User talk:AED/Archive 2

Navigation box

As you can see, I've added some terms. Of course, feel free to cut/consolidate as needed. I'm just glad to have it. Thanks again. --Natebw 01:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Floaters#Transparent floaters

User:Lindosland recently added a description of "transparent floaters." I moved it to the "description" section and added a {{fact}} tag to it; from his notes on the Talk page this would seem to be based on the personal experience of himself, his mother, and people in Internet forums. I.e. no source, but it seems plausible enough that something like this might actually have been recognized or described by a reputable source. Could you take a look at it? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keratoconus

Hi, and welcome back, AED. I was hoping you would return -- I was looking for some assistance with Keratoconus: you might have noticed it's been on peer review for a while, but there's only been one outside contributor so far. Any more input would be very useful. BillC 23:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the very comprehensive set of comments you've been adding to Talk:Keratoconus. Work on the history section may need to wait a couple of days until I can get myself into Moorfields in London. As I'm sure you realise, I've no connection with ophthalmology, I'm merely an electrical engineer who has keratoconus. Access to many publications is limited for me, but I will see what I can find this week. Despite very strenous efforts, I have so far been unable to find who coined the term keratoconus. BillC 08:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Moorfield's library wasn't open to casual visitors, but I had better luck at the British Library in London. I have beefed up the History section a little, having read Nottingham's 1854 book (which was very musty!), and improved the list of references. Some data on retinoscopy, and genetics as well (yet to be added), so a fairly productive day. --BillC 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Keratoconus and gaucher

In France, there's 3 people who had Gaucher's Disease and kerataconus ( me and two other people). It's a new relation and genetical research will be do. I had gaucher's disease and keratoconus and recently during a meeting association, a doctor said me he knows two other people. He send them at a french laboratory for research. Another specialist (of gaucher's disease) said the discover of three men for a population of 400 gauchers is significative for him.locusfr

Thanks for the information. What do you mean by a "population of 400"? If there are 63,587,700 people in France and the prevalence of Gaucher's disease is between 1:30,000 to 1:50,000 [1], then there should be between 2,120 and 1,272 people with the disease in France. If only three of them have keratoconus, then that makes the prevalence of those with Gaucher's disease and keratoconus in France to be 1:707 and 1:424... not 1:133 (i.e.3:400). I'm not sure how significant this is given the lack of verifiable information and that the prevalence of keratoconus has been estimated to be between 1:2000 and 1:500. -AED 00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There's 400 knew people with gaucher's disease of type 1. it's possible that there's more people but so people have a minor problems that it's not recorded or had a treatment. I know a man of 60 years old who discover recently they had gaucher's disease but they're not important health problems. I spoke of type 1 because gaucher's disease has 3 types. Actually, nobody has thought or found before a possible relation between gaucher and keratoconus. it's recently with the discover of three men. locusfr

There may very well be an association. I'm not a statistician so I don't know how these numbers would crunch in a Student's t-test to determine what effect the the low sample size may have. It is interesting, though. -AED 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note regarding your TLA's

Hi, AED. Just dropping a note regarding your three created articles which were TLA's. Since they only have a single entry, I've converted them to redirects (see how here), but in the event that the acronym can have a second interpretation, the page can then be changed to a disambiguation page. Happy editing! Kareeser|^Talk! 06:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic article

I've been reviewing your recent round of edit to the chiropractic article and I would like to commend you on your work. You have a very clear way of presenting complicated material in a non-biased fashion. I look forward to your future work on that article and those related to it. 72.129.6.122 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

LASIK

Just wanted to say thanks for your ongoing work in keeping the links section for LASIK and related pages relevant and succinct. --Calair 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please contact me by email. -- Fyslee 12:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to Objectivism and homosexuality

I noticed you recently made a change to Objectivism and homosexuality. You were right that the text was ambiguous, in that it spoke of an organization but didn't specify which one it meant. That was my mistake and I've corrected it (the organization implied was the ARI, and now it says so).

But while I'm not complaining about the content of your change, I do want to ask you to please come to Talk and discuss any issue before making a change. This request is not really about you, but is instead part of an ongoing effort to avoid another edit war and Protect.

Once again, I'm not at all complaining about the content of your change and I don't in any way want to discourage you from further contributions; my only request is that you work with us to make changes more gently. Alienus 08:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the comment. AED 09:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

W/r/t a Talk item at Ayn Rand, I edited your Category ref to link properly (IMHO). I am commenting at length because editing someone else's signed words is considered very rude, unless carefully explained. Rather than refer to the Cat, your link actually put the Talk page into the Cat. Tx for contributing! --TJ 13:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My error. Thanks for the correction! AED 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Eyes and subluxations?

Here and here are some things that require your expertise! -- Fyslee 13:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -AED 22:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

myopia: appreciate your interest in citations

i share that keen interest in referencing. ive added a citation. i am doing some further analysis of environmental factors and hope to have more input in next several weeks. please feel free to converse with me here or on the article talk page myopia, regardsAnlace 06:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

your new additions to myopia are very well written. i would only quibble with the opening sentence under hereditary. i would favor "A widely held" instead of "The most widely held". in this way we improve POV and dont have to argue over whether its the most widely held. i actually subscribe to the environmental theory and believe the weight of more recent research heads that way, although some of the hereditary data is arresting, i admit. cheers, Anlace 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I certainly agree. The vast majority of the section was not written by me, and there is much in it that needs to be corrected. -AED 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: John Nottingham

Hi... thought I would let you know, just for interest's sake, of the notes I made from the 1854 Nottingham book at the British Library the other day:

• I was expecting it to be a paper, maybe a few pages long, but it turned out to be a substantial book of about 180 pages.
• Almost every source I had seen beforehand, including some very well-referenced ones, had got his initial wrong as G, not John.
• The term 'conical cornea' is used throughout. I could find no use of 'keratoconus'.
• It proved quite readable, if a little stilted. The pages had yellowed somewhat, but at 150 years old it was still in good condition.
• He ran through a list of remedies people had tried, noting that few of them showed any sign of success. It was interesting to see that some had tried electromagnetism, which in 1854 was very poorly understood. Nottingham's understanding of electricity, as a physician, would likely to have been extremely sketchy on what was then an incipient science. He may, for example, have been referring to an electric current, or to the application of electric shocks to the eyeball. However, it's interesting to see that in the mid 19th century, quackery was as alive and well as it is today.
• He speculates on the cause, and whether or not the distribution is even (he suggests a higher prevalence amongst the Chinese).
• Reports on the use of prussic acid vapour to treat what appears to be corneal hydrops.

I put in a request for the 1859 paper by William Bowman, but this was kept off-site, and they were not able to retrieve it before the library closed for the day. And on another note, I have found an earlier usage of the word keratoconus: the Franco-German ophthalmologist Frédéric Jules Sichel (or Julien -, or Julius -) wrote a paper on the subject, and he died in 1868, a year before Horner's paper. It's not clear that Sichel was the first, though. Regards, --BillC 15:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article!

Keratoconus is now a featured article! Blink and you would have missed it happening. The only indication was the addition of the FA notice to the talk page by the closing admin. I was surprised for two reasons: first, I thought it had almost a week left on the process, and secondly, I didn't think it had garnered enough total votes yet. There's still more to do: there's a couple more of your points on the talk page to look at, and the prose in general wants tidying and to employ more precise medical terms. I had wanted for some time to fit in the word 'ectasia', but it would then need linking, and ectasia is currently a redirect to Aneurysm, which discusses blood vessel distension.

When I first came here to write this piece, I was originally going to write something like 'thanks, I couldn't have done it without your help'. But the reality is that such was your contribution during the peer review and FAC that you ended up being a principal author of the article. So, let me offer my congratulations to you.

One more for the Medicine Project FA trophy cabinet. --BillC 06:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

Directly copied information is a copyright violation. You can choose between replacing the article with a copyright violation tag {{copyvio}}, or rewriting the section in your own words with the Neurology article as a reference. If only part of the article is copyrighted (which it obviously is, despite all reassurances from Soros) the latter is probably the better option. JFW | T@lk 07:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Phantom eye syndrome

Thanks for your comments / additions to this article! I have added some citations and will improve the article in the next days and weeks. Thanks again. --Peter Soros 00:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Phantom eye syndrome: copyright issues

There was some concern about the article on Phantom eye syndrome which I have started a few days ago. I have added citations and changed the text to make it more readable. Regarding the copyright, I have asked "Neurology" to clarify the issue. In my understanding, transfering the copyright to a journal does not mean that I have to find new words when expressing an idea just because I used a certain sentence in a previous publication. By the way, copyright agreements which hurt the authors are one of the reasons why I plan to publish more and more in open access journals where I keep the copyright. Regards, --Peter Soros 01:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Corneal topography

Thanks! Sorry, I meant to tell you that I had created it to fill in the redlink on keratoconus, and to ask you if you wanted to offer any contributions, but it slipped my mind. I don't think it's the best image of corneal topography we could find (it's a bit small), but it was all I had to go on at the time. A picture of the instrument itself would be nice as well. During my KC searches, I came across this page, which as it's military ought to be in the public domain and therefore usable in Wikipedia. (You need to right-click on the images to see them full-size.) As regards the caption or anything else in Corneal topography, feel free to make whatever changes you think need making. (I've nominated the article for WP:DYK, by the way.) --BillC 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vision loss

I've performed the move for you. No double redirects needed fixing. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Keratoconus front page nomination?

How do you feel about me nominating this as a frontpage featured article? Too soon? Needs more work? I thought they appeared there in due course 'by right', but apparently someone has to nominate them here. Looking at the backlog on that page, I would be surprised if it was much less than two months away following nomination. But let me know if you have any thoughts. --BillC 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the restructuring suggestions for Signs, symptoms and diagnosis. I'm working on it (will take a little while), but in a subpage of my user page. --BillC 20:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I can sort Symptoms from Signs quite easily, but it's going to be harder to separate Signs from Diagnosis. Scissor reflex for example, is a sign, but it is not meaningful to discuss it until you're talking about retinoscopy in diagnosis. I'll call it a night for now, and think about how best to proceed. --BillC 22:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I bit the bullet and did it. We'll see how it goes. --BillC 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's on: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June_5,_2006. If you can spare the time to work some more of your magic on the article before that time, I'm sure it will benefit from it. Of course front page FA's get heavily vandalised during their time there, but hopefully there'll be some good edits amongst all that. --BillC 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The front page image certainly caused a rumpus... I would never have imagined it would do so. Oh well, within a few hours it will be removed (for Krazy Kat!) and the world will be safe again. --BillC 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for leaving me a compliment in the edit summary of Contact lens. :-) --Uthbrian (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're welcome! It was my pleasure. Any questions about it? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'm always available. I assume you're using m:Help:Table as your resource? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of Charles Schepens

I have had a look on Google images for pictures see [2]. There are no .gov images which would be in the public domain. However, there are .org images available so perhaps schepens.org may be willing to make a photo available. Capitalistroadster 09:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Great article! He sounded an interesting character. I have made a small suggestion on the talk page. I haven't been able to find a copyright-free image yet, though. --BillC 17:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to ask Philippe Schepens; AFAIK he is a nephew of Charles 12.74.162.140 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

