User talk:Arcadian/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Image errors etc

Hi Arcadian! First I want to thank you for uploading images from Grey's. I'm a first year student (my final gross anatomy exam is on friday) and they've been a tremendous help in learning the material. I have a few things I wanted to ask you about:

  1. Please, please, archive this talk page. It's 124kb and my browser slowed to a crawl when I tried to type this into the page directly (I had to use my sandbox to write it)
  2. I'm trying to find ways to make my contributions to the wiki anatomy and embryology articles more efficient. I know about WP:Anatomy, but do you have any other ideas or specific areas you think are deficient on wikipedia?
  3. I've been finding errors in the images you uploaded, one trivial and one serious. I don't know what to do about them... I don't know anything about deleting images and wanted to ask you about it.
    1. The trivial one is this image of the thigh extensors, where the rectus femoris muscle is drawn lying deep to the vastus lateralis and vastus medius. It actually lies anterior to these muscles... the vastus intermedius would appear to run between the V-shaped arch formed by the fibers of the lateralis and medius, but only once the rectus femoris has been removed.
    2. The serious error is at brachioradialis, where the seer image shows the brachioradialis attaching to the medial epicondyle of the humerus and inserting on the ulna. Wrong! This appears to be an image of the flexor carpi ulnaris, though I haven't checked to make sure the insertion is right. There is an alternate image of the muscle from Grey's, but I don't like that it doesn't show the relative position of the thumb and doesn't have a medial-lateral label.

Thanks! Robotsintrouble 02:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

0. Thanks for stopping by. Your contributions have been high-quality, and I'm pleased to be collaborating with you.
1. Done.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by "more efficient", but I'd recommend that you keep on doing what you appear to be doing, and focus on the subjects related to whatever you are currently studying in class.
3. Unfortunately, we have a real shortage of anatomical diagrams available to us at the moment, so I'd recommend against deleting the images. Instead, I'd recommend that you add a description to the captions indicating inaccuracies in the diagrams. (If you're not sure how to do this, let me know and I'll be happy to assist.) I've added some additional links and images (including your suggestion) to Brachioradialis, which may be of some assistance for your exam on Friday. Good luck. --Arcadian 06:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Check the image on omohyoid again. The muscle is labeled on both sides, although on the anatomical right it's omo - - hyoidus. I don't want to revert your edits since you did other things. Robotsintrouble 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct. I have fixed the caption. --Arcadian 01:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I really like the image gallery you put into brachioradialis. Is there any way to write a wikitool that lists anatomy stubs lacking images? I've been trying to figure out ways to integrate more of the grey's plates into articles. Maybe a list of all the labels in each image would help? If I were to start typing those out, where should they go? The wikicommons page of each image perhaps? Robotsintrouble 04:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any totally automated tool that would do what you want, but if you're handy with regular expressions, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. By the way, have you seen List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy? It could be useful if you're trying to put that list together. --Arcadian 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a good enough programmer to do all that, but using the subject list is a great idea. I'd seen it but hadn't thought of using it for some reason.
In other news (is this annoying yet?) I found another seer image that's wrong, this time at Pharynx. From the article text: Oropharynx, which lies behind the oral cavity. The anterior wall consists of the base of the tongue and the vallecula; ...does that arrow look like it's behind the base of the tongue to you? Robotsintrouble 05:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As with the Brachioradialis image, I'd recommend not deleting the image, but adding a caption annotation addressing inaccuracies in the image. Or, if you're feeling ambitious, you might be able to fix the picture. Since it sounds like your main objection is the position of the arrow, you could just adjust a few dots on the picture (even Microsoft Paint should be sufficent) and adjust it to address your concerns. --Arcadian 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
(Hope you don't mind me joining the conversation.) Do you mean "delete" as in deleting the image from WP entirely, or as in simply removing it from the article? I agree these images shouldn't be outright deleted, but I think removing them from the article is a step in the right direction. IMO it's better than annotating the error. I tend to agree with Netter that if the image isn't conveying a useful idea (and an erroneous image most certainly isn't), then it's not worth sharing. --David Iberri (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Images. --Arcadian 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Words of Praise!

Hi Arcadian, I've noticed you doing a lot of useful edits to various anatomy pages. They vastly imrove the article, so I'd just like to congratulate you and ask that you keep up the great work! Please accept this cookie for your latest submission ;) -- Serephine talk - 14:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate cookie I, Serephine, give Arcadian this cookie for excellent work on the Seminal vesicle article. 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! --Arcadian 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Squamous cell

Hi Arcadian, reckon the squamous cell article is superfluous? They exist only in squamous epithelia and this article covers all there is to know about them. Both are stubs so why not combine them? I'll get onto it with your suggestion. -- Serephine talk - 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to a merge. --Arcadian 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vesicle arteries

Is the different spelling of "vesicle" in the title and "vesical" in the actual dab entries correct? I have no idea, as I'm not a specialist, but if so, it seems odd that there's no entry at vesical arteries. Loganberry (Talk) 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Arcadian 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why split up the colon?

A while ago I consolidated all the articles on colon subsections and redirected to colon. The intent was to put all the colon articles in one place. Why did you recreate the colon subsection sections? I am concerned that having all the sections separate will lead to the sections getting various editorial treatments and add to the work it takes to keep all the sections up to date. Steve Kd4ttc 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Colon (anatomy). --Arcadian 23:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hospital upgrade

I've have some proposals to upgrade functionality and wider (less US-centric) scope of the Template:Infobox Hospital (with then a merge in of the UK-centric Template:Infobox NHS hospital). I think the additional optional parameter names are as generic and succint as I am likely to get - but I would be grateful if you could have a quick glance at the list of parameters and let me know if there are any obvious problems in the proposal. Thanks, yours David Ruben Talk 00:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. My only question is -- with all the additional fields, is "Location" supposed to refer to a street address? If so (or even if not), it might make sense to use a field name that was more self-documenting. But you've done a great job with the template, and I appreciate your diligence and precision. --Arcadian 01:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Short answer is yes 'Location' is meant to apply to streat name or district within a city. Long answer is that it is not so simple. The parameter needs be kept for 2 reasons - firstly because that is what articles current use and secondly I need to provide a freetext parameter that may take complex address details. In essence Location acts either as plain street information or complex wikilinked street & city details - hence the reason why I have not renamed this parameter as "Street".
Parameters can't include the pipe character '|' unless part of an overall wikilink. The problem comes from the fact that Country, State & Region are all (deliberately) automatically wikilinked by the template (to try and force encourage editors to give as much information as possible that can be wikilinked). This fails to be simple as some regions/cities have disambiguation (unhelpfully for this task) bracketed within their wikipedia article name:
  • Hence see Scarborough Hospital, which is in "Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada"
  • The Toronto, Ontario, Canada all wikilink fine, but the article for the town is Scarborough, Ontario.
  • I agree I could put "Scarborough, Ontario" as the Region or the State parameter and let the template wikilink it, hence "Scarborough, Ontario, Canada" is possible. However there is then no way to allow the insertion of "Toronto" into the middle of this ("Scarborough, Toronto" would have been an easier wiki pagename to work with).
So the Location information may be used for street and in addition region (city) information as it is freetext that can be manually wikilinked.David Ruben Talk 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On a separate issue, can you advise me on how US hospitals are classified in terms of health care system provision. Have a look at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've set the HealthCare parameter to "Medicare" in as much as it takes Medicare patients. I suspect though that this shows my lack of understanding. For Canadian hospitals they are either Private or part of the "Public Medicare (Canada)" system. Likewise hospitals are (or at least until the Labour giovernment started its love-affair with private hospitals) either purely Private or Public NHS (which may have a few private beds to help support the hospital). However for US I suspect that most hospitals would be considered Private with it then up to the individual patient to arrange to pay themselves, claim on their health insurance policy, or be eligible under Medicare (United States) - or are there quite distinct hospitals which only deal with Medicare cases ? I shall hold off updating further US Hospital articles until I can gain a better understanding of this (e.g. does HealthCare=Medicare need to show up as "Private, accepts Medicare") David Ruben Talk 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As further example, see Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center (Seattle) - where the markup is a little convoluted, yet holding the "Washington" detail out of the Location & Region parameters allows it to be used in the State parameter with the desired result that the 'See also' section automatically comes up with the link to List of hospitals in Washington with the neater displayed-text of "Hospitals in Washington". This contrast with say St Thomas' Hospital where the markup is much more straight forward. David Ruben Talk 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough yet about funding to answer your question. --Arcadian 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Satellite cell

I noticed you changed the Satellite cell page to a disambiguation page. Personally I think that it should have been left as referring to muscle satellite cells. Perhaps you could have just added a disambiguation link at the top of the page to Satellite cell (glial).

The muscle cell usage is by far the most common - do a PubMed search for "satellite cell" and you'll see what I mean. Also, the intro to the new Satellite cell (muscle) page is less technically correct than the old version. Dr Aaron 02:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to rearrange the pages in that manner, I would have no objection. If you need assistance in doing so, let me know. --Arcadian 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes and templates

Hi again. I like the work you're doing on the embryology infobox and what appears to be a new lymphatic system template... I was wondering if there's anyplace listing the infoboxes, templates, blue boxes and so on that are relevant to the various medicine wikiprojects. I couldn't find any details about them on WP:Anatomy or WP:PCM, an expanded list of relevant templates on one of those wikiprojects would be useful but I don't know how to make such a list. Robotsintrouble 20:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just now written a first cut at Template:Infobox Anatomy but if you have any more questions, feel free to ask, either here or there. Also, if you haven't seen Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), it may help address many formatting issues. (Unfortunately, there are several different competing standards for the navigation bars used at the bottom of articles, with different projects favoring different standards, so I can't help you too much there.) --Arcadian 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:EmbryologyTemple

Template:EmbryologyTemple has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Swpb talk contribs 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In search of free license histology images

I'd appreciate your thoughts over at Robotsintrouble 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA interference!

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For no less than 120 edits in the past 24 hours; and all of your hard work before — and in hope of continued aid to Wikipedia. Surely you deserve it by now. —ScouterSig 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! --Arcadian 18:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!!!

Adventsljusstake med tre brinnande ljus.JPG
Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may your wishes be fulfilled in 2007! Fvasconcellos 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Thank you for having a look at PAC-1 as well. The true collaborative nature of WP always puts a smile on my face... Fvasconcellos 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello Arcadian! (maybe may english isnt good-my apologise) Of course i can do that I upload to the "universal commons"". You know a mathematican said the i create good articles about muscles but an average man who know anything about anatomy cant find the muscle etc on the picture. So he said me to create arrows. I use this "technology" in every area of anatomy (muscules nerves arteris bones etc)

Thank you! --Arcadian 19:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of WP:DRUGS and WikiProject Pharmacology

Hi again. I know you are busy with anatomy articles, but a merge between WikiProject Drugs and the newly-created WikiProject Pharmacology has been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs#WikiProject Pharmacology. I would appreciate it if you could weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Nervous system diagram.png

Thanks for catching those embarrassing spelling mistakes. Spent one two many hours working on that diagram :P...I will upload the corrected version at once.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

uploading images

Hello Arcadian! Its me Engusz from huwiki. Ive got some questions. Which images will you have? Only the muscles or all (nerves tubercules of bones etc)? And please create a category for the images (i dont know how to do and i dont want to create wrong categories) You can give a name for it (maybe anatomy help) And when you finish whit it please tell me the category name and i will start to upload the images. 20:39 Friday

Don't worry about adding categories -- just keep doing exactly what you've been doing, but uploading the images to commons instead of huwiki. Thanks again! --Arcadian 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alveolar process of maxilla

Hey! Considering your involvement with merging the article Alveolar process with Alveolar process of maxilla, I would love to hear your comments about the issues I raised on the talk page. Thanks in advance. - Dozenist talk 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cystic fibrosis

Hi, I noticed that you just added this to the Cystic fibrosis article, {{Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic pathology}}. I just wanted to let you know that the template is redlinked and nothing shows up when you add it. I'm not sure if this is intentional (eg you plan on making it later) or not but I thought I would let you know. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be okay now. --Arcadian 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see it now, just wanted to make sure that it wasn't mislinked or something such as. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Food chemistry}}

Thank you for the edit on the {{Food chemistry}}. As the creator of this template, it looks good! Much appreciated. Chris 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. --Arcadian 23:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rotator Cuff Alterations

You removed the end picture of the side lying abduction on the rotator cuff article. Your cited reason for removing this was that this picture didn't match the description or title of the exercise.

