User talk:Davidruben/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for the greetings, earthling

I am from the planet Tempulon. I come with great tidings. Take me to your leader. --Greetings, Earthling 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

guideline?

hi there.

i think i'm experiencing a bit of burnout around the issue of editors who complain about research but don't want to do any themselves...this is partly a newbie phenomenon, and one i was guilty of myself in the beginning. (or at least i had the paranoid idea that big pharmaceutical companies were writing the articles, and i couldn't change them, and there was a slight delay before it dawned on me that i had to do research :-) but i have noticed that even experienced editors can get comfy complaining about research in articles without doing any, too. i haven't seen a guideline anywhere such as "don't like what you see?--excellent. now get to work doing some research to improve it." perhaps it is partly the inbred passivity of the spectatorial masses, who are untroubled by treating wikipedia as though it is TV? as if content contribution were the job only of some, and anyone who wants to appoint himself the audience is owed entertainment/information, and can blow rasberries at the screen without also implicating himself? if there is some such guideline i have missed (and it doesn't sound too "fascist") i would be grateful if you pointed it out to me so i could quote it where warranted. if there's not, can you point in my in the direction of where i should go to propose that such a guideline exist? thanks. Cindery 02:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


I guess, looking at your recent contributions list, that you are referring to Misoprostol. So some (disjointed) thoughts:

  • As you will have learnt by now, there is no rush for any particular completion date, nor any immediate imperative for articles to be perfect now.
  • Assuming therefore that we both intend to remain contributing editors for some time, a longer-term approach can be taken, especially if editing gets "Heated":
  1. slow the rates of editing down (ie don't immediately revert or re-edit, but wait 1-2 days)
  2. be uncompromisingly super-civil so that it becomes harder for the opposing editor to raise criticisms
  3. don't let disputes run on as a 2-horse race, instead enlist opinions of other editors, ideally through specific wikiproject groups (eg WP:DRUGS or WP:CLINMED) or from the community at large WP:Request for Comment (RfC) - but be brief in setting out the nature of the disagreement :-) Its easy to disagree against one editor, very different against some consensus opinions.

PS I had a look at the article. The long list of "Opposing" organisations is given in the source article as counterbalance to US Obstetric, as such the citation should be either with the lead-in to the list (vs against the last item in the list - I had expected to jump to the WHO's own statement on the subject), the list should really be wikilisted with '#' rather than manually numbered and spaced. However a long wikilist looked awkward and instead I rephrashed the list to highlight the US Obstetric being out of line of other authorities on this matter.

More of a problem for the article was that following the introduction, all of the article was then about off label uses with no mention at all of its indicated uses. As a UK GP, I not infrequently prescribe Arthrotec for elderly (i.e. post-menopausal non-obstetric) patients - its non-General Practice specialist (Obs & Gynae), off-label use is (almost) irrelevant to me. So I moved last part of intro out into own sections of indicatd use and indicated-use side effects, and placed the gynae/obs & erectile dysfunction roles into an "off label" section. David Ruben Talk 12:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

hi, no, i didn't really mean misoprostol. if you look at anonymous' two talkpages, they are a litany of vandal warnings dating back to 2004/every edit was reverted, deemed unuseful, uncited, a "test" or outright vandalism. he/she is not exactly a newcomer, and makes a habit of inserting rather rude uncited opinions into articles, and ignores all invitations to do otherwise--beginning with george bush article. he/she just does so very slowly/sporadically. (from the miltary contracting company lockheed martin...) i do think it is vaguely amusing that--while others issued threats and warnings--i managed to wear down anonymous in the end by ignoring insults and nerd-tastically insisting on research over and over. while i had some vague hope of winning over anonymous into being a useful contributor/doing some research, i think he or she is at best an un-harmful vandal by virtue of being a not very committed one (and at worst, a potentially increasing hassle because he's been suddenly making more edits this month, and moved up to deleting cited content instead of merely inserting uncited content--a vandal patroller named waluf has already warned anonymous this month that deleting cited content is vandalism...i was encouraged that after i put a link to the NPOV description anonymous seemed to get it even though he ignored all the other suggestions people left to read wiki policies, and thought maybe specific rather than general info could inspire a conversion, but the bottom line is that he knows he's not making useful contributions and just doesn't care, i'm afraid. i think he enjoys being aggravating for its own sake.)

