You're most welcome, firstly. You definitely are a fine candidate for adminship and a good Wikipedian, and will surely succeed in your next RfA. I'm afraid—my Wikibreak will indeed be sustained as I'm very busy with my postgraduate entrance exam preparation. I'll continue to make minor edits as and when I come across small errors like typos. Otherwise, won't find time to contribute. I didn't put the retirement tag only for "emotional reasons" and the fact that I'll still continue to make minor edits. All the best for your career, both in Wikipedia and prospective medical career.
In India, after one completes one's MBBS course, one has to appear for qualifying exams to get into a postgraduation course, which is irrespective of the desired course—be it a preclinical subject like physiology, paraclinical one like pathology or a clinical course like medicine. My preference is radiology, but that's the toughest course to get into. If I don't get that I might like to take up pharmacology or a course related to medical technology (offered by a reputed engineering Institute to medical graduates). And the competition is immense—to get into any clinical course (the more sought after courses), the selection ratio is 1:50, i.e., one out of every fifty MBBS doctors gets into a degree clinical course, at a worse rank one can get into paraclinical courses or diploma courses as against a degree. To get into radiology, the selection ratio is approximately 1:500. So, I believe, you'd realize what kind of competition awaits me! Thanks for the good wishes. Will definitely need them ;)
So, may I know how far have you reached in your admission procedure into MBBS course?
Wow, 1 place per 500 applicants? That's an immense amount of competition, best of luck. Comparatively, my medical application is roughly 1:8, so i've got it fairly easily. I'm actually applying to do BMBS rather than MBBS, not even sure what the difference is but it's what Peninsula School of Medicine and Dentistry is offering. I'm sending off my application in about 3 weeks assuming I get the grades (i'll find out in about 10 days). Really, really hope I get in, i'll be heartbroken if I don't. But hey, that's life! I think JFW has offered to send a letter of recommendation to the medical school which should help a little too, but I need to reconfirm that with him. Anyway, I will definitely keep you informed and I hope you'll keep me informed on your radiology application too. Best of luck, once again. —CycloneNimrodTalk?13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1:8—that's nice. The exam I'd cleared to get into the MBBS course had a ratio of approximately 1:100. But, what makes the exams I'm going to face worse is the fact that my competitors would be all qualified doctors, who all would have also cleared a similar exam in the past! Meaning, they all are somewhat (euphemistically) brighter than the average. And, now a ratio of 1:500. But, I'd like the exclamation (wow!) after I get into the radiology course, which will require me to score exceedingly well in the multiple choice questions-format exams. There are 3 exams—one in November, and two in January, the next year. The November exam is the toughest—more than ten thousand candidates appearing for some 25 clinical degree seats, and to get radiology, one will have to get the first or the second rank! Fortunately/unfortunately there are no interviews for admission, nor is there assessment of articles published (hardly any one writes articles while in the graduation course, any way). The number of exclamation marks used might give you an idea of the enormity of task at hand.
Yes, JDW is very helpful and definitely guide you with the admission procedure. If you have any academics-related doubts, I'll be glad to help you. Regards. —KetanPanchaltaLK14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've been editing this article to try to get it up to minimum standards but it will need someone else's review to see I'm not going too far astray. If you have time you might want to look at it briefly. If so, thanks. If not, thanks anyway.Trilobitealive (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi:
I am a board certified physician from the US with five boards in medicine and subspecialties. I have noticed your interference with publishing the concept of Arterial Venous Switching as an experimental treatment for stroke, even though it was mentioned clearly that it is first copy righted and second is experimental.
Now what is your definition of treatment? Because I always studied treatment in any topic that includes old established as well as new and experimental. In case of the latter, the experimental phase may be mentioned (e.g. phase one or two, animal research etc.) So if your administrator function is to make sure that the information is accurate, then there is no justification to delete the “experimental” mention of the concept, without being biased to any form of therapy versus the other. Let medical research determine if the arterial venous switching is a valid approach or not. You have no right to determine it is not, from what I understand, unless you have done a similar research (that you should reference also) which proves it to be a non viable approach. Until then, the public has the right to know what is current therapy for stroke and what future therapy might look like.