Looking back at the picture now, my arm is raise a little too high (30ish degrees) but this seems like a poor reason to remove the picture. Was there another reason for removing the picture? If not then I'll just reshoot that pic and add it soon.Porco-esphino 07:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review the edit history. The pictures were removed in this edit and this edit, not by me. --Arcadian 10:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your tireless work

Barnstar-atom3.png The E=mc² Barnstar
I hereby award you this EMC² Barnstar for your numerous, high-quality contributions to biology and medicine-related articles. How you manage this while in med school baffles and awes me! delldot | talk 20:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Please add Ensembl Link: It is an important and very good european resource.

as in de:Vorlage:Infobox Protein -> Seite bearbeiten (edit this page)


de:Vorlage:Infobox Protein at the bottom for the link

Thank you. TraumB 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Response at Template talk:Protein. --Arcadian 14:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

ClockworkSoul 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi there Arcadian. Would it be possible for an extra field to be added to {{Protein}} that would account for more than one PDB link, like the CAS_supplemental field in {{Drugbox}}? Clostridium perfringens alpha toxin has several PDB links, and they're presently messing up the syntax. Thanks again, Fvasconcellos 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Fvasconcellos 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Images

Thought I did. Sorry. --Selket 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
Your many, many navigation templates related to human anatomy and physiology have exponentially increased the usefulness of the subjects on wikipedia. Robotsintrouble 13:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to update and sort the listing of medicine navigation templates to reflect your contributions. Could you look over it? There are one or two duplicates in the mix.

I've seen other navigation templates that have links to related topics or back to a top level template in the title bar... for example, a small link at the top of "arteries of head and neck" that returns you to the template for "circulatory system". I think something along those lines to make moving around between templates easier would be really helpful... I'll try to find an existing example of what I mean. Robotsintrouble 13:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. I looked over your list, and I think you've got all or most of them. Per your navigation concept -- it can get a little tricky, especially when articles have multiple plausible "parents", but in general, I support your idea. --Arcadian 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to send a Thank You!! your way for all of your hard work in the template department, they look great and are really nice navigational tools. Thanks also for adding so many nice images!--DO11.10 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Oh yeah and for fixing the table on Vitamin D, somehow I totally missed that that was, at some point, a table, it looks much better now. DO11.10 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I just made some additional changes to the page -- nothing major, mostly tweaking the outline. Feel free to edit as needed -- I see that you've done most of the work on that page of late, so feel free to edit as needed. --Arcadian 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy images

Hi! Its me Engusz! I uploaded some images to Gray's anatomy plates with help. I use latin names. But some images dont work. I dont know why? I continue the uploadig. I will upload all of the images what ive got. 2007. 01. 26. 19:03

Köszönöm! --Arcadian 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Manual of style

Hi, thanks for the greeting. I have made a few changes to some articles related to inborn errors of metabolism, my area of expertise. However, I have not yet completely formated them so that they respect the medicine manual of style. What would you like me to change more precisely? Thanks. pcampeau 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy articals in enwiki

Hello! Its me Engusz! All of the anatomy articles of the huwiki are from the enwiki which turn into hungarian. After this i put it to the right category. I see in lot of articales in the enwiki that it hasnt got right category. It has got only anatomy stubs. Why? And the enwiki's anatomy navigation temples havent got all the articles which are rate there. muscles of the head in huwiki huwiki 75 > enwiki 63 (I calculated fast so maybe the numbers incorrects)Engusz Thursday 01.02.2006. 23:07 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work. I've updated the English pages with your images from Commons. I agree that the categorization of enwiki's anatomy articles isn't where it should be; hopefully that will improve in the coming year. Thanks again! --Arcadian 07:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


The file above's purpose is being discussed and/or is being considered for deletion. See files for discussion to help reach a consensus on what to do. The Encephalon Cross
For astonishing quantity of handy anatomical images added to many pages, I hearby (enviously) bequeath upon Arcadian the Encephalon Cross! WLU 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian 07:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cardiac action potential

Hi, I saw you worked on Cardiac action potential, I hope you can help me with someting. An IP removed two sections a while ago with this edit. Was that a good edit or vandalism? If vandalism, should it be restored? It's not my topic at all, so I don't know part of it is already rewritten or not. Garion96 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it was indeed vandalism, but much of the information that was lost on December 5th has since been re-added in a different form. --Arcadian 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Good, I am glad it's all in order again. Thanks for checking. Garion96 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Chembox new

Hi, I see you are adding the chembox new to articles, thanks for that. I have been working on upgrading the chembox new, it has a new format and new fields now (and more fields to come). In the new version you can just leave the fields that you don't fill in, empty fields will simply not appear in the document. Please have a look at {{chembox new}}. Thanks again, and hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading in between the lines of this message (and some others you've left with other editors), it seems like you want editors to add all 47 fields from Template:Chembox_new#Small_form for each use of the template. I'm not sure if that's the best approach. I know the fields don't display unless they are populated, but it seems disruptive to have to wade through so many blank lines at the top while editing, especially when so many of the fields would never be populated for that class of chemical. But if you strongly disagree, I'd recommend raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox, so we can get a broader perspective on the issue. And thanks again for pushing the infobox forward -- we've needed it for a long time, and I'm glad you're doing it. --Arcadian 22:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No, for sure not, all fields don't have to be filled. As you say, some of them are just not available for certain compounds. It is more, that for those fields, which are common, I would suggest to leave an empty field in the table, that makes it much easier for someone else to fill that field later (if you know that field is known, but you don't have it close, can't find it, or just don't feel like looking for it now, whatever reason). If the fields are not in the document there may be a barrier, because the person would have to search for the fieldname.
E.g. for Inositol triphosphate, the chembox new as you used it only contains some fields, while I think that fields like pKa, solubility, some fields from the pharma-box and some related compounds are worth to store in the chembox as well. For some of the fields it is easy to guess how they are named, for others someone would have to look where to put them, and how to name them.
Having said this, it is certainly worth a discussion. We have to find an 'optimum' which fields we keep as a standard, and which fields we 'hide'. The chembox new can handle many more fields than the fields I show in the chembox in the template; I have already hidden quite a number of them. As an example, I have the field MeltingPt as a standard field in the chembox new (this field just displays it's contents), but chembox new contains 9 other fields, for the three 'standard' temperature scales 3 each, for Celcius these are 'MeltingPtC, MeltingPtCL and MeltingPtCH. When giving a value to MeltingPtC (these have to be supplied without unit), the row will display that temperature in degree Celcius, Fahrenheit and Kelvin, with the correct units. The other two are for melting ranges (between MeltingPtCL and MeltingPtCH). I am still working at expansions/more parameters, but I think I do have the fields there that are common for the normal chemicals (as in the small form).
So, as is stated in the explanation of both the old and in the new chembox new, please don't feel obliged to fill in all fields, just fill in as many as possible, leave the rest blank. It is true that it gives quite a list at the top of the document, but it is always better than the old chembox, which in it's subst-ed form (which was the normal form) is just impossible to read, and will for sure scare away some novice editors. Hope this explains, and I will try and be a bit less pushing in next posts on this subject. Thanks anyway for all the additions of infoboxes. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think there might be some miscommunication between us here, but rather than continue on this page, I've opened up a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox#Template_fields, and I encourage you to offer your perspectives. --Arcadian 01:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Arcadian, could you try to (re)write the text in {{chembox new}} on the subst-ing/transclusion in such a way that it is clear? To me it is completely transparent, but by now I am too deep into templates that I may not be able to explain it clearly anymore. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I remove the "Section1", etc., headers from the "Small/simple form"? That's the part which still seems most counterintuitive to me, and is the hardest to explain to someone using it for the first time. It is an interesting idea (most other templates don't allow the user to alter the display order of the fields), but with the nested templates, it makes it harder to explain, and the template seems to work fine without them. --Arcadian 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't remove the sections, some of the things inside the sections are not available in the main template, and hence will simply not work. The sections sort the parameters by sort, so that all properties get into the properties box, and all hazards in the hazards box.
I am going to clean out the main template, after I have done a cleaning run on the pages that already contain a chembox new (probably using AWB to clean it). The old setup was a bit inconsistent, the main template could contain some properties, and some properties got mixed over.
Hope this explains a bit. I'll have a look later. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, chembox new understands 'MeSHName' in the Identifiers box .. keeps the external links away, which in its turn does not encourage more external links. Keep up the good work, and see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I just tried the new parameter at Glycerol 3-phosphate, and I couldn't quite get it to work -- would you mind taking a look? --Arcadian 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Done, I used an 'urlencode' around the value to get rid of strange characters (mainly the } and the ] break an url), but that also endoded the +, which in this case is not necessary. But it does now the same as the MeSH-template. Thanks for pointing me to that, there are always some things to improve. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Arcadian 22:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Grey matter/gray matter

How did you come to the conclusion the latter was the more common spelling? - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Gray matter. --Arcadian 14:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Anatomy

Thank you much! Selket Talk 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your friendly neighborhood stub sorter

I've been busy sorting through the anatomy stubs (since there are now three new stub types) and whilst doing so I noticed two things that I'd like to bring to your attention.

1. The text of duodenal bulb cuts off abruptly, but as far as I can tell it's always been that way since you first created it. I was tempted to just remove the cut-off sentence at the end, but I wasn't certain why it cut off, I thought I'd mention it to you.

2. Since you seem to do a fair bit of editing in this field, and I was leaving you the first note, I thought I'd let you know that since some of those nav templates are bit long in the tooth I've been changing some of them to default as collapsed nav boxes.

Let me know if the latter is a problem and I'll stop doing that. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For the point #1 - thank you for identifying my error. I have fixed it. For point #2, that's a complicated issue, and I don't have an fully-formed opinion on it the moment, other than to ask you to make sure you consider the impact on other pages (like Bone -- scroll to the bottom). --Arcadian 00:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

proper redirects

Why redirect strains to strain (injury) when the very title of the latter article suggests the existence of the strain disambiguation page? If someone is looking for one of the many other topics under "strain", you'd prevent them from finding it. (I've altered it so that "strains" redirects to "strain".) Michael Hardy 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I made that redirect in 2005. Feel free to change as needed. --Arcadian 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar Plexus

Dear Arcadian, I read the solar plexus article and I was just wondering if you could please explain to me what the main function of the solar plexus is (what it does in the body). I couldn't figure it out from the article, and I apologize if my question is somehow answered in the article. Thank you. Question101 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And while we are on the subject could you please tell me what nerve nodes are (or even point me to a wiki article)Thank you Question101 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry I don't have time for a longer answer right now -- for your first question, the second answer here is reasonably accurate and non-technical. For your second question, my best guess is that you're referring to the Nodes of Ranvier. I'd also like to let you know about Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science -- it's a great place to ask questions like these, and because there are so many people that watch those pages, it gives you the best chance of getting the information you're looking for. --Arcadian 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that you recently left a comment at the embryo discussion page. I'm curious. You say that the term "embryology" is usually restricted to apply to early vertebrate development, whereas an embryo is a life cycle stage found in all animals, land plants, and some algae and protists. Do you have any cite for this distinction? I had never heard of such a distinction before.

There are quite a few books and articles about "vertebrate embryology", but there are also plenty of books and articles about "invertebrate embryology".Ferrylodge 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for DAB1 infobox

Thank you for furnishing the infobox on the DAB1 page. --CopperKettle 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lung volumes

you replaced the free Image:Lung.png with the fairly clearnly not free Image:Lung volume.JPG. Please don't do this it makes the baby wikipe-tan cry.Geni 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller edit controversy

Hello, there. As you may or may not know, the Miami Herald recently revealed that professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller has filed a lawsuit against Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. for adding false statements to his Wikipedia biography.

For data gathering purposes, an SRS of 20 administrators has been created, you being one of them. I would like you to comment on this situation and its possible implications to Wikipedia, the accused company, and the general welfare of the community in general. (To what extent will this impact Wikipedia? To what extent will this impact those who use Wikipedia often? To what extent is the company guilty? Who do you believe is at fault?) Feel free to comment however you wish. I ask that you email me your responses via my emailuser page so as to reduce bias in your responses. (Again, don't post your responses on my talk page.)