what i meant was--i wish a short snappy guidleine existed in general that linked the ideas of have criticisms of the article? good, you're exactly who we need, go do some research. (i think the posilac article and the mifepristone article are what made me wish for a shorthand guideline. partly for newcomers--to point out that no authority has written the article/it is probably imperfect, and there's no one to complain to--don't complain, fix it yourself; here's your engraved invitation, as a matter of fact. but also as reminder to experienced editors. (i'm thinking of andrewc and the matter of the rat study...some research is quite fun, like solving a mystery, but some--like reading the entire "certified verbatim" transcript of the CDER hearing on clostridium difficile/sordelli and every study written by esther sternberg is quite tedious...that's not even what i mind so much, though, as i minded his total unwillingness to do any research before he objected to research. it's not "my" subject matter--the same info is available to everyone else. and not researching the subject at all puts one in a poor position to evaluate research/gives one no context, no general feel for the subject...so, for example, if he thought the rat study wrongfully implied that "scientists knew 15 years ago mifepristone could cause infections"--which is what he derived from the rat study--he could have investigated that to determine if it was the case. (when i read that exact assertion in the boston globe article, that is what i did--investigated the assertion to determine if there was any truth to it. how could you read that/get that idea and not be curious?) perhaps i was spoiled by beginning on wikipedia with you and lyrl, who do research. but i do think research is essential to wikipedia, and that everyone should do it--especially if they object to content. in other words, if you object to content, don't automatically complain, do some research; you have an equal responsibility to adjust whatever you think ahould be adjusted as whomever you are complaining to does...we are all content contributors and content critics; no one agreed to contribute only and let others criticize only; both responsibilities should be shared. sorry to be so long-winded, Cindery 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry appreciate the wishlist. My own (medical/scientific) preference is always to cite primary sources (orginal research) ahead of secondary sources (peer reviewed overview articles by specialists summing up current knowledge or clinical practice - not always the same of course) and finally of course tertiary sources. However there is a statement somewhere (?WP:RS) about encyclopaedias being better with secondary sources which summate knowledge (and provide all teh background primary source references for one) rather than the primary sources themselves. This sort of makes sense as a primary paper will result in debate and discussion amongst specialists and may well either confirm existing knowledge or be at odds with previous & subsequent research - a secondary source sorts this out for one. Of course WP is not the place to do the research itself or try establish value one piece research over another (thats Personal Research), but rather comment of such assessment done by others (back to secondary sources being best I guess).
As for "don't complain - contribute" policy, there is an inactive Wikipedia:When people complain rather than edit - is this a starting point for what we often might wish to point to ? David Ruben Talk 16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Also just located an essay (ie not official guideline) on Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, and a guide Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles (which is very much active). I suspect what you seek could never have as much impact as a well phrased posting specific to the user and the complaint raised - what guidelines to refer to one learns by experience, although WP:About & WP:NOT are useful to cite :-) David Ruben Talk 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks. "when people complain..." very funny. but i don't think i'll cite it (especially not in an argument!:-) i like your phrase, "don't complain--contribute." maybe i'll use that. i like that it doesn't just imply "you are not following the rules" but is inclusive/inviting.

re science/med primary sources--it does say in official policy/guideline that the secondary sources for sci/med are especially weak/unreliable; they are a special case viz primary/secondary... Cindery 19:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

hi, this is what i was referring to (from "reliable sources"):

"In science, avoid citing the popular press

The popular press generally does not cover science well. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new experimental medicine as the "discovery of the cure" of a disease. Also, newspapers and magazines frequently publish articles about scientific results before those results have been peer-reviewed or reproduced by other experimenters. They also tend not to report adequately on the methodology of scientific work, or the degree of experimental error. Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not reliable sources for science and medicine articles.

What can a popular-press article on scientific research provide? Often, the most useful thing is the name of the head researcher involved in a project, and the name of his or her institution. For instance, a newspaper article quoting Joe Smith of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution regarding whales' response to sonar gives you a strong suggestion of where to go to find more: look up his work on the subject. Rather than citing the newspaper article, cite his published papers." Cindery 14:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

new article...

menstrual extraction--if you have time to lend a critical eye. Cindery 01:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - never heard of this before, but reading article it make "obvious", if somewhat bizzare, sense. Need to think on this one I think and read up on some of the references if I have time (on holiday next week) - but a little wikiformating applied for now :-) David Ruben Talk 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED

Hi,

The main page of WikiProject Medicine has been redesigned. Comments are welcome, and please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm so happy

you took time to edit menstrual extraction. thanks. (it's funny how when one starts an article, it is thrilling if anyone cares/edits it.) i will try to study the citations styles/changes you added so i can expand my repertoire. i started gemeprost too because i was tired of looking at the redlink in so many articles. it is just a sad little stub, and a subject about which i am completely ignorant--it could sorely use the help of a doctor editor, esp. a UK one, since it is used in UK but not U.S. (consistent with my POV, i *did* list all the side effects, though :-)--so it esp. needs balance, if you have time. hope you are enjoying your holiday, Cindery 00:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Clonazepam

Please see the talk page for Clonazepam for why I think the mentions of off-label usage should be removed. KonradG 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Holiday

Took break until September 17th

Enjoy! Cheers -- Samir धर्म 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Psoriasis external link spam

Please comment here: Talk:Psoriasis#External_links. Thx. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome/drugbox

Welcome back! Adding parameters for controlled drugs was a great idea, by the way – I'll start doing my part to add them across the relevant articles. Fvasconcellos 19:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Menorrhagia contribution

Hi,

>>References should be Sources used as general background to article, vs footnotes to specific points. Differential shifted to subsection of Aetiology which considers various approaches to classifying

Upps, sorry ok, thank you

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel M (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 September 2006

Doc

Leave me alone. The last time I heard an opinion from a doctor was when I was 13, and that opinion left me drooling and half blind. I have handwritten apologizes from both of my parents, and even the teacher who thought it would be a good idea to see that so called doctor. The only person who hasn't apologized is the doctor. The only thing that makes me feel better is that was 17 years ago and I am sure the guy was nearly 60 back then so he should be retired now. Now leave me alone. RBL

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RBLakes (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 September 2006
Fine, I wont respond directly on your user page. I reiterate that article talk pages are for discussing the article rather than relating personal experiences, and that signing talk pages is wikipedia policy. Whilst I agree that Chlorpromazine potential for large number of side effects (hence introduction and in most cases preference of patients to the newer agents), it is sad if you needed a written apology from your own parents, for what was presumably their attempt to act in good faith and under the advice available to them. David Ruben Talk 17:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cluster Headache and Horton's Headache

Please see the discussion page for Cluster Headache?