Your peers who are part of this effort are respectable and reputable physicians including Dr. Elazer Edelman, The Director of Harvard/MIT Biotechnology lab. Please refer to Reviveflow.com and look up the medical advisory board if you want a peer opinion to satisfy your conditions off publishing information. The Wikipedia is made to be by the public to the public and not be controlled by any biased opinion to prevent freedom of information availability.
Thanks
Yours,
Sameh Mesallum, MD
Soomeh (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left messages in response to the "inappropriate" deletion of my edit by other editors who try to explain to me something, they lack enough knowledge on. The concept of "Retrograde Cerebral Perfusion" is a very valid medical treatment to brain ischemia and is currently used in many fields including "cardiac surgery/CPB". There is a "plethora" of medical articles in peer review journals "that I can help you find if you can't do it on your own", by Dr. John Frazee, Dr. Judy Huang and others on the subject. Some authors call it "Posterior Cerebral Perfusion or Venous Perfusion". So, the use of "venous network" to treat the brain in cases of ischemia is well known and "Well Documented". I have no problems explaining it to you or to others to help Wikipedia grow and become more detailed on the subject.
You have an obligation as an editor and to admit to the fact that you were not aware of the approach and take steps to educate the public, the same way you took steps to delete my edit.
I have no problem with debating an issue in medicine or science in general. Debate leads to progress. Howevere, before an editor assumes the position of the "teacher" and start spreading "incorrect information" they can ask experts for help or get some self education to be on the level of discussion, leave alone editing. So, I advise you and other editors who "concluded that the concept of "Venous or retrograde perfusion" is a "conflict of interest" or "commercial", to read more on the subject, before editing me. I have spent enough time and effort on "Stroke" and I know what I am talking about, You should do the same, regardless of being a physician or not and regardless of being "Board Certified" or not. I hope you can do the same and READ MORE!
Thanks
Yeah, I put the wrong tag on it but then changed it to {{db-test}} as it appeared it may just be a copy of another article. But its deleted now under A3, so I don't really know what's going on. Thanks - sorfane16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your followup. One comment, though: you wrote "... this makes [EqualRights] normal in questioning things they don't believe in. I'm a Christian, for the record ..." I just want to be clear that I've said nothing about my belief system, and I've pointed out that Christianity and homosexuality aren't necessarily incompatible (though of course some Christian denominations and churches do declare it incompatible.)
EqualRights (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I see you got your hands on that little gem by Ramrakha and Moore. I have found it useful but it has a couple of significant problems. As a reference, I find it very much lacking in references. Much of it seems to be based on the personal experience of the authors or a general synthesis of the literature. I'm therefore not entirely sure if it matches peer-reviewed reviews in quality. On a side note, it is chock-a-block with spelling errors. I've recently spoken to the doctor who has been commissioned to write the next edition of OHAM, and I understand that some major changes are going to be made. JFW | T@lk07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not ruling out OHAM as a reference, but if a better source is available then that should probably be used. For lumbar puncture I would strongly recommend the excellent review by Straus et al that I'm adding right now. JFW | T@lk07:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was I who was unclear, let me rephrase. I saw that you promoted PVC, thank you for that. If you agree with me that "drug eruption", although less important, but also in the same league, well written and after PVC has kept the trophy for some time, deserves the trophy, you could promote that one next. I'm suggesting that you could review 'drug eruption' at the occasion of nominating a new article. As for Foster Kennedy syndrome, it seems of very low importance, kinda like split hand syndrome I just started. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't noticed !!! Will add a better/clearer image when have more time and will look for some sources but im not exactly 'up' on these things. Wikipedia is too addictive ARBAYTALKies22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Cyclonenim! I would be glad to coach you, but right now I'm coaching four users, co-coaching another, and have one user already on a waiting list. I would definitely be willing to place you on the waiting-list (which you may back out of at any time should you find another coach), and I would look forward to working with you. In the meantime, I would have a read over everything at WP:ARL if you haven't already, and make sure you take your time while editing (looking at your last RfA again, that appears to be the main concern). I look forward to your response, Malinaccier (talk)20:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My heartfelt thanks for reviewing hypopituitarism. Frankly, I'd expected some more recommendations! Let me know if the "pathophysiology" section, in particular, is readable and useful for the general reader. JFW | T@lk20:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi cyclone! Great to see you signed up for admin coaching with Malinaccier, you'll have a wonderful time! ;) I was wondering if the offer still stands for the article review. Thanks and regards, --Cameron*17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is Groombridge Place (hope you like history!). I'm in no hurry because I need to make some improvements tonight anyway. Thanks a million, you're doing me a great favour! :) Kind regards, --Cameron*17:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Both are frontal view of both breast. Atom is still fighting for that image despite multiple people supporting it's change for many of the same reasons you stated. I seriously think that WP:OWN could be applied here, and I wasn't the one who thought of it first (i didn't know about the policy but i did feel they were being over protective and stuff with the article) but it was a mod who told me that it might apply to the situation in the first place.