British Library

I shall be taking a trip to the British Library in a week ot two's time. In the mean time, are there any documents that you would like me to take a look at, or get some photocopies for you? Their catalogue search is here. --BillC 07:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Autism epidemic

There is Wikipedia:Deletion review, which I would recommend. I think someone needs to be bold and merge/redirect this. No votes are necessary for a merge/redirect. Subsequent edit wars and blocks can then be conducted along normal dispute resolution guidelines. AFD was probably not ideal for that article in the first place. JFW | T@lk 12:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to move much from its present state as it is. Ripping out everything that relates to incidence, since there is an article on that, would be one direction. I couldn't make an article about prevalence from what is in it - someone else might be able to. Most of the rest is speculation about causes of autism which has a proper home. Midgley 10:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Alexandria Potomac Little League

All done, thanks for your note. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Seance

I have been searching for information on this (Steth actually did remove it), and it is quoted as being from a book by DD Palmer, but I don't have the book.... Please email me and I'll send you what I have. It's all very interesting. The spiritualist, occultist, Freemason, roots of chiropractic. -- Fyslee 19:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sixth nerve palsy

I've done this page move. It's an uncontroversial move which can always be reversed if anyone feels strongly about it. JFW | T@lk 21:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Contact

Please contact me by email. -- Fyslee 09:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ophthalmology

I have, and I agree. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Schools

I understand your logic here, but if you look at the three articles, there is a significant difference. If the chiro page isn't significantly revised, it looks like a violation of Wiki policy, especially since chiro schools, with only a couple exceptions, are private trade schools. (Life - the largest - was a family run school with huge profits for the family.) Right now the "article" is a link farm. It should be radically changed or go. If it ends up as free advertising for the schools, then it should go even faster. -- Fyslee 20:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Then help expand it or model it after List of medical schools and rename it List of chiropractic schools. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. To have one skeptic remove the links from chiropractic, then another try to speedy delete chiropractic school smacks of bad faith bias. (I'm also the creator of Veterinary school, btw.) -AED 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Help

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

chiropractic reference

AED, Thanks for helping with the reference!--Dematt 00:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the grammer checks. Check out the change I made to my edit and let me know what you think. Keep an eye on me! Grammer has never been my best subject--:)--Dematt 02:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know you like the caduceus. It sure is a pain to get things through the copyright process. Chiro.org is allowing us to use any of their stuff. Apparently he has been watching what's going on. He noted that the article is finally sounding better, so I guess we must be doing something right. Sometimes I' not sure whether we are doing anything other than going around in circles. I do appreciate your cool head through all that yesterday. It helped. Keep it up. --Dematt 03:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What was that template:ControversialArticle userbox deletion all about? I tried to follow the links, but couldn't figure out what it had to do with us.--Dematt 05:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AED, I do like your version of the introduction and would like to see you introduce it on the chiropractic talk page when you get a chance.--Dematt 16:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Come see what I have user talk:Dematt#chiropractic.

AED, I've been thinking about statistics for the "most DC's believe" section of your sentence and since we have a hard time determining that without offending some, maybe it would be better to say "Chiropractic principles suggest" i.e.,

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general healthThere is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation. Chiropractic principles suggest that displacement and/or abnormal motion of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function and interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability.

What do you think? --Dematt 17:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Update; Fyslee says he is willing to support this;

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general healthThere is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation.

While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can support this process by using manual treatments. Chiropractic principles suggest that displacement or abnormal motion of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function, and thus interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability. Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain.

How close are we to what you would like to see?--Dematt 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As written above, I don't think the third sentence is necessary. And I'm no longer certain that the fourth sentence is accurate given that lack of consensus regarding how chiropractors define "vertebral subluxation" or whether it (versus spinal malalignments) is the cause of illness or disease. If there is no consensus among them, we should not let this introduction imply that there is. Perhaps the answer is to mention whatever beliefs are shared among chiropractors first. Example: "There are varying philosophies [or schools] of chiropractic, but most practitioners agree [or believe] that...[Insert common demoninator here]." It is not my view that every sentence must be referenced, but I strongly favor that idea in order to reduce reversions based on POV accusations. Until we can cement some comment as to what chiropractors believe in theory or in practice, I think we would be chasing a moving target to discuss how skeptics address chiropractic theory of practice. I would, however, like to see the skeptic addition prefaced with something like: "Although X million people seek treatment from chiropractors each year,...". -AED 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see what you mean about the third sentence. It is nearly always presented by chiropractors as if it was a unique chiropractic viewpoint (just like the old straw man argument "we treat the cause, while they only treat the symptoms"). It is a universal belief in medicine, and therefore superfluous in this connection.

I think the fourth sentence still represents most chiropractors' viewpoints. Only the reform NACM would object to the last part of it, while admitting that the first part is indeed chiropractic dogma, and they boldly renounce it. (You should read that page!) We just need to avoid using the word "consensus." Right now the word used is "suggest," which is a very weak wording that can hardly be objectionable, since the truth is actually much stronger.....;-) -- Fyslee 21:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought hard about that one, too. That is why I suggested changing it to chiropractic principles suggest... It takes the issue of "belief" out of the equation. It does not matter whether some or most DC's believe it or not. I suppose it is possible that there are medical doctors that don't believe in the germ theory either, but they know it is a principle of medicine and don't take issue with the fact that it does not describe their personal belief. The statement that you have created is the most accurate assessment of what chiropractic is that I have seen in more ways than you probably realize.