The following are articles from various news agencies that you may use to inform yourself about the situation: Miami Herald, Herald Tribune, Web Pro News, The Smoking Gun.

I thank you for taking your time to express your opinion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at any time. Jaredtalk 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi Arcadia. Thank you for putting this nice p53 wiki. I have several questions and comments

Comments 1

As I never use any pseudo, you can see what is my name. I am professor of molecular biology ad work on p53 since 1985. I have published more than 200 papers on p53. As a matter of fact, I was a graduate student in the laboratory of P. May when he discovered p53 in the same time that Lane, Levine and Loyd. As a matter of fact, the four papers were published the same year. Although Levine, Lane and May knew that they were working on the same protein (named p53 by Lionel Crawford in 1985), it took several years to understand that the protein discovered by Old was also p53 as he had used a totally different strategy for its identification.

Perhaps it will be nice (and more accurate) to add P. May in the list of those who discovered p53.

Comments 2

Some information in the article are either too simplistic or quite outdated and could be improved:

« In unstressed cells, p53 levels are kept low through a continuous degradation of p53. A protein called Mdm2 binds to p53 and thereby transports it from the nucleus to the cytosol where it becomes degraded by the proteasome » It is now well known that at least 5 proteins regulates p53 stability

« Human p53 is 393 amino acids long and has three domains: » The current model is that p53 contains 5 domains

« increasing the amount of p53, which may initially seem a good way to treat tumors or prevent them from spreading, is in actuality not a useable method of treatment, since it can cause premature aging » This is based on one observation in an animal model. A large-scale gene therapy program has been launched in China in Head and Neck cancer. Results are very promising.

Comments 3 A picture of the p53 pathway could be included

Question 1 Last week, I made a small change to your wiki page (I add a link to the p53 web site). This web site is the most visited site on p53. I did not understand why you delete this entry?

Question 2

Do you allow commercial links in wiki pages? The last link in the p53 wiki page is exactantigen, a web page sponsored by multiple privates companies with links to their web site

Question 3 To what degree, would you allow modifications of the p53 wiki page?

Thank you again for you nice work


Response at User talk:Thierry Soussi. --Arcadian 15:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Melanotan 1 and Melanotan II submitted for deletion

Greetings, as a courtesy I'm writing to inform you of my submission for deletion these two uncessary breakout articles from the stubbish Melanotan article. (Netscott) 10:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PotentialVanity

Template:PotentialVanity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --– Tivedshambo (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you translate for me?

I noticed that your userboxes say that you speak some Spanish. I had cleaned up the article about the Seville Fair a few months ago, recently User:Saeta added several long paragraphs of raw Babelfish translation. I moved the additions to the talk page and notified the user, who subsequently asked me to translate my comments into Spanish. I don't speak enough Spanish to do this, could you translate my comments User talk:Saeta? Or just get the gist across? And let her(?) know that I did keep the map in the article, and will attempt to translate the raw Babelfish. Thanks a bunch!!!--DO11.10 17:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hola Arcadian, en primer lugar disculpa mi inglés, que no es muy bueno. Soy Saeta en la wikipedia en inglés, en la wiki española soy Lobillo, he visto que DO11.10 inició el artículo sobre la Seville Fair (Feria de Abril) de Sevilla, veo que se ha puesto en contacto contigo para ver si puedes traducir lo que hice con el traductor "Babelfish" (parece que he liberado al diablo) al intentar añadir información sobre la misma pero en inglés (en español ya lo hice yo solito prácticamente con ese artículo y muchos sobre Sevilla. También le "intenté" preguntar si el plano de la Feria (Image:FeriaDeAbrilSevilla.jpg) no era válido (estoy seguro que es muy válido) y también si conocía la Feria en Sevilla, pero parece ser que no me entendió. Ahora te preguto directamente a ti, que sé que sabes un poco de español, ¿podrías traducir lo que puso en la talk page sobre la Feria en inglés?, muchas gracias por tu respuesta. Un saludo. --Saeta 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think I speak spanish well enough to be of service here. --Arcadian 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Blogebrity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RJASE1 Talk 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oral pathology

I was wondering if I could have your assistance on something, being that you're both a med student and an admin.

I feel that the template navigation box for oral pathology is, objectively, a little skewed in terms of its content. It seems to focus on things that lay people would tend to focus on, and veers from actually including anything that would be taught in any real depth in an oral path course. Yes, User:Dozenist peppered in some technical terms that are anomoly highlights of a dental anatomy course, but in reality, it seems a little silly that the nav box categorizes and lists things in such an unsually unencyclopedic fashion. I mean the staples of dental pathology, like odontogenic keratocysts, eosinophilic ulcer, candidiasis, fibrous dysplasia and Kaposi sarcoma are either absent or put in a day or so ago by myself. However, these entities are focused on in oral path because of their extreme, diagnostic or even pathognomonic oral symptoms. At the same time, many can occur anywhere in the body. What are your thoughts about this? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded at Template talk:Oral pathology. --Arcadian 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

GABA receptor

Thanks for the help. I didn't even have time to ask at WikiProject Neuroscience... :) Fvasconcellos 21:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. --Arcadian 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi again. I have an issue regarding verifiability. I would like to enter some information about the relationship of a pentagram and a magic square, but the people who watch and constantly edit pentagram are being, what I feel as, too strict. So, I would instead like to place this information in the Lionel Ziprin article. However, because my information is only verified by a private personal tutorial that occurred in 1962, and I could no find anything similar on the web, I was told that this was not enough. However, I feel that this information is objectively related, whether or not the reasoning behind the relationship is to be believed; the steps to completing the magic square do in fact follow the pentagram. As I am the editor of the Ziprin page for this information, I feel that this information is not controversial enough, such that I can support it with perhaps a less than entirely adequate verifiability requirement, as most pages and bits of information fall under as well. Please let me know what you think after checking out the part about the Jewish/magic square relationship to the pentagram at the bottom of the Talk:pentagram page. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can help you -- I'm a strong supporter of the Wikipedia:Attribution policy, and in my googling, the best I could find was this, which is a very reliable source, but which seems to refer to Magic star, which I don't think relates to what you wanted to add. So the best I can suggest is this: I'm sure you've already tried a google search on websites, but try Google book search (or the equivalent feature on Amazon). If you can't come up with anything, then perhaps the information would be more appropriate at a wiki with different inclusion policies. Here's one: . I'm sure there are others. --Arcadian 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
==ERM transcription factor==

A tag has been placed on ERM transcription factor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SyBerWoLff 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Is your picture at Holliday junction correct? It's like this:

   /  \
<<<    <<<
>>>    >>>
   \  /

How do the 2 strands of each double helix move against each other?

Perhaps it should be like this:

   /  \
<<<    >>>
<<<    >>>
   \  /

--Occultations 10:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the image ("Image:Holliday Junction.png") is a reasonable approximation of something that is hard to represent in two dimensions, but I agree that it could be better, and more images/animations would be useful. I've added some links to external sites containing animations of the process. If you feel the existing image is misleading, and think it would be better off deleted, or if you feel it would be better with an explanatory note added to the caption, feel free to make the needed changes. --Arcadian 15:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Brain

Thanks for adding it. I was going to, but my spouse woke up right after I left the message on the talk page, so I had to tear myself away from Wikipedia for a bit. Cheers. --Selket Talk 03:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

my templates reverted

so my glycoside template I was adding to the glycoside articles in the glycoside category have been reverted.

I believe you could have discussed the possible irrelevance of the glycoside template I made on some talk page before reverting them.

ok I should have pasted just the template name in the parentheses but I have seen other articles where the entire code of a template has been pasted so I don't think that that would be a reason for reverting them either. Okyea 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dopamine receptor

Hey, thanks for picking up some of my slack on Dopamine receptor. I'm slowly chipping away at the article; hopefully I can get it up to the comprehensive, useful level such a topic deserves... -- Scientizzle 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, and thank you for being so meticulous about referencing the published literature in your edits on that page. --Arcadian 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Asimov's short stories

I love you for starting that page. I'm a big asimov fan and had a list similar to this on my old computer. This list can now be found in a local dumpster. so thanks again.


Greetings Arcadian, I just wanted to let you know that I've reintegrated your content back into the article and I invite you to verify the reintegration. See you. (Netscott) 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 26 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Immunologic adjuvant, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


I note that you changed the image on Biliverdin from the .jpg to the .png on the grounds that it is a better image. I am afraid I must strongly disagree. Although the .png does indeed better have better composition than the .jpg, it is inferior to the .jpg in at least three respects:

  1. the chemical conformation is such that the high degree of symmetry is not apparent,
  2. no hydrogens are shown, not even to help distinguish the two oxygen species in the carboxyl groups, and
  3. the representation of many of the double bonds is badly skewed.

Even without the first two points, the last is enough to make the .png an image of lesser quality. DS 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but if you want to change it back, I won't stand in your way. --Arcadian 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam sock accounts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
As your aware WP:SPAM is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. Recent WP:SPA anon spam only account has recently inserted multiple links to the same URL, over multiple articles. Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. Edits by have been removed. --Hu12 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You deleted 22 valid links to Johns Hopkins University's DermAtlas. It isn't spam if a user puts in multiple links to reliable sources, such as PubMed or IMDB, and Johns Hopkins University is far more reliable than either of those. --Arcadian 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(Amending my previous comment - DermAtlas is more reliable than IMDB, but not more reliable than PubMed). --Arcadian 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I do agree with the reliability of the link, the manner of which they were added was bad faith and doesn't confer a license to spam Wikipedia even when it's true. see contributions. Note: IP NetRange which added these links originates from The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions Baltimore, Maryland, from NameServer: ENS1.JHMI.EDU. This is Also A WP:COI, and against Wikipedia's External links policy. I have tagged the IP with SharedIPEDU accordingly --Hu12 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While I'm pretty aggressive in removing commercial links with medical topics, I think this particular one looks fine. There's no advertising. It's not a promotional vehicle for someone's practice. I have no issue with it. I think '42' links to it may be a bit much, but it's a fairly neutral site with good images Droliver 02:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's still a conflict of interest. Panfakes 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy and teeth?

Hey, I notice you do quite a few edits concerning anatomy, and so this would be a perfect question to someone who knows a lot about anatomy-related articles. On the tooth article, I have written a substantial amount of information, and I finally have gotten to the "teeth in animals" section and started wondering what I should do. Should there be a separate "teeth in animals" article that the section should show as the main article or should the majority of the content in the tooth article be moved to a "human tooth" article? What do you think? My initial instinct was to keep the article as is and make a new article about animal teeth for the section to refer to, but I did not know if most anatomy articles try to keep a certain format when addressing that issue. Your input would be appreciated. - Dozenist talk 01:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend splitting out most of the content to human tooth or human teeth (singular is usually better, but this might be an exception). I don't think that it is necessary to split out human content on most anatomy articles yet, but for articles with significant non-human content, I think this approach would help provide the best balance -- see lung and human lung. But there isn't strong precedent yet, so you might also want to post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dentistry to get a broader perspective. (If a veterinary medicine project exists, I can't find it.) --Arcadian 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy just in case before I do such a drastic move. - Dozenist talk 03:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving CFS/ME Article

Hi, I've noticed you used to contribute to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I recently nominated it as the Wikipedia:Improvement Drive. I feel that it needs urgent improvement, and if you agree please vote at the Improvement Drive project page. Thanks! Thedreamdied 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


I just left a stronger message at Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder about the need to return the article to FAS. Prob is, it will need admin help. The original article was at FAS, and was moved to FASD. I copied most back to FAS about a month ago, but I can't solve the talk page. That is, FAS was awarded Good article *before* the move to FASD, and now FASD is incorrectly listed at Good article. I'm not sure I can get the talk page and those pieces back without admin help ? Maybe I should just manually fix the Good article, and copy the templates, but then there will be no talk page history of the GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I left comments on the talk page; I'm not sure that plan will work. The more I look at the mess, the more I want to cry :-) FAS has had enough work it might be worth keeping, so I'm not sure moving FASD to FAS is the best way to go. But I really can't tell. The entire topic has been merged as if they were one and the same, and since I don't know the topic, I don't know if I can undo all this damage without reading every single reference. How can an article get that far without it coming to our attention (rhetorical sigh) ? I only noticed it because a link was changed in Tourettism, and I saw what was happening.[1] Every time I try to help fix it, I just get discouraged :-( What if we keep FAS, begin to work on it, and also keep FASD, and begin to prune it? It's really hard for me to tell which will be most expedient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you want to have a look at work so far: pause for status check. I'm definitely over my head on this, but want to get it done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