Thanks! --TeriRobert 03:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Medication standardization

I started a discussion on the standardization of medication articles in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medication#Drugs_and_brand_names. If you have time and ideas, please join :) Sensei 10:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Horton's Headache

David, With all due respect, I can give you many, many sources of cluster headaches previously being called "Horton's Headache," and not just when Horner's Syndrome was an issue. That's the joy of advances in medical science -- doctors learn. I was very careful when I added that section to be sure to say that they were called Horton's Headache in the past; not the present. That doesn't make the reference you posted about Horton's Syndrome wrong, nor does your reference make mine wrong. I am a professional writer and patient advocate in this field. I check my sources very, very carefully. I don't understand why you think Cluster headaches having been called Horton's Headache IN THE PAST is wrong and needs to be corrected.

Thank you!

--TeriRobert 03:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Psoriasis Talk

David,

Thanks for the warm welcome. I appreciate the work that you and others do to maintain these resources.

--Edv3 07:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Osteoporosis

Dear David, I can appreciate the reasons for your actions. Don't you think that due to the significance of ONj, there should at least be some information on the relationship between bisphosphonates and ONj. I posted only one reference but there are also many cases where oral bisphosphonates are implicated Dr. Imbeau 21:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Tinea versicolor vs. Pityriasis

Thank you for being patient. I had all the "note cards" done two days ago, but I didn't have the psychic energy to sort and collate them all, then format into a (hopefully) clear presentation where one can follow the consecutive contrasts, one against the other, as the results from each resource is dealt with. It was interesting as I, of course, had no way of knowing ahead of time exactly what I would find. -I am Kiwi 07:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Osteonecrosis of the jaws

Dear David, Thank you for your positive contribution to the article. ONj has effectively been more widely mentionned in recent years due to the association with bisphosphonates as such cases have been quite obvious and rather catastrophic., however it would be erroneous to assume that ONj is a recent problem in the same way that hip osteonecrosis is not a recent problem. Since ischaemic osteonecrosis is a difficult problem to diagnose and treat, it is sadly diagnosed quite late and treatment, is thus, more difficult. The recent cases of ONj associated with bisphosphonates were impossible to miss because of the severe nature and exposure of sequestrum through the oral mucosa, in some cases, without any external intervention. The intro needs to reflect the long standing nature of ONj ( which has been given various names over time ). The jaws are quite unique as far as bones are concerned. Dr. Imbeau 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And yes. I agree that the article could be written in a more accessible style and I welcome your input on that issue. Osteonecrosis is not an easy subject, even amongst medical professionals. Dr. Imbeau 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
One more thing. It would ne nice to have a few photos of non-bisphosphonate related photos ( we can also put some of bisphophonate associated cases, of course ). You seem to understand the WP software quite well so maybe you can tell me what is the best way to get some photos in the article ? Thanks Dr. Imbeau 02:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
David. Many thanks for the clear directives for images. That should make the process easier :-) Dr. Imbeau 03:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
David. Thanks for the comment with the photo. I simply did a "test" with a photo that did not state any copyright protection and available under public issue. Obviously I still need practice. I have a number of my own photos that I would have to collate in a serial montage but need some more practice before I can confidently load them.Dr. Imbeau 08:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The link is [1]. David if you think that it is not allowed under WP policy then by all means remove it. As mentioned I have some from my own case that I am planning to upload. Can I uplaod them in a way that I can post them in the article without giving others the right to use them for any other purpose ?Dr. Imbeau 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (merged comments)
Thanks David. I have removed the image so that should take care of it. I obviously missed the notice at the bottom. I will get there :-) Dr. Imbeau 09:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
David. I have now placed one of my own photos in the article. Tried to do it like you did but I still need to learn quite a bit about the WP software! Dr. Imbeau 09:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Society of Intestinal Research

Hi David. Agree that the links are spam, and agree with their deletion. -- Samir धर्म 02:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CLINMED userbox move

Oh... guess it didn't have to move... wasn't much work anyway. Do you object to it or do you just think it was unnecessary? I could easily revert everything. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay no problem, I just didn't read the text carefully, I agree it should be in the template namespace. No one has commented yet, guess your just the only one who noticed it yet.
PS: maybe it's time to archive your 113kb talkpage, loads very slowly for users like me :-D
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mop nom

Sorry for this attack :), but: I am thinking about proposing you for mopship.
Some pro's:

  • More and more templates are getting fully protected.
  • You'd get the cool rollback feature, which is very handy (a lot of users could benefit from using this).
  • Even if there is no immediate need for the blocking feature, it can be handy to have it available for obnoxious cases. (Just be careful: I suggest reading User:Mindspillage/admin).