1. displacement or abnormal motion of vertebrae--that includes misaligment, normal alignment with abnormal motion, muscle spasms, sprains and strains, ligament laxity and subluxation, etc..
2. can impair or alter nerve function-- includes the blatant "pinched nerve", facilitated nerve impulses from chemical irritation, decreased nerve impulses from chronic irritation, autonomic imbalance, disturbed mental energy, blocked innate, or anything else that might get in the way.
3. can interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology-- Oh my gosh this says it all; straight's diseases and/or dis-ease, and even reform DC's agree the segmental dysfunction of a vertebra can lead to degenerative changes within the disc and osteoarthritis- this is pathology as well. And if you change the first word to may instead of can you capture even the ones who don't believe any of it.

I also realize that you have the gift of creating accuracy from chaos. Think it through and if you need to make some changes, go for it. No hurry, it can only get better:)--Dematt 22:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Come see atUser talk:Dematt#chiropractic--Dematt 03:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In trying to help edit, does this capture the general idea?

"While chiropractors stress the body's natural ability to heal and regulate itself, they believe they can improve a hinderence to this process by using manual treatments. Chiropractic principles suggest that displacement or abnormal motion of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function, and thus interfere with the body's ability to adapt or function normally, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability. Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain."--Hughgr 00:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Request

Oops; I meant to leave a message after I deleted it. You're welcome! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Spinecor AFD

Probably.Geni 11:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

External links on Eye tracking

Could you take a look at the external links on Eye tracking? There seem to be quite a lot, but I'm not yet familiar enough with the topic to feel comfortable sorting out the ones that belong from the ones that are actually linkspam.

Thanks, -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  21:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. The list of external links looks much better now and I like the copy edits you made too.

Thanks again, -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish you'll reconsider

Hi AED, you've brought a middle ground perspective that has helped discussion to a better article. I hope you'll reconsider leaving as it seems to me that you've helped bring together the opposing POV better than anyone. Mccready's edits and trolling don't seem to help, is that rfc against him still active? I will sign up if you think it will help. Thanks for your efforts, none the less. Cheers!--Hughgr 00:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

AED, I deeply appreciate your input. Any time you stop by, please feel free to correct my structure and tweak my meaning. You have a gift. I hope you don't mind if I drop by your talk page and pass a few sentences by you for an objective POV. I agree with you that it does look hopeless at this time and I cannot be sure that I will be able to watch much longer either. We gave it a good shot, though! And who knows, maybe it ain't over yet:) Keep in touch and if I really need you, I' going to come get you! Respectfully--Dematt 00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Over-illumination

I'd be interested in your taking a look at this article, particularly the "Effects" section. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Life expectancy

Thanks for pointing out the carelessness of my post about American life expectancy at Talk:Publicly-funded health care#Bias. I read the anonymous poster's last sentence a little hastily, and apologize for misconstruing whoever he/she may be. On the whole I agree with both of you. I'd also go farther and say there really aren't anywhere near enough data to draw conclusions about quality of care for most individual medical procedures, let alone entire health care systems. I went off half-cocked because I just get tired of the popular American delusion about American life expectancy, which is often then used to justify a claim (unjustified, as you and the anonymaous poster point out) that the American health care system is the best in the world. Even people who should kow better claim this – for example, Robert Novak made exactly this claim and drew exactky this unjustified conclusion a couple of years ago on his TV show. John FitzGerald 13:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Chirotalk

I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. As someone who has recently edited the chiropractic article and discussion pages, I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDoctorIsIn (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

Tonometer/Tonometry

Dear AED, please do not take my actions personally, but the previous version of the update was creating a negative "suggested" opinion about Diaton; where the opinion was based on TGDc and not Diaton, which is much more advanced (fyi TGDc is no longer in production). As you have also correctly noticed, "powered by" - we have added Diaton Tonometry as an educational vehicle to Wikipedia just a few days ago due to the FDA approval - it's a new, unique method, which I hope will do much good to the industry and the cause overall. No spamming was intended and would like to request to reconsider and reinstate the link as an external source for information purposes only – the link did not lead to the buy page, just presented legitimate overview… I also wanted to take a moment to thank you for taking your time to review all the available info as deep as you have; even I haven’t done as much. There are a number of fresh publications, with up-to-date information about Diaton Tonometer entering wide media within this and the following months. I will try to make you aware as it appears and would like to jointly, since we're educating the same marketplace, to create awareness of this tonometry method. Looking forward… Rgds, ^DA—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ^DevelopAll (talk • contribs) 06:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

Care in the Community

I'm concerned with the way you truncated Care in the Community, especially since you did not provide an edit summary explaining the what/why of this edit. Was this edit an error, or intentional? Thanks -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the text intentionally. Similar to what is found in WP:SPCP, there exists a reasonable suspicion that the text was copied from elsewhere:

1. There was a very large amount of non-wikified text contributed all at once by an anonymous editor,
2. There existed a lack of minor edits by that editor following the contribution,
3. The writing style seemed too good to be true, and
4. There existed give-away phrases that appear out of place (e.g. "further reading" and "These sources provide additional information on Community Care.)".