For creating lipstatin, which I just expanded a bit. I'm curious as to how you were so fast... are you, in fact, a med/chem article-creating bot? :) Best, Fvasconcellos 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, but Diberri's tool just added PubChem yesterday, which should help speed a lot of things up. --Arcadian 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll try and make good use of it. Fvasconcellos 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Chocolate cookie I, Ciar, share this tasty cookie from Serephine with Arcadian for diligent work in putting navigation templates on articles within the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. I couldn't get around MCB so fast without them!! Ciar 18:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Munch munch - thanks! And I appreciate all the helpful edits you've made to the immunology articles lately. --Arcadian 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Diseases of the nervous system

re Template:Diseases of the nervous system - Wow, very impressive. It will take me a little time to work my way through such a comprehensive & extensive navigation box :-) David Ruben Talk 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I note that this template isn't in a category, or mentioned on any Wikipedia/Project page. I'd like to add it to the "Navigation templates" section in WP:MEDMOS but it would be good link to a list of medical navigation templates. Colin°Talk 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and feel free to categorize or edit it as needed. --Arcadian 12:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Are there any more, suitable for the Medicine project? Colin°Talk 12:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a list, at the bottom of the page. (I had added the nav templates to pathology, but they were removed on March 10th, which is why I've provided the historical link. A note about the colors, to explain the inconsistency: I had been using the standard "Navigation" format, which used to default to light gray, but a month ago it was switched to a default of light blue about a month ago - an unfortunate switch, in my opinion. For the medical condition nav templates, I think it makes more sense to use gray than blue, so that they match the infobox color, and because blue is so closely associated with the pharm pages. That's why the most recent two are gray, but the previous ones are blue. I'm also thinking about switching over to "Navbox generic", and have used that for the last few. The templates automatically collapse if you have more than one on the same page (very handy in preventing template overload), but only if the templates are of the same type, which is why they should eventually be standardized. (That's why "Metabolic pathology" is uncollapsed on that page, while the others are collapsed.) More context about the options is available at Template:Navigational templates. Feedback is of course welcome. --Arcadian 13:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've discovered there are categories for drug and medical navigation templates. Some of those templates weren't in the category, so I've added them. I've linked to both those categories from the WP:MEDMOS guidelines. I wonder if there is any need for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Templates if we also have Category:Drug navigational boxes? (Colin)

I see some benefits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Templates. I think it is faster to navigate there than in the category. We also have more flexibility about how to make the content appear. --Arcadian 13:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


I fixed the odd "x = y + z" bit in the above article. Now reads: The term "professional phagocytes" is sometimes used to describe macrophages and neutrophils, because these cells are considered to have phagocytosis as their primary function.[1]. I assume you intended it as a temporary marker or something and it got lost amongst all your other concerns. You're busy. It happens! Secret Squïrrel 06:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - sometimes when I'm trying to outline a page, I use Pseudocode in my drafts as I try to figure out the structure. Usually I replace it before saving, but in this case I neglected to do so. Thank you for fixing it. --Arcadian 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Let's see... first, on Wikipedia such issues are not decided by vote count - but if they were, you should take into account the debate about other eponyms on the same page, which has several more people stating that this is not useful categorization. Second, I didn't disregard your point about language, but note in counterpoint that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that we do categorize terms in wiktionary. Third, the people who commented that you didn't recognize are people who frequently work on categories, not on medical articles. That does not, of course, give them extra weight, but it certainly isn't grounds for discounting them.

It actually boils down to what the categorization system is for: if you look up, say, Adams-Stokes syndrome in an encyclopedia, and there is a section for "related articles", would you expect that section to point you to (1) other cardiac syndromes, or (2) people named "Adams"? >Radiant< 10:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Protein kinase Mζ

You are waaaay too fast. :-) [2] --David Iberri (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hormone Issues

Hi Arcadian,

I found an issue on, you actually deleted an external link:, this is a quote from your comments on February

"(outline long opening. also removed dead link, unrelated link, and journal reference which was not tied to article)"

well this is a recognized authoritative source related to the topic.

I'd really appreciate to see your point of view, but I strongly believe that is not an "unrelated link", instead is a good source for further guidance to this topic.

Regards, Jennifer. JenniferFisher 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A good overview of the standards for inclusion is available at Wikipedia:External_links. If you read that page and still really feel that your link belongs on the Hormone page, then your best strategy is probably to ask at Talk:Hormone and see if there are any objections. --Arcadian 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven

Thought you might like to know: I submitted a Featured List Nomination for this list, of which you seem to be a major author. I did some tinkering around the edges (lead, references, section headers, etc.) first. Cheers! —Turangalila talk 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

thalmus page

at least note protection, and the talk page should not be protected.

Medicine portal

Hey, Arcadian! It'd be great! Boxes that need a continuous update: News, Selected image, Selected article, quotes, to-dos and projects. What are you interested in? And do you need any kind of help? Thanks in advance. NCurse work 06:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still learning the format, but I just made my first edit, at Portal:Medicine/Things you can do. --Arcadian 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool, that box hasn't been updated for a while now... Do you want to create a Selected Image template? I can list you the parts of the procedure. PS: you can reply here, I'm watching you. :) NCurse work 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "Selected Image template", but if you list the steps, or provide an example, I'd be happy to help out. --Arcadian 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Speedy Deletion Warning

A tag has been placed on NADH or NADPH oxidoreductases, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BoricuaeddieTalkContribsSpread the love! 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Disease

Hi there Arcadian. Is there any "easy" way to populate {{Infobox Disease}}? I'd like to add on to aggressive NK-cell leukemia, and maybe, if there is an easy way (something similar to Diberri's template filler, or a single website where one can find the relevant information to fill in the fields) it might be worth mentioning on WP:MEDMOS, as we do for {{Drugbox}}. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Response at User_talk:Diberri#Infobox_Disease. --Arcadian 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Will watch over there. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just received a suggestion from Malcolm at DD. Your comments welcome at User_talk:Diberri#Infobox_Disease. --David Iberri (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

UDP glucuronic acid

Hi there, sorry to bother you again, but could you merge Uridine diphosphate glucuronic acid and UDP glucuronic acid? They are the same compound :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry for the error. --Arcadian 01:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I hope you don't think I'm stalking your contributions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. The diagrams you add to my molecule pages are extremely helpful and absurdly prompt, so stalk to your heart's content. :) --Arcadian 01:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Internal Carotid Artery

Hi, I liked the additions to the Internal_carotid_artery article. A small point that I wondered about, really a semantic issue that I didn't want to clutter the Talk page with, and, as the same time I wanted to thank you for your additions to the article: Your wording of 'Traditional' classification I thought was interesting, but perhaps a bit unclear. Are you basing that on older anatomic texts, or a tradition of usage? I am unfamiliar with either, but that doesn't really mean anything and perhaps there are regional/national differences in teaching. Your 'traditional' classification seems similar, but not identical to the Fischer classification scheme, and I wonder if that is what you are referring to. It is an academic point, I admit. I am curious, what do the neurosurgeons/neurologists/neuroradiologists, etc, use at your institution? As an aside, and illustrative example, I was taught to call the LAD the 'anterior interventricular artery' in medical school....perhaps technically correct, but I've never heard or seen it referred to as such since then. Cheers, Felgerkarb 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to make your aquaintance, and I thank you for your contributions to that article from October of last year. To answer your questions: on the anatomy pages, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Naming_conventions, the Terminologia Anatomica ("TA") is preferred for anatomy articles wherever possible, and TA currently uses that four division system (at least according to Dorlands -- for example, see here, and the corresponding links for the other branches.) The current TA also aligns with the terminology from the 1917 edition of Gray's Anatomy ("In considering the course and relations of this vessel it may be divided into four portions: cervical, petrous, cavernous, and cerebral", as shown here.) Of course, the TA, being an international standard updated infrequently, may sometimes trail behind the current literature, which is why I am glad that you made your additions. It was a challenge to figure out the best way to integrate both classifications in a clear manner, and if you had further improvements to make, I'm sure they would be welcome. As to your other question -- we weren't given names for the sections of it in class, and I'm looking through the two assigned texts we used -- Grant's dissector 13th edition, and Gray's Anatomy for Students 2005 edition (totally unrelated to the 1917 edition) and neither one of those mentioned the divisions. I can't find any information about Fischer's 5-division system, apart from your citation at PMID 8837792, so if you know more about it, I'm sure it would be a welcome addition to the article. --Arcadian 21:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the Manual of Style for medicine articles. I will review it. Perhaps it is best if I expand on the discussion in the article to distinguish between TA and angiographic/surgical anatomy, though that will probably be done tomorrow or the next day. Look forward to working with you more. Felgerkarb 02:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me know what you think Internal_carotid_artery. Felgerkarb 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I made one change -- the authority for the four-segment system is the current Terminologia Anatomica, not the 1917 Gray's (though the 1917 Gray's agrees with the current TA.) But apart from that, I think we're getting very close. It would be nice if we could figure out more about Fischer's 1938 system, but that's not something we need to solve today. --Arcadian 16:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article/photo

Hi. I cannot find an article that I began a while back, Rabbi Baruch Pesach Mendelson; I am thoroughly convinced that it has been erased from existance. Could you please tell me when it was deleted, and how it was deleted without a note being placed on my talk page? Thank you. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was at at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baruch Pesach Mendelson. --Arcadian 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Kindly explain why you made the revert on the additions I made to the tea tree oil page. Darladeer 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer

Hello Arcadian. This user is giving me problems too. Any help in guiding User:Darladeer down the path of WP:GRIEF would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. (Requestion 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Not to sound rude...

But the the BDCA-2 is a redir to a red link. Was that a goof on your part, or have you not gotten to the page it goes to?--Whstchy 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's there now. --Arcadian 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A, I see. I was just checking recent changes and saw it. Figured that was the case.--Whstchy 01:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I was just wondering why you decided to change this to a different format - I rather liked the old one. Is there some general guideline for how these are supposed to be designed, or did you just like that appearance better? -RustavoTalk/Contribs 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For consistency and maintainability, it is usually best to use one of the standards defined at Template:Navigational templates, rather than using custom table formatting. Of the standard formats, Template:Navbox generic is usually the most flexible. If you wanted to use a different one, I wouldn't stand in your way, but I'd encourage you to read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates#Style_guideline_for_footer_templates before doing so. --Arcadian 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful links. Please try to be more careful when you revise boxes - you put the wrong pages as headers for two of the groups. Also, I'm really not satisfied with the appearance of the new box - it looks very haphazard with all the subpages scattered on a single white field. I tried to recode it so that it looks more like the "additional examples - with image and styles" template on the page Template:Navbox_generic (alternating background colors for groups) but couldn't figure out how to do it, since editing on that page is protected and I can't view the code. If the style you used is proposed to be the new standard, let me put in my two cents and say that I think it could be much better done. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added the shading you alluded to, and I thank you for correcting the error I made during the conversion. --Arcadian 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks much better, thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

About time!