Some con's:

  • RfA process is painful. But this depends on the viewpoint. Just say to yourself: "It's not a big deal" — and treat it as such. And it really isn't. Even if lot's of people say and act contrarily.
  • Admin actions are scrutinized more than actions of "normal" users.
  • The tantrum about mop-ship is ridiculous in comparison to what influence an admin has.

Benefit for the project:

  • We need experts of a field like you are.

Adminship is not a trophy and not a higher position. Admins don't cary any more weight in consensus finding. They simply enact consensus when needed.

RfA technical problems:
I'm a lousy writer (see my own recent RFA) and this would be my first nomination (duh!). I don't have a detailed knowledge of your wiki contribs/interactions (but what I've seen is good!). So it might depend on how the nomination is written. The risk is, if I write it myself I can hamper your chances to get the mop with my own lousy style :). However: my idea is to write something very short as nom. As a first step, I would offer to whip-up a draft nom at user:Ligulem/work/Davidruben, you could then decide based on that (and fix the grammar/spelling :). If you agree to move forward with that, we could move it to the correct place. However: self-noms do have the benefit that the nominee knows best to write about himself. On the other hand, some wikipedians do like non-self noms. What do you think? Is there any chance to convince you? Sorry again for attacking :) --Ligulem 11:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I whipped-up a draft on User:Ligulem/work/Davidruben. Do you feel fine running with this? (Also please fix typos/grammar on-sight). If it is ok for you, please answer the standard questions, accept the nom, adjust the end time, move it to (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davidruben) and add it to WP:RFA. Be prepared to answer additional questions, especially in the first few days. And stay cool! Adminship is no big deal. --Ligulem 08:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

re collegehealth-e.com links

The links your are removing are relevant to the articles and from an authoritative source. Please verify relevance of the links (i.e, READ THE ARTICLE) prior to removing them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.172.67 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 October 2006
The issue is not whether the links are relevant - I agree they are on the topics in question - but they generally are poor external links. I say this in the sense that it is generally better to add to wikipedia's content than provide an outside link. Such outside links should be to expand on the information given. Wikipedia is not a directory service or list of links, and repetedly linking multiple wikipedia articles to an external site strikes me as spamming (we don't provide in wikipedia a one-to-one link for each article with Encylopedica Britanica or Encarta). Please read WP:External links and WP:SPAM. David Ruben Talk 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A review of the Wikipedia guidelines reveals: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." Links relevant to the college-age population are greater in detail for that demographic than the Wikipedia article calls for. In regard to your accusation of "spamming": your claims are speculated. You should review the external links contents before making accusations that a legitimate contributor is spamming. 71.127.172.67 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAM includes wide-scale external link spamming, and WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer point 2 states "If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?" and point 5 notes "Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun."
So despite having been that "itchy trigger finger", I do tend agree with your assessment of the depth of detail, so can I suggest you present your case at the Clinical Medicine projest at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#www.collegehealth-e.com links) :-) David Ruben Talk 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

re Shaken baby syndrome

Go get the medical paper like I did and you can see the correct title, as how it was published.

I have Caffey's 1972 paper right in front of me and the title is "On the theory and practice of shaking infants" - sub title "Its potential residual effects of permanent brain damage and mental retardation". I had the correct title for the reference. Why are you screwing up all the references?

I had the correct title for Caffey's 1972 paper as it right in front of me. I put the correct title of

Caffey J. On the theory and practice of shaking infants. "Amer J Dis Child" 1972; 124:161-169. "Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine

the sub title is Its potential residual effects of permanent brain damage and mental retardation

Why are you screwing up all my references?

I took the full title of Caffey's paper as listed in the provided link to a table of contents. WP:Assume good faith is policy if you do not mind.
I object to the description of "screwing up all the references" given the page had an awful citation system of url in-line links in the article and a separate manually maintained list of references with neither linking to the other and, worse, being out sync near the end with an additional inline link. The article failed to be either Harvard system, ref/note or cite.php (ref) system. Have a look at WP:FOOTNOTES. Standardising citation markup is not "screwing" things up, but part of collaborative process of creating an overall encyclopaedia.
PS The website hosting Oral's ceased in January 2006, so the links need reviewing.David Ruben Talk 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please leave this page alone. The reference are in a medical/scientific formate.

Thanks you

'- - ~ ~ ~ ~'


I accidentally screwed up the references trying to correct some of the junk you were putting in and that is why I reverted to an older page. Since then I have added a reference that is very important. The references need to be left the way they were and not to have the links changed. The references and links are to published medical and scientific papers and have a specific format to follow. Readers are not interested in a colored link to the year or to the date within Wikipedia. All you are doing is making the references hard to read by changing the colors, rearranging the lay out of the references and adding garbage. In addition to making the references look like some kid had a field day with their coding knowledge. PLEASE this information is too valuable to have it look like a Christmas tree. I was very selective about the emedcine article that I referenced, and do not need to have an emedicine link added, as a majority of the emedicine articles have incorrect information and have not been published in a recognized peer reviewed journal. The quotes have "italics" and do not need to have the font style change to italics; it just makes the reading harder on the eyes. I put in a lot of time and effort putting accurate information on this page with the intended purpose of it reading as a medical/scientific page and not a Christmas tree.