I cannot prevent anyone from reverting these changes, but I would ask that they cite the sources for the addition per WP:V. -AED 00:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the well reasoned response (both here and on the article talk page). After reviewing this I find myself agreeing with your points, though I'm sad to see the material go. Thanks again for this & your other contributions! -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfD

I am sorry that I have been away and was not able to attend to this AfD. A cursory impression suggests that it indeed should not be included. I regret that the discussion has concluded. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Screen magnifier & ZoomText

Since you've edited Screen magnifier before, and I value your opinion, could you look at the situation on the Screen magnifier and ZoomText articles (including the AfD for ZoomText). Thanks -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Verification

It is highly arrogant of you to have removed the "of best selling medical books" from the article of an Indian Author even without discussing the facts initially on the talk page. And your action of removing medical books whn 6 books are quoted with ISBN numbers is beyond comprehension Indian Books are NOT marketed in Amazon and don't base your conclusions seeing only that I expect you to restore the lines. The very fact that books are out of print means that they are best sellers. Remember that there is a world outside your view and Wikipedia is global encyclopedia and not limited to your area only—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.112.54 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

This effrontery appears to be founded in a number of mistaken premises, so I would caution you to assume good faith when addressing other editors. The edit history shows that the text I removed was "Best Selling Medical Books". In all caps, this gives the impression that he (you?) wrote a book with that particular title. I found nothing to support the notion that he (you?) wrote a book with that title, so I removed it per Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is nothing in Wikipedia that dictates that this particular type of edit needs to be discussed on the talk page prior to being made. -AED 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been guided to this page by my friend. There are enough proof (Publisher Web Site) that I have actually written those books. Hence the criteria of Verifiability has been satisfied. May be you can argue the best selling part, but how can you deny that I have written 6 books Doctor Bruno 01:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Check your premises. Where did I deny that you wrote 6 books? -AED 01:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

ALready checked. Your words were I found nothing to support the notion that he (you?) wrote a book with that title, so I removed it per Wikipedia:Verifiability. That that was a false statement. When you can see the website of the publisher or the ISBN number, which are all in public domain, your claim that you "find nothing to support the notion that I wrote a book with that title " is a wrong statementDoctor Bruno 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, where in that statement does it state that I deny that you wrote six books?! Secondly, if you wrote a book entitled "Best Selling Medical Books", please provide a link to it. -AED 03:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You can verify with the Publishers whether such books have been published or not. http://www.jaypeebrothers.com/pgDetails.asp?cat=s&book_id=81-8061-309-7 http://www.kalambooks.com/html/catalogue.htm Or you can mail them. Or you can call them and confirm How can you assume that there is no verifiability even without verifying Doctor Bruno 01:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See above. There is nothing to indicate that you wrote something entitled "Best Selling Medical Books". -AED 01:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But I have written 6 MEDICAL BOOKS published by leading publishers and not self publications. How can you deny that. And how can you say that it is not verifiable. Can I know what you did to check the verifiability. Did you see the publisher's site. Did you phone them. If you have not done such basic things, how can you tell that it is not verifiableDoctor Bruno 02:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, where in my comments does it state that I deny that you wrote six books?! Secondly, if you wrote a book entitled "Best Selling Medical Books", please provide a link to it. -AED 03:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Reminder I suspect that octor Bruno's first langauge is not english, and this is causing some of the confusion over "one title removed" and "all six books". LinaMishima 04:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! -AED 15:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

6 Medical Books

• I have written 6 medical books
• I have not written a book titled "best selling medical book"
• Is this clear
• I am surprised that you can go to the extent of nominating a bipgraphy for deletion without even ascertaining this simple fact, when the list of the 6 books are clearly given belowDoctor Bruno 04:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I never denied that you wrote 6 medical books, nor have you shown that I did deny it.
2. I know you never wrote a book entitled "Best Selling Medical Book" or "Best Selling Medical Books". That is why my only edit to the article was to remove the text "Best Selling Medical Books".
3. I was fully aware of the number of books you wrote before I nominated the article about you for deletion. As the AfD shows, it was my opinion (and that of most others) that the article did not meet the guidlines in Wikipedia:Notability (doctors), Wikipedia:Notability (people) for authors, Wikipedia:Notability (books), or WP:VAIN.
4. Is that clear? -AED 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Serious attitude problems with two editors

There have been some serious edit warrings over at Orthomolecular medicine, Megavitamin therapy, and Pseudoscience.

Primarily two editors have been very aggressive:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Linas
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MichaelCPrice

This user is also involved as their sympathizer and ally:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheNautilus

Myself and User:Cri du canard are the ones being attacked:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fyslee
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cri_du_canard

You are more than welcome to examine our contributions

Here is one of my messages about the problem:

• I have just left a warning on MichaelCPrice's talk page. He, Linas, and others are violating quite a few rules here, including conspiring against other editors, incivility, failing to assume good faith, accusing others of bad faith edits, personal attacks, etc.. Their personal edit histories are very telling. They are also coordinating their efforts to attempt to trap others in 3rr violations, and are simply taking total control over the orthomolecular medicine and megavitamin therapy articles, with MichaelCPrice apparently functioning as the ringleader of the gang. He has been warned by others. I suggest that several administrators make a serious investigation, possibly leading to long blocks. I have never seen such organized aggressiveness before here at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 23:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) [3]

These good messages of warning from a fellow editor illustrate the problem. (The intervening belligerant responses by them say even more!):

Three Warnings to User:Linas:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Linas&diff=prev&oldid=69024762
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Linas&diff=prev&oldid=69218700
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Linas&diff=next&oldid=69220451

Warning to User:MichaelCPrice:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MichaelCPrice&diff=prev&oldid=69214840

Another related comment from administrator Jefffire: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jefffire&diff=prev&oldid=69208687

Now I'm making a request for investigation and help from editors and administrators because it is beyond our control. These editors are extremely aggressive. -- Fyslee 23:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy

Based on your discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles), I thought might like to comment over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with epilepsy. This list had undergone some big changes whilst being reviewed and is now starting to get some support. I fear, however, that it might run out of time to become featured. Regardless, I'd appreciate your opinion. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 09:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to review this list, and for your support. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

saving unsourced articles

You wrote that

TbT has consistently added items to the External links section presumably in an attempt to "save" the article

If an article lacks verifiable sources, it makes sense to see whether verifiable sources exist. If they do, then the sources should be added to the article. If not, then the article should be deleted. Part of the AfD process is to examine whether the problems with a given article can be cured. Sometimes they can, and that's where I try to help. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. First of all, external links are not sources and adding them does not necessarily satisfy WP:V or WP:RS. Per WP:EL: "Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links." Secondly, WP:V applies to the material within the article, not simply the article itself. In many of these AfDs, in the process of helping to save articles you are switching the burden to source information on those who are seeking to remove it (e.g. V S Kudva). -AED 05:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hey,

if you always use AfD as the title for comments in WP:Clinmed, our watchlist doesn't go to the right one. Keep up the good work!

happy editing, --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 20:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the Wikiproject on my watchlist where you post AfD-messages. If I click the "=>AfD" link to read it, my browser goes to the doctor's mess and to the first comment with that title, so if you always use the same title it's difficult to redirect. It's not important, but maybe you can put an article name in along with AfD in the title.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your earlier kind words; and for the revert of my user page. My reflexes are getting slower as the night drags on... :) Kuru ^talk 04:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Myopia

I have added myopia to my watchlist. It comes to my mind that behavioral myopia could be so forcefully advocated by, well, a vision therapy proponent. Vision therapy is a fav topic of optometrists in USA and its validity is hotly contested by Pediatric Ophthalmologists (see AAPOS website), who see no reason to subject a child to such dubious & expensive methods in an attempt to "train" the eyes with questionable equipments. BTW, may I know what is your background as regards to Visual sciences? EyeMD 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am an OD but my views on vision therapy mirror your own; orthoptics may have some limited use but the rest of VT (i.e. treatment of dyslexia, autism, etc.) should be viewed with extreme skepticism. In Myopia, an earlier reference to "Take off Your Glasses and See" has me suspecting that the bit on "behavioral myopia" was added by a Bates method or "natural vision improvement" advocate, rather than a proponent of vision therapy or "behavioral optometrist". -AED 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed pervaiz siddiqui

Your article titled Mohammed pervaiz siddiqui has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed pervaiz siddiqui. I normally prefer giving the author an opportunity to defend the article. If possible, could you add references? Thanks - Williamborg (Bill)

Surgery Images Spam

You and I seem to be fighting the same spammer right now. I have requested that that site be added to the blocklist [4] Thank you, by the way, especially for your work on Eye surgery. --Mdwyer 01:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job

For being a hardworking and friendly contributor, I give you a big thumbs up!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sumer Kumar Sethi

I'm not really much of a deletionist. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed Pervaiz Siddiqui

Though I am unaware of the details that were presented in the article or to the viability of the author, the man does exist and when I did live in Kenya (One and half years back, he was one of the richest men in east africa. Don't think this helps much, just thought I should at least verify that he does exist. For possible reference, you could refer to something that they call "The Books" (a list of the 50 most affluent people) in east african countries (Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda), though, once again, i am unsure if this is published on the net.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.218.125.134 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

As I stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed pervaiz siddiqui: "He might very well be notable, but I am unable to find any references to verify notability." If you have access to references that verify his notability, please feel fee to recreate the article. -AED 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Marshall Parks

Thanks for your edits & improvements! Obviously I am new to WP, but enjoyed reading the Parks background material. I wasn't sure if listing his best-known trainees was appropriate, but certainly every one of them has an impressive CV, though I suppose nobody outside the ophthalmology world would care. What's still needed in the Parks article is a discussion of his publications and ideas. I have to go back to work tomorrow, but may forward the link to someone who could flesh it out more. A photograph would be appropriate, but I don't the rules regarding dragging one from another Web site. Again, thanks for your encouragement. One question -- do you know how I can change my screen name? I have seen enough vitriol on a couple WP sites to want to regain some anonymity; is that still possible? (Bticho)

Emmanuel Kamber

I looked at your evidence (I was thinking things were suspect myself) and I did withdraw my withdrawal, thanks, I was just in a bad mood briefly today. Renosecond 06:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

HapMap

I agree that some of the sections from the HapMap text come from the website. However, I DID rewrite completely 2 sections (look at history), so I don't accept that you remove ALL of the text, including the sections I wrote. I am rewriting the remaining sections, so please stop deleting it. And why are you making up accusations on me? I agree that some references are missing for the Thomas J. Hudson text (and thanks for pointing that up), but no I'm not him. If you look at the history and edits I made, you'll see that it's impossible that I am him. So if I can't put up text without citing my sources, you should not make up accusations without some little research first (Genes123; Sept 16 2006)

Request for clarification on AfD closing

Thought I might get a question. Basically, a source was given in the debate. This means the subject is not unverifiable, although the article lacks sources. We don't delete every article that doesn't conform to WP:V; basically, we delete ones that have failed to improve so impressively that the community feels they never will, and we delete ones that can NEVER conform to WP:V because there are no sources. It may be that the article includes claims that aren't backed up by sources, but this can be improved by editing. If we deleted every article that wasn't in compliance with WP:V andWP:NPOV, we'd delete way too much of Wikipedia: the solution to those problems is for people to edit. :) Mangojuice^talk 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