Immunology Barnstar.png The Affinity and Avidity award
I, Ciar, give this award to Arcadian for uniting countless immunology and immune system-related articles with wonderful navigational templates. Thanks!
How beautiful and original! You just made my day. --Arcadian 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Month

Star of life2.svg
Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Oncogene was selected.
Hope you can help…

NCurse work 06:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey again. I was just curious about your effort (not that you're the only one involved) to codify disease-oriented pages and headings according to ICD-10. Is there some discussion or Wikiproject which describes the scope and guidelines of the effort? I'm not opposed or anything - it seems quite helpful - but since seems to involve a lot of changes to a lot of pages, I was just curious how it had been planned. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 18:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no single Wikiproject that I am aware of which provides what you are looking for -- the closest match is probably Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). --Arcadian 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not happy having it cluttering up the bottom of Tourette syndrome (I dislike excessive navigational templates and don't feel it adds anything to the article except size), but I guess there's nothing I can do about it :/ I also don't like the undue weight it gives to the ICD-10 coding scheme over other schemes, and the fact that TS is a neurological condition. I'd be really happy if I could remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no specific discussion of adding ICD-10 codes to articles on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) (although it does suggest ICD-10 as a good source for article names). I think it would be a good idea to lay out some guidelines and points for discussion about just where it is and is not appropriate to stick the codes themselves. I suspect you may start to get more comments like the one above unless there is a central forum for reaching consensus about this effort. For example, many editors might object to sticking ICD-10 codes into the subject headings of an article, as in alcoholic liver disease, since they will probably not be understood by most readers. Might I suggest you start a discussion on Talk:List of ICD-10 codes or (better yet) a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine where you lay out a systematic plan for ICD-10 coding of articles, so that others can comment on it? Thanks, and good luck with the effort. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 21:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't productive to have this discussion on a single user's talkpage, so I won't respond further here, but if either of you would like to discuss this further, please select a public forum (Wikiproject, mediation, or other), and let me know which one you've chosen. --Arcadian 21:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I posted my general request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Again, it's not so much a criticism as a desire for clear guidelines and consensus. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ARR RRR template

would you be mortally offended if i modified the ARR RRR template to look something more like the worked example on number needed to harm? I think its a more typical table-format for the data, followed by calculations for the statistics. Bakerstmd 05:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. --Arcadian 13:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing neurology topics

Since you obviously know more about neuroscience than I do, I wonder if you have had a look about my page of missing topics about neurology? - Skysmith 10:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the topics there I didn't know, but those I did, I created redirects (so they'll show up as blue links now.) --Arcadian 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you - Skysmith 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible template

Thanks so much — I like it much better! I do have one concern, though, and I may be forced to revert back to the old one if I can't address this. The Tourette series of articles get vandalized like crazy; is it possible to make the v-d-e line go away on the collapsible template on this application, so I don't have to worry about people hitting edit there and inserting vandalism? I have enough vandalism to watch already, and this gives vandals direct access to the template on numerous articles ... if I can get rid of the v-d-e, I'd like to keep the template; otherwise, I'll go back to uncollapsible. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- there are lots of parameters (see Template:Navbox_generic#Parameters), but I don't see any way to get rid of the v-d-e. However, if you decide to stick with Navbox generic for Template:Topics related to Tourette syndrome, and it gets vandalized a couple times, I'd be happy to help out with a semi-protect. --Arcadian 23:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
ah, thanks — good solution. I'll see how it goes, and let you know if there are problems. Thanks again — I like it. (I wonder if vandalism on all the TS articles will start up again in June when US schools are out.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thioctic acid

Hi there again, just thought I'd give you a heads-up that I've redirected thioctic acid to lipoic acid, as they are the same compound. I've also merged the relevant content from thioctic acid's chembox into the lipoic acid one, and noted that "thioctic acid" is an alternate name. Keep up the good work :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the error, and thanks for catching it. And thanks again for all your diagrams. --Arcadian 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I'm still impressed by the sheer quantity and scope of your contributions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Class switch recombination.png

Hi there! Thanks for complimenting such a simple diagram!! :-D Take care, Ciar 02:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mannose 6-phosphate receptor

I changed the redirect you made into an article. However, I have it written about both cation-dependent and cation-independent MPRs. Thinking about things, it might be better to move "my" CI-MPR info to Insulin-like growth factor 2 receptor, cut down what's left to a minimal bit and use {{mainarticle}} (for example) to link to IGF-2R. There are other ways to do things, but this might be the best. What are your thoughts? Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That probably seems like the best approach. --Arcadian 11:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. It was getting late and the brain wasn't working so well anymore! Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, why the revert on Asperger's? We are hard at work preparing this article for FAR, it is frustrating when changes get reverted. CeilingCrash 20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You added an external link to the "See also" section. Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). --Arcadian 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox jersey number poll

Hey, please vote in the infobox jersey number poll at Template talk:Infobox NFL player.Chris Nelson 00:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I never got around to voting, but I think the consensus that emerged is pretty reasonable. Most importantly, I'm glad that the jersey number is a distinct field, and not appended to the name field. --Arcadian 01:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey there! Have you ever stumbled into WikiProject Viruses? I just started editing there after I found it - it would really benefit from some of your great Navboxes if you're up the the challenge! Best wishes, Ciar 22:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some additional challenges when it comes to grouping viruses, but I'll see what I can do. --Arcadian 01:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Batten Disease

Hello Arcadian, Just wondered why you have removed all my edits? They are useful links. angelairena

You added several links to CLN3 which didn't relate to the topic. Please review Wikipedia:External links for context guidance about adding external links. --Arcadian 01:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again,

Why do you link that they didnt relate to the "topic" of CLN3 Juvenile Batten Disease? They all had very relevant information about the symptoms and care of young people who actual suffer from Batten disease.I think some of the info on the present Wikipedia about Batten disease is very mixed up. It would be really great if somebody could spend some time getting the different forms correctly documented. Thanks


Template:Circulatory system pathology

Hi Arcadian I would like to add noncompaction cardiomyopathy to the Template:Circulatory system pathology. I see other types of specific cardiomyopathies have been listed as well. Would you be ok with this.

Cheers Philbentley 09:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Response at Portal_talk:Medicine#Template. --Arcadian 10:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanx for the reformat...where can I figure out how to do this myself? I usually just copy and paste an already existing navbox from some unrelated article and change all the linked words...pretty backwards, eh? Haha...thanx. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. A good overview is available at Template:Navbox generic. --Arcadian 22:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fusion protein

Hi Arcadian. I noticed that you performed a move and disambiguation on the page Fusion protein, a few months ago, moving that content to the page Recombinant fusion protein. I'd have to say that I don't agree with the usefulness of the current arrangement. I think the concept of a "fusion protein", as in a polypeptide whose sequence is derived from the "fusion" of sequences from two originally separate proteins, can and should be discussed on a single page. That page could include separate sections for discussing the various contexts in which fusion proteins appear (recombinant technology, naturally occurring translocations in cancer, evolution, etc) Since you created the disambig page and restricted the scope of the page to recombinant fusion protein, there really isn't an obvious page for me to link to in discussing fusion proteins in the context of translocations, and the meaningful page is now harder for others to find and link to. I've never heard of membrane fusion proteins being referred to as simply "fusion proteins", but if that is a concern, it would be simple to put an {{otheruses4}} link to that page at the top of a restored unitary fusion protein page. Let me know if you would be amenable to the change. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep a clear distinction between Recombinant fusion proteins, Oncogene fusion proteins, and Membrane fusion proteins, because MeSH makes such a clear distinction between them. However, if you feel that one of them should get the fusion protein page as the main topic, with the others being referenced via "otheruses4", I'd have no problem with such a rearrangement. --Arcadian 13:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, but a "clear distinction" between the first two can be made on a single page (fusion protein), as well as the concept MeSH refers to as "chimeric mutant proteins" (of which I believe "oncogene fusion proteins" are a subset.) The page could then discuss concepts, such as the modularity of protein functional domains, which are common to understanding all "fusion proteins," defined as proteins formed through the joining of part or all of two originally separate polypeptide sequences. Obviously "viral fusion protein" and "membrane fusion protein" are unrelated concepts, and if you think we need to link to a disambig page (fusion protein (disambiguation)) from the main fusion protein page, we could do that. I guess I'm just more of a lumper than a splitter, but I'd rather have one solid page that is intuitive to link to than a list of hard-to-find stubs, some discussing closely related concepts, and others discussing concepts which are completely different. The page chimera (protein) (which I only just noticed) should probably be merged with the common fusion protein page. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're confident that you can combine the first two topics in a manner that makes the distinctions clear, then I have no objection to the merge. --Arcadian 13:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, when you get time could you add an info box to the HB-EGF article I just created, like you did for RET proto-oncogene. I'll expand HB-EGF some more when I get a chance cheers K.murphy 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for creating the article. --Arcadian 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice one K.murphy 19:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Join WikiProject NIH

I noticed you've contributed to the National Institutes of Health pages; I've started WikiProject NIH, and thought you might be interested. Check it out if you are! Cmw4117 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ethmoidal process of the inferior nasal concha

Hi! Can you tell me how does it looks like in latin? I can't find it anywhere and i don't learn latin. Thank you--Engusz 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The TA is processus ethmoidalis conchae nasalis inferioris. I've added an article and illustration at ethmoidal process of inferior nasal concha to clarify. --Arcadian 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your input

Hello, please stop by Talk:Migraine if you can. We are discussing the classification of migraine as a disease or a disorder. Thank you, Postoak 01:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)



I hate categorizing and I'm guessing you know which would be most appropriate for this article. Would you mind? WLU 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a category, but I've added an infobox and navbox which should help show where it fits in. --Arcadian 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my stupid - there's already a cat on the page (pain); I think it's not the best cat but at least there's one there. Thanks! WLU 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Lipid metabolism enzymes

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Lipid metabolism enzymes, by GregorB (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Lipid metabolism enzymes is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Lipid metabolism enzymes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Lipid metabolism enzymes itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of CBIZ

I've nominated CBIZ, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that CBIZ satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CBIZ and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of CBIZ during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BPMullins | Talk 03:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Coomassie blue

Hi there Arcadian. I recently stumbled across Coomassie blue in Category:Chemical pages needing a structure drawing, and wondered whether you were aware of Coomassie? I haven't redirected Coomassie blue because I thought maybe Coomassie should be merged into it. Any thoughts? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It does look like a duplicate. Sorry for my error. --Arcadian 00:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging Vogliatemi bene

Hello, I just thought I should let you know that I have proposed that Vogliatemi bene, an article you created be merged with the Butterfly article. The translation will have to be removed, as its copyright status is uncertain, and there is already a link to the libretto and a Ricordi piano score. I also disagree with many of the unsourced claims made in the article. If you wish to retain them, please add references. Regards, Alexs letterbox 09:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Classification of membrane proteins

Hello Arcadian, it is a pleasure to see your outstanding work with so many articles. I just would like to note that proteins like Aquaporin 1 can be classified simply as "Transmembrane protein". There is no need to also include a category "Membrane biology", because all "TM proteins" belong to "Membrane proteins" who belong to "Membrane biology" anyway. The double classification seems to be redundant.Biophys 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the redundant category. Thanks for the heads-up. --Arcadian 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you convert those cites/refs?