Thank you for not messing it up.70.171.229.32 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Go get the medical paper so you can see what the title is for Caffey's paper. This the title of the paper as it appears numerous places. It was archived along with the subtitle.

Reference. 1 Caffey J. On the theory and practice of shaking infants. Am J Dis Child 1972;124:161–9. 2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts v Louise Woodward ...
Caffey J. On the theory and practice of shaking infants. ... Am J Dis Child. 1972;124: 161-169. Rivara FP, Alexander B, Johnston B, Soderberg R. Population- ...
Caffey J. On the theory and practice of shaking infants. Amer J Dis Child 1972; 124:161-169. Caffey J. The whiplash shaken infant syndrome: Manual shaking ...
3) Caffey J, On the theory and practice of shaking infants, Am J Dis Child, 1972; 24:161-169. (4) Caffey J, The whiplash shaken infant syndrome: Manual ...
13] Caffey J. On the theory and practise of shaking infants. Am J Dis Child 1972;124:1(51-9. [14] Brown JK, Minns RA. Non-accidental head injury with ...
Caffey, J. (1972). On the theory and practice of shaking infants. American Journal of. Diseases of Childhood, 124, 161-169. Jacy Showers ...
Caffey J. (1972). On the theory and practice of shaking infants. American Journal of Diseases of Childhood.124:161-169. Clark, B. (2001). ...
41 Caffey J. On the theory and practice of shaking infants. Am J Dis Child. 1972;124:161–9. 42 Blumenthal I. Child abuse. A handbook for health care ... 70.171.229.32 03:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason why our references can provide the maximum possible information and include teh subtitles. Whether one does so as a second sentance, or with a separating dash is a matter of formating style. The inline hyperlinks being unlinked to the references is not a good markup approach to have in an article - please permit these to be linked - no one "owns" articles and JFW also inidicated that footnoting system should be applied (see User talk:70.171.229.32).David Ruben Talk 07:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why you are changing the references and moving the years? Apparently you have no idea what the proper format is for medical and scientific refences. Other pages posted on Wikipedia have the correct format and the formate that I posted. Why don't you go to the medical library or look at other medical papers available on the internet or the papers that I have posted to see the correct format.70.171.229.32 07:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

70.171.229.32 please WP:Assume good faith. I well know the issues of international style and wikipedia implementation (or otehrwise). Template:cite journal does mostly follow the international standard - see discussion at Template_talk:Cite_journal#Publication_volume_number_in_bold_.2F_additional_data_.2F_descriptive_labels listing and linking to the various styles.David Ruben Talk 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I copied the following instructions for listing citations from an AMA web site.

How should an article be cited?
An article should be cited using the citation of the final published version. Readers should refer to the final published version when citing the literature because the published version is the fully redacted version of record. 70.171.229.32 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The whole purpose of international styles of reference citing is to standardise disparate systems used by individual journals or newspapers. Hence the BMJ insists on its articles having references of a set style, however the source material might choose to suggest that they be cited. See international standards mentioned at Template talk:cite journal David Ruben Talk 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Milk fetishism

Hello "Davidruben". As You made some comments/critics at the Milk fetishism page: After a longer discussion in 3 or 4 adult lactation (Yahoo) groups and some research we want to reorganize and rewrite the "Milk fetishism" article completely and to move it to the lemma Erotic Lactation. The substantiations You can find in the article discussions. For me personally it was important, to get more systematic, minor speculations and more empirism ;-) Feel free to place comments or corrections or expansions Bye, --Fritz Bollmann 08:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Feingold diet

Hi!

We need a few second opinions on the Feingold diet page. It started out as a crib from QuackWatch, and was re-written by Shula and me. It's now pretty much in the Feingold camp. What we need is some fresh eyes to get it encyclopedic and balanced. Hope you can help. --Slashme 07:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS

Hi David,

we've had a previous discussion on headings here, where Sandy pointed out that such a change would contradict WP:LAYOUT. But I think you might have a point, consider bringing it up on the talk page again after you've read the discussion. Thank you for your continued improvements there!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the compliment on my Talk page today. :) Lyrl Talk Contribs 19:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A favor

If you get a second, it would really help me out with the work I've been doing with the dental articles by looking through the list of stubs I made. It is a long list, but all that would be needed would be to browse through the list of oral pathology stubs and see if anything catches your eye as something that is not limited to oral and maxillofacial pathology. Sometimes there may be a random cyst that I know about it only occuring in the mouth, but who knows you probably also know of it occuring sometimes in the middle toe! The list is on my user page under stubs of "oral pathology". - Dozenist talk 21:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

i have some questions

My questions are about liver function tests.... My infant has had slightly elevated ALT's,AST's and GGT...... what does this mean for her... i know u cant give me a medical diagnosis or anything i just would like to have an idea what is wrong with her and i cant get any answers from anyone. It is very frustrating and just makes me worry more.... do u know anything about this stuff? User:Brandnewmom 00:08, 19 October 2006

I've replied on your talk page User talk:Brandnewmom. David Ruben Talk 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Tonsilitis

Hey thanks for removing the line, how do I report something like this in the future?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigus86 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 October 2006

Link to AAFA Hayfever

Hi David - I am a life-time hay fever (and food allergy) sufferer and I want to post the AAFA page link for other Wiki readers to get the help and info that I got from them. This is a credible nonprofit patient organization and all the info on their site is free...the are selling nothing. I'd appreciate the addition of this nonprofit link on the external links...consistent with the other external links already on this hayfever page.

