform colleagues of recent findings, there are plenty of other fora at your disposal. The same applies to your edit to cholesterol. Nobody refers to LDL as "bad lipoprotein". Doctors know that it is bad and don't need to label it, and patients worldwide call it "bad cholesterol" (even though this might not be technically correct, much like people confuse "heart failure" with "cardiac arrest").

You must also get into the habit of using {{cite journal}} if you are adding scientific references. JFW | T@lk 09:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my message you are carrying on along the same lines in diabetes mellitus and on sulfonylurea.

I'm getting the feeling I'm not getting through to you, and I suspect I might be losing my cool. I have asked a fellow medical editor (Davidruben) to mediate here, because I feel repeated progressively annoyed warnings from me are not effective. JFW | T@lk 21:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a medical text book

JFW asked me to have a look. A quick skim shows that your material is technically (very) good and you cite sources (always a pleasure to see). However the level of your language seems too formal and Wikipedia is not a medical text book. I give some examples of where I think the phrasing needs be simplified down

Pioglitazone: see this revert. Firstly whilst comparison itself not incorrect, it is tangential to the section on indication to talk about another drug and the comparison is already made in a later section. Whilst I can unconvolute the "It tends to induce a shift of visceral adipose tissue to subcutaneous locations, a potentially healthy, though mild, shift in fat distribution" it both is ungainly with "shift" used twice and awkward compared to the previous "Mild weight gain is common due to increase in subcutaneous adipose tissue". Yes I know that by "shift" you mean a redistribution, or an increase in one and a decrease in the other (in fact I'm not sure that I do know what was intended - is there a redistribution or just an increase in the subcutaneous fat?), but certainly there is no direct translocation of visceral fat actually moving towards the skin - "induce a shift" seems to jar as I read it :-)

Thiazolidinedione: Take this contribution, I would agree mostly addition of precise details but the phrase "The main side effect of all thiazolidinediones is water retention, leading to edema, weight gain, generally a problem in less than 5% of individuals, but a big problem for some and potentially, with significant water retention, leading to a decompensation of potentially previously unrecognized heart failure." nearly goes over my head as a GP ("decompensation of potentially previously unrecognized" horrible obtuseness, and way too many comma-separated sub clauses). Whereas the previous phrasing of "The main side effect of all thiazolidinediones is fluid retention, leading to edema, weight gain, and potentially aggravating heart failure." was succinct and much easier to read. Now I would backtrack a little and observe that the original phrasing was rather absolute, whereas your phrase did add qualification and a level of balance ("problem in less than 5% of individuals"). So it might have been better to tweak the original to "The main side effect of all thiazolidinediones is fluid retention, leading in 5% of patients to edema, weight gain, and potentially aggravating existing heart failure."

Angioplasty: Edit introduces "The balloons used have a pre-designed inflated diameter and are pre-folded, during manufacture, to a small diameter so as to fit through the narrowed segment prior to expansion. The hydraulic pressures utilized to inflate angioplasty balloons typically range from about 75 (6 atmospheres) to 500 (20 atm.) times higher than typical systolic blood pressure. " What does "pre-designed inflated diameter" mean ? are some angioplasty balloons not designed by their manufacturer or do some need to be folded after manufacture by the cardiologist themselves ? The terms others might use are "inflate to a specified size" or "inflate to a fixed size". As Wikipedia is not a how to guide, "hydraulic pressures utilized to inflate angioplasty balloons " will mystify high school students and probably even most medical students; an alternative might be "the pressure used to inflate the balloons". I would rephrase to: "The tightly folded balloons are passed through the narrowed blood vessels and then inflated to a fixed size by a water pressure some 75 to 500 that of normal blood pressure (6 to 20 atmospheres)" (see rephrasing)

Anyway I'm sure you get my drift - we need to write for a general reader, not for our own students :-) I think we (specialists) all tend to be over precise in our Wikipedia writing, adding statistical terms rather than good prose and adding far too many caveats (a reflection of our expertise). I think a good level is to write (even if on quite technical material) at a level that a good high-school student or an average undergraduate can easily assimilate. I don't mean to bite your well intentioned and knowledgeable contributions, but IMHO you are coming at this at the wrong level and any necessary drastic copyediting will detract from your input :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit - great copyedit which improved the leadin even further :-) David Ruben ^Talk 19:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something you might be interested in...

Please have a look at mevalonate inhibition and related articles, which were clearly written to WP:WEIGHT on the use of statins. You might have a different perspective on this. JFW | T@lk 09:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:E-Speed EBT.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:E-Speed EBT.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.40.120 (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]