External links to usaeyes.org

Hi. I see you removed a self-promotional link to usaeyes.org on LASIK; that seems like the correct thing to me. Would you mind looking at these other links to that site? I'm thinking the ones from [Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance] are fine, but I don't know enough about the topic to adequately judge the other ones. Thanks, William Pietri 01:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Links to the USAEyes.org website have been a part of the Wikipedia Lasik information page for quite some time. They are ocassionally removed or altered by vandals and then subsequently replaced. In the most recent instance, I attempted to replace a previously existing external link to our website. Our organization is a nonprofit nongovernmental patient advocacy. We are an authoritive source for information on Lasik, IntraLasik, PRK, LASEK, Epi-Lasik and all forms of refractive surgery and have been a source for media as wide in scope as the Wall Street Journal, Ophthalmology Management, Ocular Surgery News, and Oprah. I do not agree that the removal of links to any authoritive website should be considered "the correct thing". I also believe it is absolutely appropriate for a website owner to replace long established links to their previous state. Glenn Hagele 17:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just jumping in here:

http://www.usaeyes.org certainly looks like linkspam to me. It seems to me to be relatively low on straight information and relatively high on promotion of a group of eye surgeons who belong to this organization... which is not a specialist certifying board, or anything like that. It seems comparable to, say, 1-800-DENTIST.

Unless someone can supply source citations, from a neutral, authoritative medical source, recommending this website as an authoritative source of eye information, I do not think it should be in list of external links in the article on LASIK.

By a "neutral, authoritative medical source," I do not mean Oprah or the Wall Street Journal or medical-business trade publications, but something like e.g. the American Board of Ophthalmology, or the National Eye Institute, or the American Optometric Association.

I support AED's removal of the link and support keeping it out of the article unless someone can point to an place where a trusted, neutral medical source recommends the site as a source of information on LASIK (not a source of information on LASIK surgeons; Wikipedia is not a directory). Dpbsmith (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the removal of a particular link is vandalism is open to debate, and I think the addition of USAEyes.org to IntraLASIK and Photorefractive keratectomy indicates that replacing vandalized material was not the only motive. In line with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO, and WP:EL, I believe it is inappropriate for a website owner to add, remove, or replace links involving his or her website. -AED 20:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

Levine has started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks NATTO 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Input given

Thanks for bringing the points to my attention. I have noted the input there. LasikMD is an advertorial, no doubt about that. And oculoplastics is definitely more suited. I see that you have been copyediting my contributions, apart from the extensive work that you do around here, and I appreciate both :-) EyeMD 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:MCOTW

(cross-posted)

No, don't apologize! I should thank you both! AED, I appreciate you looking out for me and making sure I get credit. And NCurse, I think it's great that you've been able to take over MCOTW now that residency's gotten too busy for me to be very active. I just have an unusually large ego. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Shaken baby syndrome

Hi -- I have appreciated your previous help and contributions and was hoping you could take a look at the SBS page. I tried toning down the quite biased rhetoric found on the page, but someone is deleting the changes. Not worth the time if work is peremptorily deleted.

Thanks!Bticho 04:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The subject matter is largely beyond my area of expertise, but I'll forward your concerns to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. -AED 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Visible spectrum

Hi, the red color disappeared from the table after your latest edit.[5] I don't understand exactly how the navbox template works, so I haven't tried to fix it myself, but I thought you might want to know. Itub 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

Thank you for your message on my talk page regarding the spamming by William charles caccamise sr, md. It certainly does look like spam, and in fact someone else already removed it all and requested a block on the user (which was granted).

If you run across any other spam in the future, you're of course welcome to send me another message. However an even better approach would be to bring it up on the talk page of the WikiProject Spam (here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. There's many more eyes on that talk page (obscure pun not intended), so you'll often get a much quicker response there (as I must, unfortunately, hold down a day job).

Feel free to join the project as well if you'd like to help fight spam. Nothing is required to join except the desire to fight spam. Even if all you do is leave messages on the project talk page when you run into spam, it'll certainly help. Cheers! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Participant lists

Thanks for the invitation, AED! I made some useless comments there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

HapMap

Please give me time, in some hours, I'll take a serious look at that article. Anyway, why is your user page blanked? You've made an enormous job here with hundreds of articles. It's even good to see the list. :) NCurse _work 16:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, I sent him a warning ([6]), I'll try to help to rewrite the article. NCurse _work 16:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're definitely not paying attention then because I made edits at 13:26 today, tried to save more edits later but you had already deleted them and then made more edits at 17:29. This time I removed all the text from the website first. OK I am adding more text right now, so if you don't like some sentences, can you flag them first? - Genes123

Vision and eye care project page

I find that we should be able to discuss various eye topics where everyone can have a look. I suggest that a page / project be created exclusively for us healthcare professionals in vision and eye care, where the topics can be dealt with in a community forum. Navigating to each user:talk page and finding out "who said what in response to which statement and when" is getting to be really tedious. Your efforts are commendable in letting me know of what goes on where - but there has to be a better way! It would be particularly valuable for people like me, who can't spend more than a certain amount of time, coz of busy real life schedules. I hope you know more Eye care professionals who share a common vision of contributing and improving the related articles and we can then invite suggestions on the project talk page. Peace! EyeMD 05:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually dunno how to implement the bulletin board on WP:CLINMED. Also, there are a lots of non-eye related discussions going on its talk page, drowning the specific discussions that we want - to focus on all the Ophthalmology related articles in one place. My previous request to NCurse to list Ophthalmology on the main Project page was supported (see his archive here and my archive here), but somehow later dropped. I think Bticho is an excellent addition to the list of experts. WP:CLINMED lists User:Evands as a another interested person (a medical student) - you may have come across a few more. I think its time! EyeMD 04:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

Why was this link put back into the Eye surgery (diff) by you 6 times?