Thanks. - Jim User:208.58.79.153 13:18, 22 October 2006

If your wish to suggest a link, then feel free to do so on the talk page first. Please provide a link to the AAFA page on this specific topic (i.e. not to their home page) and then other users can see whether the link is appropriate. Remember ideally one should add content (i.e. improve the wikipedia article) rather than just add an external link. An E.L. may be appropriate if the amount of additional information is beyond that which should be added to an encyclopaedic entry (if it merely covers the same information, then the link fails to add to the article - remember wikipedia is not a directory listing service, however good an external organisation might be). David Ruben Talk 22:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

references for sinus headache

thanks for fixing those...i was trying to put them in when my life shut my laptop on me and told me to quit it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencercpayne (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 October 2006

Ulcer references

Just wanted to say "thanks" for cleaning up the canker sore references I added. Now I'll know how to add future references. Btw, is there a page that details all of the fields of the "ref" tag? Does "ref" mimic bibtex fields? Jrennie 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pleasure. I've responded on your talk page User talk:Jrennie David Ruben Talk 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Welcome to WP:VIRUS! ==

I just started the effort to bring the project back to life the other night night, and a lot still needs to be done. The simplest, yet most effort-intensive, is to label and rank articles of interest to the project with the {{Wikiproject Viruses}} tag. Click the link to see how to use it, or drop me a line either on my talk page or at WP:VIRUS if you have any questions. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Buteyko

David, thank you for cleaning up the Buteyko article. Your changes will make it a lot easier to edit/improve and it already looks a lot more professional. Hopefully I will have some free time to work on the page in the coming weeks. --Spathi 15:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A pleasure. David Ruben Talk 18:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Having now warned Professor Rizzo Naudi (talk · contribs) I think it is only fair I inform you of the WP:3RR. I am unsure whether iron therapy is really something that is ever used in clinical practice, nor do I suspect any serious neurologists using it in any form. The book in question, and J Neural Transm are hardly core clinical texts. JFW | T@lk 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Etiologic predictive value

Hi! I am new to wikipedia. Found an article on positive predictive value which is a subject that interests me. I made a small contribution to that aricle. Saw after a few days that someone (Must have been you) improved the language in my constribution. I just want to say thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny Gunnarsson (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 November 2006
A pleasure. David Ruben Talk 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Asthma

Any bright ideas on how to deal with the disruption? It's not the only article that has been affected by him. I've tried reporting him to get him blocked as a vandal previously, but it's not out and out vandalism. --ArmadilloFromHell 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi David,

I awarded you the kindness barnstar because 1) I have watched you tirelessly be kind and patient and welcoming to new users in general on pages we both edit, genuinely trying to recruit/reform them, even the difficult ones, into productive editors--and succeeding, to the benefit of us all 2) because you certainly did that for me. I doubt I would have stuck around, had I not had the good fortune to encounter Wiki at first through you and your patience, which was surely tested. 3) You continue to try to carry on the inclusionist philosophy/tradition not just by yourself, but also by giving former newcomers advice on how to help newcomers.

All best, Cindery 01:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: thanks for welcome back--I'm not sure how long I can stay or how much I can edit--the "real world" persists with its unreasonable demands, etc. :-) next time I'll put a wiki-break sign on my page (if i can figure out how to do that...)

Your opinion

Hello... I wanted to ask your opinion on Talk:Depo Provera. I'm at a bit of an impasse with another editor (User:Cindery)as to whether an edit is OR or not. I feel I'm getting more argumentative than I should, and I'd like an outside opinion. Since you've contributed to the page much longer than I, I wanted to ask your opinion. I've asked User:Andrew c as well, as he appears to be a regular contributor to the page. Thanks. MastCell 16:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think they were on target. Regarding the specific content issue about which I had gotten worked up, I was curious as to your opinion about the appropriateness of labeling said researcher a "Pfizer consultant". If you can look past the tone on the talk page, which I agree was needlessly incivil, I'd be interested in your opinion on the issue of whether the edit in question represents WP:OR. MastCell 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)

I've had a go at reformatting this style guideline (at a temporary page) and would appreciate your comments. My rationale is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Reformatting this article. Thanks Colin°Talk 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing dental-related articles

Hey, man. Hope everything is going well. I wanted to hear your thoughts on what most projects do in this situation, or what you think would be the best way for the Medicine and Dentistry projects to coordinate efforts in rating articles. WikiProject dentistry is setting up a way to rate dental-related articles. The system is actually modeled exactly as the one from WikiProject medicine. Naturally, there are going to be topics that are associated with both projects. Just recently, dental armamentarium was labeled with WikiProject medicine tag, and Xerostomia is currently as well. In similar cases, do the projects just work out which article goes with which project, or can both projects have ratings on the same article? I do not know the best answer, but I thought that coordinating both projects' efforts soon would be the best solution. I forsee this happening to many articles, especially any article on head and neck pathology. - Dozenist talk 19:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi David,

Thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful analyis at Talk:DepoProvera. (And for reminding me it's Guy Fawkes!)