Atom is saying that we can't use Breast Image 289.jpg because its a illustration. And i forget his reason about not changing it to 95C.jpg, which is the image i switched the lede out with when i first stumbled upon the article and its image that i found un-encyclopedic.
If you have time, your honest opinion on the images on the semen article would be appreciated. I understand that you probably don't have the same perspective that I do, but building consensus is better with a breadth of opinions. Atom (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyclonenim — Happy to know that you agree with my proposals, but if you're going to be a mediator in a non-binding scenario, you have to be a bit more delicate with your opinions. Coming down solidly on one side just makes the other side view you as a party to the dispute. (I personally don't think that non-binding mediation is very often useful…) Looie496 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonenim, I appologize if I came off hard and dismissing. The article is extremely stressful and in such a situation you need to pick your statements carefully. There are some of Looie496's arguments that I can work with, other's are much more difficult with regard to policy and justification. I replied on the article talk to further explain my objection. Frankly there was not enough evidence or debate for you to agree or disagree with Looie. Each point is a debate on its own and some cases a major change to an article that is already acknoledged by your peers to be one of the best in Wikipedia with years of effort. You should not take such changes lightly. Rewriting the lead to include one specific study giving it undue weight and truth above all others (and it's not even a study of the plan) - the lead is the most important part of the article and it was simply "agreed". I don't think it was your place as a moderator to take sides like that on such major content changes. Dramatic shifts in content and weight were suggested, but no specific content points were brought up. So there was no understanding of the NPOV and other policy effects. In your first position, you used reasoning of bias which contradicts policy. The source was from the creators of the plan - for this topic, they are considered a reliable source for their point of view. Again, I was fine with removing that particular source, but you set a precident regarding what is acceptable sourcing. This was further complicated with the jump to agree with vast changes. It was even more complicated that Looie's changes and Kbs666's changes conflict. I'm sorry again about how I approached it. Morphh(talk)15:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and do know that I hold nothing personally against you. I think Kbs666 considered you an arbitrator, I considered it more like someone outside that would guide the discussion to progress, and you considered it a third opinion. So we're thinking different things, which may have been part of the issue. The article is a war zone and one of the more difficult articles that I've delt with over the years. So you jumpped right into the fire. Morphh(talk)15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking point on this... Incidentally the polio article is scheduled to be on the front page tomorrow!
As I mentioned, I had hoped to find time to get most of the series up to GA or FA (my thesis keeps getting in the way), but I have actually given the matter a fair amount of thought. Perhaps it will be helpful for me to document what I feel are the weak and strong points of the series and what might need to be done to get them ready? I'll post my ideas on the page you created.
I corrected the formatting so the tallies in the neutral section wouldn't break,[1] but a Support isn't added in to the support tally unless you re-add and re-sign in the Support section. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will post the article on Adiposopathy for deletion. This is not a real medical condition. Will appreciate your comments.
On another note wondering if you could give my feedback on the obesity page? I am working on getting more pictures to add to this page. A comparison of a CXR of an obese person and a person of normal weight. And a CT of an obese person and one of normal weight. Are you any good with picture editting? I have just been taking digital photos of the xray boxes.
Havn't taken them yet. :-) Been keeping my eyes open for some good images. Am on night this coming week and will take some time looking thru the PACS system.
Yes I guess I have become a little lazy. It has been just me editing for so long on this page now. I need to get back in the habit of adding edit summaries.