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=69&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&s1=penis&p=2&OS=toilet&RS=toilet

It is patent application describing "Method of treating hyperproliferative disorders using heterocyclic inhibitors of MEK" and does not concern the topic at all! EyeMD 13:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I must have edited an older version of the page. -AED 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology

Thanks for your message, and good to hear from you again. Of course, I have no professional expertise in the area, but if I can contribute in any way, I will be glad to do so. --BillC 08:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

One little detail. You would really want to add a section to the project page where members can sign up for lots of reasons. One of them is any project without any listed active members is eligible for deletion. Good luck with the project. Badbilltucker 23:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

wikiproject

Thanks for the heads up, I'll be happy to contribute to the Ophthalmology WikiProject. Chyu83 00:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)-Chyu83

Iridodialysis

I will have to look for such a picture, hopefully I can find it today. Am going out of town tomorrow for surgeries, and will be back on Sunday. 2 days doesn't give me enough time. Added some more info to iridodialysis. Your excellent additions to the short stub and complete references is remarkable! Great stuff!! EyeMD 08:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image for iridodialysis has been added! :-) EyeMD 09:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!! Your suggestions and efforts have been of tremendous help. Iridodialysis was featured on DYK, as you may already know. Your contributions are well appreciated. :-) EyeMD 10:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Selig Percy Amoils

Information on career received from Selig Amoils via an email - does this count? Paul venter 05:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) On reflection, I thought I'd better point out the obvious - Selig Amoils provided the same biographical details to Innovative Excimer Solutions and myself - copying? I don't think so. Paul venter 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Accomodative diseases

I have absolutely no intention of dealing with the accommodative diseases listed under the to-do of WP:Eye!! Someone else more interested in those disorders needs to take care of them. If there are specific points where I may be useful in contributing to those topics, just let me know though. EyeMD ^T|C 10:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know !

Ocular ischemic syndrome seems to be better placed to be extended for DYK. Also, its more in line with my interests. I will try to add some more info to it. Just a thought: should we be adding articles at a slower pace with a watch for possible DYKs then? I just started on a few today, most of them stub-class. Hopefully, now with my laptop working (phew!) and the Diwali festival season over, I can devote some more time to this stuff. EyeMD ^T|C 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nominated Ocular ischemic syndrome for DYK here. EyeMD ^T|C 09:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

To AED for the consolidation of the Ophthalmology WikiProject and for exceptional contributions to ophthalmology articles. Great job -- Samir धर्म 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Kudos to both you and EyeMD. You collaboration is greatly improving ophthalmology content here -- Samir धर्म 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Eduardo Reck Miranda

At Articles for Deletion, you wrote "Let me know if rewritten with credible references." Eduardo Reck Miranda has been rewritten with credible references. It could use a bit cleaning up. Given how Miranda was attacked and continually hurt by this attack being left on Wikipedia, would you mind spending a little time on Eduardo Reck Miranda to improve it somewhat? Thanks.-- Jreferee 19:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The context of my comments were that I would change my recommendation from delete if the article were rewritten with credible references. It doesn't matter now since the AfD closed ages ago. -AED 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable & Famous Ophthalmologists

I think these two are quite notable and famous and should be included back in the lists. I was among an enraptured audience of AAO meeting, (in an overflowing 1200-people capacity hall) and listened to Dr. Hayreh's discourse on ocular circulation. He is a living gem!

• Sohan Singh Hayreh (India, USA) - father of ocular circulation studies and classification of optic nerve diseases

Dr. Peyman is a great Ophthalmologist who's books are a masterpiece and he has helped trained quite a lot of fellows over many years.

• Gholam Peyman (USA) - involved in the development of vitreo-retinal surgery, refractive surgery, and cataract surgery.

EyeMD ^T|C 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cataract surgery - why phakic IOLs added

Hi AED, in your recent edit of cataract surgery, the portion from intraocular lens was moved - I don't understand why phakic IOL (PIOL) was also copied on to the cataract surgery page, as that surgery does not even involve removal of cataract or the human crystalline lens? EyeMD ^T|C 10:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Monochromacy etc

I've done the moves and redirects. Can I leave it to you to fix the intros and the template? Cheers. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing! Thanks again! -AED 04:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Week

WS 21:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia terrorism

Once I had the quaint notion that Wikipedia was a collection of informative articles until I had the misfortune to come across you. You're that all too frequent breed of Wikipedian that browses the pages looking for things that offend your pedant's eye, causing endless strife with trivial edits and the sublime belief that you are the ultimate oracle (or should that read opticle) of all things ophthalmological. Wikipedia would be vastly improved by your absence, since you cause more trouble than your very minor contributions warrant. The tragic thing is that you and your sort have turned the pages of Wikipedia into a political arena, whereas with consideration and sensible discussion, you could have achieved so much more. Some day the scales will drop from the eyes of Wikipedia and you will be given the short shrift you so richly deserve. Paul venter 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

The case you describe is wikistalking. Leave a note on WP:ANI and expect someone to take action. JFW | T@lk 16:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Selig Percy Amoils

I've added a reference.--Runcorn 19:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked into all the ins and outs of this, but I have restored the material I added, which is properly sourced, and warned Paul venter not to delete it again. [7] [8] - Runcorn 13:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Chief complaint is up for deletion

Hello AED. I see you're the creator of the Chief complaint article. Please take a look at the deletion debate [9]. If you feel this article could be expanded, I'd certainly reconsider my vote to delete. EdJohnston 17:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Eye movement article

Hi, I see that you contributed to it. Any hope of further input in the coming months? Tony 11:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)