I feel that I don't need to assure you that I will not be offended in any way if you restate your position from our earlier discussion re Pfizer/LaCroix/BMD in the current dispute--but just in case, please be assured that I will not. It might actually be helpful to have other people than Mastcell and I making the arguments--perhaps more input should be solicited elsewhere, as well, if not enough editors contribute in a week or two week's time.

I will be slow-to-respond/disengaged on the Depo talkpage, in hopes of keeping things cool, while still continuing to advance the discussion. There is no hurry and deadline, after all.:-)

I don't know if you've been following the discussion at Emergency Contraception, but MastCell's first post to Depo occurred less than 30 minutes after the conclusion of this exchange: [2]. It seems unfair to accuse him of harassment or wikistalking, but it also seems to me that he arrived at Depo already quite upset/confrontational, etc. Because there is even the possibility that there is a causal relationship--i.e., he is angry re EC page and following me to Depo, (and Dalkon Shield) to express animosity, I think it is better that the Depo discusssions involve plenty of input from other editors.

Remember, remember :-), Cindery 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope it's expressing the obvious to state that the above comment is a fairly huge breach of WP:Assume good faith. I stand behind my edits as motivated by the desire to improve the pages in question and not by personal animosity toward anyone. I'll keep further discussion of such issues off your talk page. Thanks. MastCell 05:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
We can all have our own personal doubts about another editors intentions, it just that we must then assume good faith and act in such a manner. I would not be too worried/sensitive to C's comments above, they acknowledge that making such an accusation would be "unfair". Instead I took the above to imply that C likewise agrees, as you had done, that where disagreement has occured that it is best to have the input from a wider range of editors. Anyway I trust you both can find a suitable consensus along with some other editors (Suggestion User:Lyrl is also active on contraception topics and has a very good sense as to how much to include, how best to cite and a fine application of NPOV in this field) David Ruben Talk 10:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right, of course. I've worked on controversial articles before, but I've never had so many accusations leveled at me (I came to Depo Provera in response to Andrew c's request to WikiProject Medicine for a 3rd opinion and got accused of Wikistalking) and should not have risen to the bait. I should have used you as an example: I saw that at first, on Talk:IntraUterine System, you were accused of conflicts of interest, POV-pushing, being a pharma frontman, hiding the risks of IUS, and even failing to provide informed consent in your practice, all by Cindery. The difference is that you handled it much better, kept your cool, and have a good working relationship with her now. Hopefully this will occur with time for me as well. Anyway, just wanted to say that your approach to that conflict is a great example of how to act on Wikipedia, one from which I hope to learn, and thanks again for your efforts to defuse the current issue. MastCell 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

hidradenitis suppurativa

Hi David, Wanted to let you know that I, Rob Howes, deleted my own talk comments on the hidradenitis suppurativa. My email address is robhowes@san.rr.com, and I am the vice presifent of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation, Inc. If there are no problems with deleting my own comments could you please revert the page. Cheers, Rob Howes

Thats fine - just could not identify you being an unregistered anon (User:75.80.154.190), and I assumed someone else blanking what seemed a sensible posting ... but if your own posting and no one else respond, then I see no problem with removing, so yes I will revert :-) David Ruben Talk 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

EMIS and Martindale

David,

I'm trying to understand the Wikipedia policy on external links and content. How does the entry on EMIS practice management software fit into this policy? It seems to be advertising, with a link to a commercial website.

The same question applies to Martindale.

Thanks in advance.

Please remember to sign talk page entries, as per policy, use 4 tildes thus ~~~~
To answer your good question, it is permitted to give an external link to a commercial organisation if it is directly the subject of the notable article, hence it is ok to link in Coca Cola to their homepage, or in the above examples to their respective websites. Likewise whilst blog-sites or web-forums are generally inappropriate as external links, the exception is if the article is about the particular site itself (but not the generic Blog article) (see WP:EL guideline).
  • What is not ok would be under Dehydration to link to the Coca Cola company (it's not what the article is about).
    • Adding articles about ones own organisation is seen as vanity (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) or WP:Spamming in itself, and is liable for immediate WP:SPEEDY deletion by another editor.
    • If absence of a page on the company is really such an omission to wikipedia, then either suggest on the topic page or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine – which is what I would suggest. Alternatively create the article with a one sentence description, include a {{stub}} tag at the end to indicate not a complete article and on its talk page suggest what you feel the article should cover – but then let other editors decide how to objectively expand the article (they may of course still decide the company is not notable enough and request that the article be deleted).
  • Generally small companies without a 'notable'* impact on the wider world are unlikely to be appropriate for their own wikipedi article. * The issue here is 'notability' and for this one needs to be able to WP:CITE from WP:Reliable sources to WP:Verify. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, sections 'General criteria' point 11 and 'Articles' point 7.
Feel free to ask further questions, or seek help with wikistyle/wikimarkup if such an article is successfully created (and kept). Yours David Ruben Talk 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

David,

Thanks for the education on Wikipedia policy. I am working through the referenced documents to gain a better understanding. Wikipedia is a treasure of cumulative human knowledge. Far be it from me to detract from that. What I am grappling with is how to avoid commercialism, but still provide a societal benefit by listing certain links. The last thing we'd want is the commercialization and debasement of Wikipedia. However, sometimes commercial links empower readers to efficiently act on knowledge learned, and given the layout of any given page, it would seem possible to do without detracting from the encyclopedic goals of the entries. But I will study the rules of the game before further participation in it.