Arcadian, are you converting inline citations by hand? If not, what is your trick? --Una Smith 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this is what you're looking for -- select "PubMed ID" from the picklist, then type in a PMID and click "Submit", and you get a formatted string you can paste into the article. --Arcadian 03:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. --Una Smith 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Happy to help. Keep up the good work. --Arcadian 04:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I like the references in "vertical" format. That makes it easier to spot where the reference ends and the text begins again, so it is easier to read. --Una Smith 14:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

MeSH pages

In case it fell off your watchlist: Wikipedia talk:MeSH. Carcharoth 01:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it useful. Nice job creating central retinal vein. --Arcadian 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for the infobox! :-) Carcharoth 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Though it has left a lot of white space to fill... :-( Carcharoth 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. Any pics or infoboxes for bulbar sheath? :-) Carcharoth 01:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. We now have articles for bulbar sheath, Tenon's capsule, and Capsule of Ténon, which are all the same thing. I put up a merge notice a month ago, and received no objection, so you might want to take the best bits of all three and roll them into a single article. --Arcadian 01:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I took a closer look at what you wrote, and it appears that although Dorland's equates all three terms, you're stating that the first two are different from each other. I'm guessing that you probably have a source for that, since you were so careful about sourcing central retinal vein. Whatever direction you go, Gray891.png is a good image to use (it is labeled in that image as "fascia bulbi".) --Arcadian 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops. You caught me out there! I just rewrote the definition here, and on closer inspection, I see that all those terms are indeed referring to the same thing. I'll redirect to Capsule of Ténon, which looks like the best one. Carcharoth 02:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi! It's been a while since the article pupilometer was written. The original user that was the author no longer exists. I don't see any references to validate the nomenclature, although there is use of it as an Ophthalmic Instrument to measure the distance between of the PD, or pupillary distance from eye to eye when fitting eyeglasses to align the optic centers of a prescription. Would you concur to changing the content of the article? I don't know what your original contribution was, but found this link to your user_talk page in the history. StationNT5Bmedia 02:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My only contribution to Pupilometer was to sort it last year, but it certainly is in need of expansion. I've added a couple of refs, and taken a few words from your note on the talk page. But if you are knowledgeable about the subject, I'd encourage you to be bold in expanding it further. --Arcadian 02:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I've exhausted my knowledge on the topic for now. It's been broken down to three distinct uses for the name "pupilometer" that I know of. The third is not very common. Anyway, I arranged your contribution on top, becuase it looks the best. StationNT5Bmedia 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Arcadian, would you mind if I indefinitely semi-protected {{ATC}}? It's currently linked to from over 200 pages, and it just struck me that, were it vandalized, there could be some serious damage. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- go ahead -- its not like it needs to change much in the future. --Arcadian 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks—done. Keep up the usual excellent work :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Want to help peer review an article for me? I re wrote it in a day, obtained a GA the next, and I need much help to get it to FA status. So, want to help me and peer review Dookie for me? Thanks :) Xihix 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Darier's Disease

Thank you so much for your edits to the article on Darier's Disease. Whitetrashpalace 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Question re Link Deletion

I am questioning links I re-added last night to the Hodgkin's Lymphoma pages and the very next day, you deleted them. I checked with Wikipedia and they assured me the links are not against any rules. I have readded them and I would appreciate it that they remain as is. hopedreams

5-HT3 antagonist

Hi Arcadian, thanks for adding {{Reflist|2}} to 5-HT3 antagonist—sorry if the list was getting a bit unwieldy. I've reverted your removal of the book references because, although they had no footnotes tied to them, they actually formed the "backbone" of the article; they were used as background. Let me know if you object to this; I'll try to cite some specific facts to these sources later, but I don't have them with me right now. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've been meaning to start an article on bromopride for quite some time now, and your new {{Propulsives}} was an excellent reminder :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
No problems—thank you for creating these wonderful templates (and articles, of course). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Viral diseases

All the diseases in your template are human diseases. Now that you've added HFM, should we remove foot and mouth, which I think is a bovine disease. Didn't want to do this without checking with you first.--G716 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Foot-and-mouth disease is primarily an animal disease, but it is listed in ICD10 under B08.8, so by definition it is classified as a human condition as well. I wouldn't be offended if you wanted to remove it from Template:Viral diseases, but one advantage of keeping it in is that people will be less confused about the difference between that condition and Hand, foot and mouth disease if they see the two right next to each other. Do what you think is best. (Or if you want more feedback, leave a note on the talk page of the template, and wait a couple of weeks. Probably nobody will answer, but it will facilitate future discussion.) --Arcadian 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Month

Rod of asclepius.png
Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Transcription factor was selected.
Hope you can help…

NCurse work 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Your work is immensely appreciated. Wikipedia is amazing. 05:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


I do appreciate you adding the box, and inlines. You doing well, keep it up. Regards, Navou banter 02:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And I appreciate you starting the article. It is always easier to add something than to start something. --Arcadian 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Congratulations on your templates about medicine and anatomy. I'm a medicine student from Porto Alegre, Brazil and I think they're very useful. Besides, I've translated some of them to Wikipedia in portuguese. Keep the good work, you are helping people here in Brazil, too. =) Rhcastilhos 19:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I've browsed through your Portuguese contributions, and it's amazing how many articles and templates you've started over there. Keep up the good work, and good luck with your studies! --Arcadian 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cell membrane template

Do you think that ion channels and pumps should be in the "Structures of the cell membrane" template? --Simpsons contributor 16:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Anabolic steroids

Can you also shade the 3rd column of the Template:Anabolic steroids to a yet darker color than the 2nd one? I think that would look better. I'm not sure exactly how to do it. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the Template:Navbox generic supports that feature -- sorry. --Arcadian 01:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't you copy the source from Template:Navbox generic and paste it into the Template:Anabolic steroids altering it as needed? Wikidudeman (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Knock, knock...

Hey Arcadian... tired of me yet? I was wondering if you'd mind merging CDP choline into citicoline, as they're the same compound and citicoline is the INN. You may of course replace the drugbox with {{chembox new}} if you feel it's more appropriate. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem -- thanks for spotting it. --Arcadian 01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

little help

Hi, I need an administrators opinion: the Peter Tishler article is written like eulogy and doesn't have the right tone. I'm pretty sure its a relative of his writing it and I think the page should be toned down a LOT. I left an NPOV notice on the author's talk page (User:Ltishler) but they've continued to expand the page since then. How to proceed? Thanks! Roadnottaken 14:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • update: I just noticed that User:Ltishler has made an effort to make the article more neutral since my notice, but it still seems sort of inappropriately long and detailed to me for some reason. Roadnottaken 14:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would probably (narrowly) survive a VfD, but it would be appropriate for you to add Template:Inappropriate tone to the top, and add the Template:Fact prompt to the assertions that are probably unverifiable. --Arcadian 23:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you edit the stuttering page?

Why did you remove summaries of many scientific studies on the Stuttering page on July 29? I can't find your Edit summary explaining why you did this.--Tdkehoe 15:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review the edit history more carefully. This was my only edit to the Stuttering page on July 29. --Arcadian 22:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


A template you created, Template:Anatomica, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to its deletion. --Arcadian 05:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)



I'm banned from editing the page, and don't know what I might do in any case, but what do you think of this edit? WLU 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

From the way it's written ("may be used", "may occur"), it's not falsifiable. It's unreferenced, but I've seen much worse. I'm guessing that there's some editing context here I'm not familiar with -- if you have a more specific question, I may be able to offer a more specific reply. --Arcadian 05:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


THANK YOU for getting ride of the external links junk. I have been trying to shorten the page and this is a big step toward getting back to 50k. --Chrispounds 14:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving and redirects

Dear Arcadian,

I noticed you recently moved Polynucleotide Phosphorylase to Polynucleotide phosphorylase. I have no objections to the move, but would like to ask you to check next time if there are any redirects to the article and also change those accordingly, to avoid Wikipedia:Double redirects. In this case there where 3 that I fixed now.

Cheers, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to be more careful about this in the future. --Arcadian 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Dear editor:

Given your extensive experience here on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic.


Sidatio 15:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


hello, you've undone the changes i did to the article which were based on the fact that

14 umol bilirubin/L IS NOT 1.9 mg/dL, it's 0.82 mg/dL
that's why i changed it...

n = m/M => 14x10-6 mol x 584.7 g/mol = 8186x10-6 g = 8.19 mg/L = 0.82 mg/dL

blood chemistry reference values:
i guess there's a typo here...[3]
Tomifly 10:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your references. I have added them to the bilirubin article. --Arcadian 14:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your expertise needed

Hi, could you add an infobox (and molecular structure image, if possible) for Magnesium trisilicate? Badagnani 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the infobox -- I haven't added the image, but it's now in the category of pages that need images, so other people will see it. --Arcadian 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)



Could you review my recent changes to Vein for accuracy? I'm going on my 10-year old memory of anatomy and physiology. Thanks! WLU 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked through it, and it seemed okay (though the whole Vein article could use some work.) --Arcadian 21:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's on my unofficial to-do list. Which never gets shorter. WLU 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Re: ganciclovir entry. There are many errors in the ganciclovir entry. To begin, GCV was synthesized by John Martin and Julian Verheyden at Syntex in Palo Alto. I corrected the entry to reflect this but you edited it back. Why did you do this? Ganciclovir was developed at Syntex by Julian Verheyden and myself and a team of capable people. This was likely done while you were still in diapers.

Now that I've got you wondering what the other errors are (admit it, I do don't I?) - well, one is that thymidine kinase is not involved in the metabolism of ganciclovir. This pearl will keep you busy for hours while you madly look up just how it IS metabolized, but it ain't TK, friend.

Other errors lurk .......—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cato92 (talkcontribs)

You only have two edits under your "Cato92" account, so I'm not sure what you mean by "I". Does that mean that you are taking responsibility for this edit by to ganciclovir, and this one by --Arcadian 17:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I notice that you've recently added a lot of antiseptic stubs to WP. I had a quick look, and it seems that many of them already have articles under their correct chemical names. For example, mercuric iodide is actually Mercury(II) iodide and cetylpyridinum is actually Cetylpyridinium chloride. I've turned these two into redirects to the correct articles, but could I get you to go back and check the others? Thanks, Chris 20:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've taken care of this already -- thank you for doing so. --Arcadian 16:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi, is it normal practice to remove lists of references en bloc? That list was added to the article to demonstrate the references—as opposed to direct citations—used. I had made use of every single one of those references and had read them all. — BillC talk 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As MEDMOS states, "It is not acceptable to write substantial amounts of prose and then add your medical textbook to the References section. It is too easy for a later editor to change the body text and then nobody is sure which statements are backed up by which sources." However, if you used those references, and can identify which specific statements are supported by them, then by all means put them back. --Arcadian 16:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:MEDMOS is a style guideline and not a policy, but thank you, I will do just that. — BillC talk 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dorsal metatarsal arteries


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Dorsal metatarsal arteries, and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The content is from a public domain edition of Gray's Anatomy, and marked with the Template:Gray's tag. I have removed the prompt from the page. --Arcadian 04:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added the attribution tag to the list CSBot knows about. You should no longer get hits on that. — Coren (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Arcadian 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

HELP: RE: Lateral collateral ligament

For us non-doctor types, about 90% of the world, which side is which? You need to help us out:

Lateral collateral ligament to the inside; Medial collateral ligament to the outside????

I am guessing because I have NO idea.

Someone needs to add this to the articles.

Thanks, IP4240207xx 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: My knee hurts!

Medial is toward the midline of the body, i.e. in the inside of the knee. Lateral is the outside of the knee. So the opposite of what you have above. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Can someone who KNOWS add that to the articles? Or should I? IP4240207xx
I'll do it. Usually medial and lateral are linked, but I'll check. Thanks! Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Hereditary Sensory and Autonomic Neuropathy

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hereditary Sensory and Autonomic Neuropathy, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hereditary Sensory and Autonomic Neuropathy is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hereditary Sensory and Autonomic Neuropathy, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My only involvement with that page was to redirect "Hereditary Sensory and Autonomic Neuropathy" to "Hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathy" on 18:07, 18 April 2007. Now that the lowercase version has been deleted, I certainly have no objection to the deletion of the uppercase version. --Arcadian 15:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

I've put the article on Oxidative phosphorylation up for FA. As this seems to be within your area of interest, any comments or suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation would be very welcome. All the best Tim Vickers 20:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
For your contributions regarding sulfonamide antibacterials. Nenyedi(DeedsTalk) 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! --Arcadian 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

navigation templates

I could not figure out which section in Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates, in regards to Template:Sex. Thanks for being considerate in keeping my preference, but still this generic has one problem. The gap between two lines(of list) of same group is wider in "navbox generic", this makes template look cluttered. Maybe we should find a place to discuss, maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates? Thanks. Lara_bran 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, though Template talk:Navbox might be better -- the top gurus on the navbox standardization project seem to spend the most time there now (if you check the edit history, it's much more active than Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates, so a post at the latter page wouldn't get much of a community response. You may also want to take a look at Template:Navbox_generic#Parameters, to see some of the options which are available (you may be able to get what you want with a "bodystyle = line-height: 2.0;" or something like that.) --Arcadian 05:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, maybe i have to take up after a month or so. My view: Since new editors dont edit templates we can go for basic html codes, instead of generic templates, as for uniformity and conflicts some guideline should be enough. Anyway me cant invest much time currently. Me not editing anything further, bye. Lara_bran 05:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I meant, gap between two lines of same list should be less. Line gap between lines of 2 groups should be more. "bodystyle = line-height: 2.0;" implies to all lines. Can i change it back with your permission? Lara_bran 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hepatitis Australia

Why have you reverted the edit of the Hepatitis Australia link, and on some hepatitis pages removed the link completely? (unsigned comment from User talk:Hepatitis Australia)

Please review Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest -- "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." --Arcadian 00:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

TS Navbox

Arcadian, what did this person just do, and do I want this? [8] Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:CapitalR has been standardizing the options available at Template:Navigational templates. (To get some perspective, here's an old version, back when there were eight options.) He's currently merging "Navbox generic" and "Navbox" (he's going through them alphabetically, and right now he's up to the "W"s.) I haven't had any contact with him, but overall I think it's a good idea (though some cleanup may be required afterwards), and from what I can tell, it seems to have community support. Some additional context is available here. --Arcadian 18:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, good enough for me. Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your support -- I look forward to working with you.