Why do you have two colons at the front of your sig's wikilinks? They aren't necessary, and are causing parsing errors on the RfA Analysis reports. EVula// talk // ☯ //18:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he was referring to the em dash at the beginning of your signature, but rather the two superfluous colons (::) within the wikilinks - for example, the two in [[::Cyclonenim]]. I'm equally unsure what function they're supposed to serve. Thanks ~ mazcat | c22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)bah, EVula beat me to it on his talkpage anyway, but there you go. :) [reply]
Hello, followed the links you posted on my talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces but the infectious diseases section is not filled out, I see you've actually started Medicine/Featured topics project so I guess it's an oversight, I've added it to my watch and may get involved when time prevails - is the discussion for the task force included on it's page or included in pmedicine's? LeeVJ (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take lots of picture of medical stuff to add to wikipedia but am bad at editing photos. Are you interested and able to help with this? Will upload to wikipedia commons. Then will link to my main page. Some will then need cropping. And others will need identification arrows added.
Would you please explain the addition of the NPOV tag to health coaching? There are reliable third party sources cited in the article. Are you sure that this NPOV tag is not a case of your POV? --Vince (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing anaesthesia, critical care & pain, Volume 1, 2 and 3
My, your reading habits are getting interesting! The release of catecholamines is mentioned in other sources, and in fact we are even mentioning that. I haven't read about hypothermia being useful in SAH. Does your source cite any useful studies that have looked at this? JFW | T@lk19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catecholamine is just a container concept when adrenaline and noradrenaline (and sometimes dopamine) are intended. I'm even sure how they measured catecholamine levels in SAH. I tend to measure them only if I suspect a phaeochromocytoma (which is rarely).
Therapeutic hypothermia has some applications, especially after cardiac arrest and stroke, as well as some other settings. Its uses in surgery are new to me, probably because I have little background in surgery. JFW | T@lk20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Major article work? Well, no. My new job is very busy, and I can't sneak off to the library like I used to and spend some quiet time reading some good sources and hammer out some good content. I have a small list of articles on my userpage that will continue to get my attention in the future, but at the moment nothing inspires me enough. I wish I'd had more time to help with the G6PD page. JFW | T@lk20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help that my internet access at home is a bit flaky. Let me know if you have any big plans for articles. Since finishing hypopituitarism I've been looking around for something nice to do. I'd love to do stroke, but I don't think I could do that on my own; it's a huge subject and finally receiving the research attention it deserves, despite rubbish funding. Stroke would be especially appropriate after my recent work on the SAH and CVST articles.
Stroke was recently reviewed in the Lancet. An excellent article that covers all bases. There is a recent guideline from NICE that makes some very useful recommendations and deserves to be cited (e.g. on the use of thrombolysis and craniotomy) - I think I put a link on the talkpage. JFW | T@lk20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NICE guidelines are based on a systematic review of the evidence, together with healthcare economy assessments and consensus forming between stakeholders. If there is strong evidence, the guidelines are therefore based on that evidence rather than experience. But as we both know, much of the areas covered by said guidelines has not been subjected to formal study and therefore has no evidence base to speak of. You are probably right that the NICE guidelines by themselves are more useful as backup sources; alternatively, we could cite them side-by-side by other major guidelines such as approved by the AHA/ACA in the USA. JFW | T@lk21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have added some photos and there will be more to come. I have added them to pages unedited. Some could use cropping and little arrows. Not sure how to do that myself. Did manage to get the obesity CTs together.
Hey, congrats on your DYK -- and thanks for offering the friendly advice to our current RfA candidate. If today is any indication, you are both a fine editor and a fine person. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Yes, I put a strike through the comment. I understand how it could be offensive, but as stated, I did not intend it as such. Thank you for your comments. :) Latics (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read the answer more carefully but I still think the answer shows inexperience, especially when he is seemingly unsure about cool down blocks. Regards, --Cameron*17:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you! I'm honestly not sure at the moment...I'm sort of "going with the flow", that is Malinaccier. I think I'm more or less ready!? ;) I've been taking part in coaching for quite a few months now; I'd say it's not too long. --Cameron*17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, don't tell me yet...it's meant to be a suprise! Malinacciers list can look quite big but one of his coachees are only being semi-coached and he usually coaches 4 (actively) at a time. I think quite a few of his coachees are nearing the end of their coaching anway. I was in a similar situation before I stared. I had to wait for him but Malinaccier is worth it: Not only is the four phase coaching method the best I've seen on wikipedia but Malinaccier is very tactful and patient. All in all, he (and his 4 phase coaching) is definitely worth waiting for! Best, --Cameron*17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