Incidentally, I have fond memories of your user name. "Arcadia" was the name we (lovingly) gave our cadaver during 1st year, precisely b/c of Et in Arcadia Ego.  :-)

Djma12 (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It does put things in perspective, doesn't it? --Arcadian 06:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

External resource

Hi, following your edits on Clobutinol and being a new user please could you help. I know of a great resource related to TdP and QT/QTc but do not know if it is appropriate to add and if so how or in fact where. Thanks

It's hard to tell -- seems to have some association with University of Arizona and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which is a plus. It's good that named doctors are associated with the site, but bad that the doctors aren't associated with specific statements made on the site, so they don't have the accountability we would want from a reliable source. It seems like a marginal source; however, the article for Clobutinol is in such a rudimentary state that a marginal source is better than no source. It's probably okay to use qtdrugs, but if I were you, I'd try to find better sources from PubMed if I could. --Arcadian 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


The page listed at gallocatechol is shown as a redirect from epigallocatechin. Ideally, this should be the other way round, because the chemical shown is the epi- form (gallocatechin would have opposite stereocenters). Epigallocatechin is the more common name. As you are an admin, please move these pages appropriately. MatthewEHarbowy 14:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Gallocatechol" is listed as the first name at PubChem and MeSH, but this may be a situation where people in different fields use different names for the same molecule. I'd recommend that you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, and cross-post at Talk:Gallocatechol. --Arcadian 16:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
look at the relative number of citations for gallocatechol, gallocatechin, and epigallocatechin, for example, in geometrically increasing order in say, references for each in Google Scholar. There may indeed be different uses in different fields, but it would seem in terms of relative significance, the word "epigallocatechin" is in more common use, particularly since references to its gallate ester are legion. It may be "proper" to list it as such in MeSH, but for an encyclopedia the term "epigallocatechin" seems far more appropriate. I will crosspost to Talk:Gallocatechol. MatthewEHarbowy 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Greg Kuperberg has moved Tendonitis and Achilles Tendonitis to Tendinitis for both. As a layperson I'm not sure about the difference, I'd never spell it as tendinitis but I know both spellings are accepted medically. Is there a policy, appropriate spelling, anything? Thanks, WLU 02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Of the spellings from the infobox sources, three prefer "Tendinitis" (including ICD-10 and ICD-9) and only one prefers "Tendonitis" (eMedicine). "Tendonitis" wins on Google and on PubMed, but only by a very small margin. Finally, of the three interwiki links that are cognates (es, fr, and pt), all three communities independently chose the "i" spelling. Given that data, and MEDMOS, I think that the ICD spelling ("Tendinitis") is probably the right choice. --Arcadian 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, much obliged. WLU 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "tendonitis" loses by a small margin in PubMed; and, more importantly, it would lose by a wide margin if not for automatic keywording. Try "tendinitis" versus "tendonitis", for example. So as the tendonitis page itself said (paradoxically), tendinitis is the preferred spelling among professionals. Greg Kuperberg 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling on Choroid plexus et al.

For the love of god, if you're going to contribute (e.g., at least learn to spell the pertinent terms. It's "Magendie", not "Majendie." 02:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That caption came directly from Gray's Anatomy, as shown here. Thank you for updating it. --Arcadian 02:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Teratoma spammer

The external link spammer just reverted your revert. I have issued spam warning #3. --Una Smith 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, spammer did it again. Spam warning #4. --Una Smith 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Thanks for outlining levosalbutamol. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for moving the article to its proper location. --Arcadian 01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Galaxiaad suggested it, actually. I had the article in my Watchlist and hadn't even noticed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi there, as someone who has contributed to Neuroblastoma, could you tell me what to do... my contribution was removed without debate. Should I just accept this as a fact of life, that in Wikipedia merciless edits abound? Hovea 03:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the edit history on that page, but had a hard time figuring out who removed what you added. It looks like your response was appropriate (asking on the talk page), and there has been no objection so far, so you may want to try adding it again. --Arcadian 12:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Potassium canrenoate


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Potassium canrenoate, and it appears to be a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 02:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic user


User:Hkiessecker has added some pretty interesting stuff (contribs), and I thought you might have something to say about it. I've already raised some of the issues I see just as an editor on his talk page, I thought you might have some medical objections to raise as well. He may also be editing anonymously, probably through ignorance rather than malice. The anon contribs are from Germany, and it looks like english is a second language. WLU 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also brought this up with User:Jfdwolff. WLU 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Rod of asclepius.png
Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Transverse myelitis was selected.
Hope you can help…

JFW | T@lk 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-diabetic drug

Sorry for the edit conflict. Feel free to remove those sources again if you like; I leave them in even if not tied to the text, but that's just me :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your excellent work exhibited on the medical pages. Hovea 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PMID template

Thanks for the heads up on the PMID template - I imagine it will save me a lot of time in the future Able editor 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Digoxin Immune Fab

You started the article Digoxin antitoxin, which I moved to a more appropriate name. I added some information to it, and I was wondering if you could check it. Thanks! bibliomaniac15 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your expansion. It looks good, and I've added a journal ref, but it's now expanded to a little beyond my level of expertise. --Arcadian 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)



there's a discussion going on at Talk:Muscle_contraction#Eccentric_redux and above regards the use of eccentric contraction. Could you have a gander at it? The discussion doesn't seem to be making much progress. Thanks, WLU 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


This permission is not compatible with GFDL: However no publisher may change content or structure of the classifcation We should not use that on Wikipedia! Look at the bottom of your screen: All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.). ICD-10 should be removed as it is a copyvio! --ro|3ek 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm enjoying your "stub flood" (oh it rhymes!), as I'm doing NP patrol, a welcome sight after constantly seeing test pages. Phgao 00:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- and if monitoring all those test pages give you headaches, perhaps one of these pharma stubs may be of interest to you someday. :) --Arcadian 01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes perhaps, I've got to ask, those medicines are produced by med companies, and therefore, if I were to expand one, would not that be advertising for that medicine, especially if there isn't any news articles or notable sources for them? I need some clarification on this. Phgao 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have serious concerns, that would probably be a question better directed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology. --Arcadian 01:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey...I'm trying to clear out some of the list of drug pages needing a structure drawing. But no matter how many I do, the list keeps getting longer.  :) --Ed (Edgar181) 01:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel for you :D Phgao 01:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I can empathize -- I keep trying to fill up "Category:Drug pages needing a structure drawing", and these two guys keep emptying out my beautiful long list. Still, the struggle itself is enough to fill a man's heart. :) --Arcadian 01:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, we'll never beat it :) There will always be polymers, inorganics, obscure antibiotics with yet-undetermined structures... Seriously, thank you. I've been learning about some very interesting compounds I'd probably never find out about elsewhere, and if that's not one of the purposes of a bona fide encyclopedia, I don't know what is :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Colours in Template:Mental and behavioural disorders

Is there a particular reason for the choice of yellow / grey in this navbox? I thought the idea of standardising on template:navbox was to avoid having custom boxes for every subject. Is this a WikiPorject decision? Chris Cunningham 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a policy source for your claim that the titlestyle and groupstyle fields are not to be used, please provide one. --Arcadian 11:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
From template:navbox/doc: "It is not recommended that one modifies the default styles". They're not included in the basic usage note either. I'm happy for this to be overridden on a project-level basis (template:military navigation does this), but doing it on individual templates for no sake other than to have them stand out isn't appropriate. Chris Cunningham 12:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you don't have a policy source, I'd encourage you to take your issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. --Arcadian 12:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting interpretation of my purpose in starting this dialogue. Seeing as the only thing I can find in the way of template guidelines on either of those project pages is {{medicine}}, which doesn't have any additional styling, I don't see that there's any argument for ignoring what the navbox documentation recommends. Chris Cunningham 13:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Table of arteries/veins/nerves/bones?

I saw there was no page which really summarized all the muscles of the human body, so I made this Table of muscles of the human body‎. The closest I could find before were your templates on the subject. Furthermore, I also see you've done a lot of work on templates on other organ systems, and that's exactly what I'd like to have summary pages on too, e.g. Table of arteries/veins/nerves/bones of the human body‎. However, before I start such a project, I was wondering if you know any such article in Wikipedia already? If there is one already, it would be pretty pointless to have another one. Your templates are kind of summarizing them, but I was rather looking for something detailed enough to be worth studying itself, and not linking to the main articles. Sure if I had time I'd like to learn everything in them, but unfortunately it's rather limited, so I'd rather have a summary. For arteries, for instance, I'd like to know just where they've come from and to where they branch or terminate. So, are there any such articles already, or do I have another project? Mikael Häggström 17:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any existing Wiki page that provides that, so I'm glad you're building it. --Arcadian 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


I deleted again this article. It was listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and multiple people, including some admins, agreed it was a copyright violation. You obviously don't agree with the deletion so please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review instead of restoring it yourself without even bothering to notify the deleting admin. Garion96 (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the article. Please provide a link to the discussion you mention, and a link to the CSD code you believe justifies speedy deletion. --Arcadian 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I found Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 September 29/Articles. If that's your only reference, ICD-10 isn't even close to being a justifiable speedy. I'm not opposed to discussion; I'm opposed to preemption of discussion. I've previously suggested taking this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion so the issue can be exposed to a wider community, and if you want this page gone, I encourage you to explore that venue. --Arcadian 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, to be precise, one person tagged it as a copyvio, one admin on WP:CP agreed with the tagging, one other admin (me) also agreed and deleted the article. A deletion on Wikipedia:Copyright problems is not a speedy anyway. After discussion on WP:CP a decision is made to delete or keep, As the closing admin, I decided to delete. If you don't agree, take it Wikipedia:Deletion review but DO NOT wheel war. Without, as stated before, even bothering to contact me. Which, surprise surprise you just did again since you restored the article. Garion96 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, as someone completely unaware of the whole thing until now, are we talking about ICD-10 (which is basically just a table of contents) or the actual chapters, such as ICD-10 Chapter I: Certain infectious and parasitic diseases? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I never saw ICD-10 Chapter I: Certain infectious and parasitic diseases before so it is only about ICD-10. It is a 100 percent copy of a list which is copyrighted. See [9] and Talk:ICD-10 where there is permission to publish the list, but that is incompatible with the GFDL license. I actually don't mind being proven wrong with the copyvio, although per Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service I don't think I am. (there is creativity here) I object more to the wheel warring of Arcadian. Garion96 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked for more input here. Garion96 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, although I think AN rather than AN/I would have been enough? Oh well, t will probably get more attention where it is. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Garion, we both reverted each other's administrative actions. Either we're both wheel-warring, or neither one of us is. --Arcadian 22:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't have deleted it a second time. Although I did contacted you when I did so, which is more than you did. You restored it once without contacting me, and once while you definitely were aware of the fact that I did a valid deletion (one you didn't agreed with). Would it have been so difficult to restore the article, leave me a message and ask somewhere else for more input? One thing seems clear anyway from discussion at AN/I. WP:AFD is never used to settle copyright issues. Garion96 (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-Mendelian Inheritance

I'm a new Wikipedia user and am trying to expand the article on Non-Mendelian Inheritance. I noticed that you have worked on this article in the past and was hoping you could look over my edits and offer some suggestions. Bretsam 04:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding it. I have expanded it further, and added journal references. --Arcadian 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversions 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Arcadian - why do you continue to undo other people's edits? Seems that goes against the entire point of Wikipedia. If you are an administrator of some type, what are your professional qualifications to hold that position? Or is the required qualification only that you're willing to do it? I don't know much about how Wikipedia works but this all seems fishy to me, the result being that collegues and I do not use Wikipedia for lack of trust.

A general overview to your questions is available at Wikipedia:Administrators. I only see two edits under your IP address, so I can't tell which specific page reversion you're concerned about. Which page were you trying to edit? --Arcadian 02:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcadian - I would like to start to help contributing to this topic. I am on the board of directors for a charity hailey's wish and CEO of Columbus medical corporation. Why do you continue to delete a link to a charitable organization. This oranization's seol purpose is to help advance the research and treatment of this disease. Please help me here. Tell me why this is wrong. -- (from User talk:Pangaeamed, unsigned)

I commend you for your work with charitable organizations. Please review Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#External_links, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If, after reading those pages, you still feel that links to should still be added, the best place to propose its inclusion would probably be at Talk:Mitochondrial disease. --Arcadian 00:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


I think you should be very careful and cross-check the ICD-9 codes you are adding to articles with someone else (the one added to postperfusion syndrome‎ was stunningly wrong). It's far better to have no code than an erroneous one. - Nunh-huh 00:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Look again at my addition. Click on 999.8. Scroll down, until you see the words "Postperfusion syndrome NEC 999.8". (In this context, "NEC" just means "not elsewhere classified".) --Arcadian 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because something is called "postperfusion syndrome" doesn't make it related to the article at hand. I believe you'll find ICD-9 code 999.8 refers to another type of postperfusion syndrome (e.g., cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) causes a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), which can progress to an acute lung inflammation known as postperfusion syndrome), and not to a neurological syndrome of cerebral dysfunction following a bypass operation. Unfortunately, ICD-9 coding seems fraught with confusion based on this sort of superficial similarity of naming, since it's not based on clinical criteria and is carried out by people without direct clinical experience. - Nunh-huh 06:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
SIRS is 995.90. Full response at Talk:Postperfusion_syndrome#ICD-9_classification. --Arcadian 09:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It matters not one whit what you code SIRS as. Read the description again: CPB causes SIRS which can progress to an acute lung inflammation known as postperfusion syndrome. SIRS and postperfusion syndrome are not identical, and neither applies to the syndrome covered by the Wikipedia article. The postperfusion syndrome for which 999.8 is used as a code is a SIRS-like syndrome, as the ICD-9 manual says it is synonymous with "Septic shock due to transfusion". - Nunh-huh 10:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Technical Help Needed w/Assessing Importance of Medical Pages

Hi, Arcadian. Thanks for removing the vandalism from the EDS page. My question to you is actually just a technical one concerning how to assess the importance of medical topics. I tried to do this for Chlamydia trachomatis, but couldn't figure out what symbols to use where, so gave up and put it under assessment of microbiology importance. Would you please be so kind as to give me a step-by-step tutorial? I've added myself to the Wiki Medicine project, and I've found the link that shows you what text you're supposed to add for creating assessments concerning pages identified as medical topics, but I must not be doing it correctly. One spot I'm probably messing up in is in the replacement of the ambigous characters. I'm assuming "Chlamydia" (without the quotation marks) goes in place of the ellipses, and "High" goes in place of the question marks. However, please note that I would be fine with your just going ahead and moving my Chlamydia assessment to the proper place immediately and waiting a bit to give me the tutorial. Frankly, I should be studying for boards at the moment, not doing this! Thanks.Walking Softly 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First, click on this link: Talk:Chlamydia trachomatis. Then, click "Edit this page". You will see a string "WikiProject Micro|class=Start|importance=High" inside double braces. Change the parameters as needed. Additional guidance is available at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment, but if you have more specific questions, feel free to ask me. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Arcadian 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Before I go too far, you've alerted me to an issue. There are two pages on Chlamydia trachomatis. One is properly titled, and one is titled, ghastly enough, "Chlamydia." I've been wrestling with the latter. In fact, I just now attempted to deal with the intro in a way that would clarify what was going on--that this page was dealing with only one of the species; I was actually just going to write you and suggest something major be done to fix the mess. For starters, someone added a whole long derivation of the word "Chlamydiae," but seeing as the page only deals with one of the species of the genus, I'm not sure that explanation is appropriate. However, I'm not sure what kind of consensus is going to be reached across the Chlamydia/Chlamydophila pages. I just checked on Chlamydia psittaci and found it listed as Chlamydophila psittaci. I've never even heard of such a thing before today. Maybe it's a vet thing? When a human gets Chlamydia psittaci, we call it Chlamydia (or just psittaci); what about you? Anyhoo. Back to boards:)
Update: Please see Talk:Chlamydia for an experienced someone's response regarding the above issue and my reply. Walking Softly 01:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, one other thing, there are no brackets, no existing parameters on the Talk:Chlamydia page for a MEDICAL assessment, so I'm still in the dark as to how to assess (or rather move my existing assessment for) the page. Brackets, etc., are there for micro, not for medical.Walking Softly 14:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with User:DO11.10, and would oppose the proposed merge with Chlamydia trachomatis. --Arcadian 01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
As stated in my reply to User:DO11.10, I am no longer in favor of merging the two pages now that I understand the disease vs. organism standard on Wiki. However, I would like your opinion on how best to clarify on the Chlamydia page (and perhaps on all Chlamydiae pages) what is going on with the name that so many find confusing. The intro as it stands seems a bit broad to me if the page is to focus only on the disease caused by Chlamyida trachomatis, and I'm not sure sloshing the explanation in with the regular introduction is the best way to do it. Btw, my apologies for asking so many questions. I figured it was best to ask before acting, though, especially when considering such large changes. Once I'm more solidly on my feet, I won't be such a pain, I promise:) Walking Softly 02:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for adding the disambiguation page on Chlamydia. May we add to it links to Chlamydophila, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pecorum, Chlamydophila psittaci, Chlamydophila abortus, Chlamydophila felis, and Chlamydophila caviae? Chlamydophila, Chlamydophila psittaci, and Chlamydophila pneumonia are particularly important because humans get these diseases and doctors for humans call them CHLAMYDIA such-and-such. In addition, in the popular news, the Chlamydophila diseases for animals still seem to be called Chlamydia (with no species identification) which is confusing for the general public. Walking Softly 19:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: A discussion on this topic is now underway at Talk:Chlamydia. I would encourage and appreciate your response there. Walking Softly 20:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Arcardian- A professor for whom I created an extensive website on a particular (and somewhat rare) disease is interested in trying to rewrite the Wiki page on this same subject. I fear he may wish to include some of his amazing images, original figures and snippets of the text that we already created for our own site (which is presently part of the Johns Hopkins web). We also used images from the NEI, NIH (which are both free use if given proper acknowledgment) and from other authors' journal articles (for which we got permission). Though all these images, the quotations from his own journal articles, etc., make our website quite strong, I imagine that they might make copyright issues on Wiki a nightmare. In addition, even though the images and text are copyrighted elsewhere, I'm wondering if the copyright protection would be lost if they were used on Wikipedia. Should we have links to standalone pages containing the images (perhaps housed on the Johns Hopkins Web)? Should we simply write what we can and then have a single image with a link to our page so they can see they full range of images there? Your input or a redirect to someone better suited to this issue would be most appreciated. By the by, what you tell me here will be of great value in the future, as well; I would like to work on creating such pages for other diseases that are of particular interest to me. If I know how to safely use the primary research of professors and therefore am allowed to place it on Wikipedia, the quality of the resultant work will be that much higher. And don't worry; my main goal is to make ivory-tower advanced level research and clinical knowledge accessible to the common layperson, assuming an 8th-grade reading level, not a post-graduate one. Walking Softly 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a complex issue, and text is handled differently than images. It's also important to distinguish between content owned by your professor, and content that your professor has permission to use but does not own. First, I'd recommend that you read Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. If you read through those pages, you will see many different links to talk pages that accept questions on much more specific questions you might have. --Arcadian 01:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange infobox format

Good day. I tried to add a new picture and increase the width of the infobox in Hair cell, but it's in a format I'm not familiar with. Do you know how to do it? Mikael Häggström 10:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The infobox there is Template:Infobox neuron, which was created by User:Selket. It does not appear to support width, or a second image. If you want these features added, it would probably be better to ask Selket first. If he doesn't respond, I would be happy to add them. --Arcadian 12:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Bile salt stimulated lipase

Could you add a protein box to the Bile Salt Stimulated Lipase article? K.murphy 12:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Vexed or rather Rexed Lamina

I changed the spelling, thanks for pointing this out to a neurological amateur like me. Could you now remove the horrible picture from which i copied the misspelling? It is Image:VexedLamina.jpg and I can see no reason for it still being displayed in the article on Rexed laminae. Thanks.-- ExpImptalkcon 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Most prolific article writers

A new list of the most prolific article writers is out and you're in the top 10. See description here Raul654 16:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:McGrawHillAnimation

Template:McGrawHillAnimation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NormanAnatomy

Template:NormanAnatomy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Collectonian 17:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lithium pharmacology

Hey Arcadian. Would you mind if I removed the drugbox from this article? As it's a class article, I honestly don't see what could be placed in the drugbox—surely any individual info is better suited to individual articles, such as Lithium carbonate and Lithium orotate? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that's best, go ahead. --Arcadian 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks—for what it's worth there's still a link to the ATC, which you added back in July. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So sorry

I am so sorry right now. I saw your move of Artery of the urethral bulb to Artery of bulb of penis, and both the subject matter and the apparent grammatical mistake in the title immediately made me think of that Grawp (talk · contribs) page move vandal which was wreaking havoc a few days ago, and blocked immediately, guessing it was one of his accounts. I'm so sorry about this. Picaroon (t) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the quick fix. --Arcadian (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nav template?

Hi Arcadian, I was wondering if you could help me out with a template of the "vertical" kind for the Polio series of articles? I have created a mock-up version (here), but it obviously needs to be adjusted for this series. I have no idea how to do this, and you seem to have a lot of experience in template making. I don't have any strong attachment to the design, just so long as the information is all there. Can you give me a hand? Thanks--DO11.10 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Could I try talking you into a horizontal one instead? That approach seems to be much more sustainable. --Arcadian (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning for the vertical template was that I wanted it to be located at the top of the article, instead of at the end. Although all of the daughter article are linked to in the main article, my goal was to make the series articles to be easier to find. If you think that a horizontal type is better, I would certainly reconsider. --DO11.10 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest rather than a navbox (or in addition) add category tags to those polio pages? The category looks poorly populated now. --Una Smith (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
(butting in) {{Diabetes}} works fairly well in my opinion. I do find horizontal navboxes (such as {{Multiple sclerosis}}) far less intrusive, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Arcadian, could you fix Template:Pervasive_developmental_disorders for me? It makes a bunch of Mainspace pages appear in the medical navboxes category. I don't know what the proper syntax is, nor how long updates take to propagate, so maybe I fixed and maybe I didn't... --Una Smith (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you got it right - but it depends upon the goal. Did you want "Category:Autism" to appear in all the pages listed on the template, or just for the template itself? --Arcadian (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither. The problem is that pages including this template are being included on Category:Medical_navigational_boxes. I don't see why ... maybe the problem is on yet another page. --Una Smith (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally fixed the problem. It was being caused by several templates, all relating to autism. --Una Smith (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

More ICD-9ery

Question that's been kicked around before, but I was told would be best asked here: Why does {{ICD9}} use a .com site when {{ICD10}} uses the WHO's site? Are their ICD9 pages impossible to systematically link to, or something similar? (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Response at Template talk:ICD9. --Arcadian (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi Arcadian. IMHO methanol does not belong to the primary alcohols, as the carbon, where the OH-group is attached to, has no bond to another carbon (unlike e.g. ethanol). --Leyo (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have adjusted the template accordingly. I have also created an article for primary alcohol, and I would encourage you to expand it. --Arcadian (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

block request

Do you think you could indef block User:Basicsharingwatuknow!? They haven't improved since your last block.P4k (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)



This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of MT-TL1, and it appears to be a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about edit of Trigonocephaly

Thanks for your addition to the reference to the history of trigonocephaly. I have a you know where I can get a copy of the medical journal you referenced? You see, the girl they operated on in 1962 was actually my mother. We have been trying to find anything about her surgery, since my grandparents don't remember much, especially since my grandfather was in the military. Thanks!!!

Medical journals aren't available in most libraries, but they are in many medical school libraries. So first, try going to the nearest medical school, and ask the librarian if they have a copy. (The library may not be open to non-students/faculty, but with some courtesy, there's a good chance the librarian will help you.) If that doesn't work, try the journal's website, and see if you can buy a back issue. If you try both of those, and neither one of them work, let me know, and I'll see what I can do. --Arcadian 16:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)