(I have removed specific references in this and a Talk posting for privacy reasons. Hope you don't mind. As a neophyte, I was not looking to publicly post certain information, and did so in error. I would be interested in chatting with you, if you would be kind enough to email your contact information to me.)

Once again, please forgive me if any entries or edits are in violation of a Wikipedia policy.

Medicine Collaboration of the Week

 Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Crohn's disease was selected.
Hope you can help…

WS 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All my edits have gone!

Hi there, I just added some external references to a web site I use a lot that has loads of articles about diabetes, but they all seem to have gone. Why is that?

Thanks!

Bobdewhirst 21:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted as seemed inappropriate external links, full response with links pointing you to relevant policies and guidelines on your talk page - User talk:Bobdewhirst. Yours David Ruben Talk 21:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

DM prevention edits

DR, The edits you revereted were indeed speculative in that they were not backed by citations to someone else's opinion. they were, however, the current state of clinical conviction, and explained the uncertainity involved. They were inserted for three reasons. The cloud of snake oil around DM, in response to a comment in talk, and in an attempt to salvage any content at all in the prevention section. The talk comment was sufficiently cogent that I judged the alternative to essentially be deletion. Reaction? ww 04:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ranken Jordan Images

Thanks for the help. I should have been able to figure that out.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmaty (talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 November 2006

Seborrhoeic dermatitis treatments

Hi David,

Would you mind taking a quick look at Seborrhoeic dermatitis, as I see you've recently made some improvements in that article? I have some misgivings about the content, in particular the PITYVAL cream reference, but I don't really have enough medical knowledge to trust myself to edit it correctly. (Sorry if this page is already on your watchlist). Icemuon 10:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a lot. That was clever to Google the product, I'll have to remember that for next time. Best regards, Icemuon 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of Template:Infobox Hospital

Hi David. I replied to your message on my Talk page. I'm not sure if this is the correct protocol - I'm new to wikipedia talk. Anyway, if you can't find my reply (or if I should have posted it elsewhere) please let me know. Aylahs 00:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Upgrade to Template:Infobox Hospital

David, the new and improved infobox template looks great and works really well! Thanks for updating the Aga Khan Hospital articles, I've reviewed them and all the info is correct. Thanks again! :-) -- Aylahs (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For your info

In response to a post you made on November 3 on my talk page regarding an RfC, I have proceeded with an incident report -- Disruptive and inconsistent editing - Alec - U.K. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notification - I've added a (brief) outline of some of their recent disruptive behaviour (articles, talk space trolling, user pages and user discussion pages). David Ruben Talk 02:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stasis dermatitis

Funny co-incidence, I was going to ask you to check my edit for correctness, and I see you made the one before me. Do you have any good web references? I've had the problem for 5 months, side effects of a cast for a very badly broken ankle followed by a blood clot, I'd like to be informed as much as I can, since the possible long term side effects do not look good. Although swelling has gone done quite a bit, I'm wearing very large shoes right now. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed you a reply. David Ruben Talk 05:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I sent back a response. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lactose intolerance

Thank you for your careful use of references and ninja pubmed skills. I also really like the PubMed PMID reference tool you are using.

The trials are interesting because they both confirm that lactase can be useful and warn about most lactase pills being not being very effective. This will be most useful to my lactose-intolerant girlfriend.

-- Stereo (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions Index

David, Thanks for your comments about the links I added. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is part of the National Institutes of Health, and the information in the Diseases and Conditions Index has been vetted and filtered to be accessible in a way that the longer article may not be to everyone. I did not mean to do anything that resembles spam, but we have a huge body of information that has been underrepresented in places such as Wikipedia because, being a large government organization, NIH is sometimes behind the curve. Please let me know if you think there is a better way to communicate this information. Danjeffers 15:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Coding

David

Is it possible to insert coding into a listed citation (not references) that has [ ] for linkage; to open on a designated place on a web page?. If so, how would it be done on Wikipedia?

Thank you The Stroll 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The only way I know of is for the target website to have within its html a Name Anchor. So either the website already has these or you are able to edit the webpage so that it does, or the location must be manually described:
  • Name Anchors are encoded in html (editing in Notepad or the like) with <A NAME="XXX"></A>.
  • Then in an html document or here in wikipedia, the url link is made up of the webpage address plus #XXX to jump to label XXX.
    Hence: [http://www.members.aol.com/MedicInfo/Asplenia/DR_Asp.htm#sp2]
    Gives: [3] which should link about halfway through my webpage to the anchor 'sp2'.
  • However if the webpage has no Name Anchors within it, then there is no "internal anchor" to refer to in a hyperlink. Assuming we are dealing with a 3rd party's webpage (rather than a page of your own that you can add a label to), then the only option is to add an explanation to the footnote
    Hence: [http://www.members.aol.com/MedicInfo/Asplenia/DR_Asp.htm Asplenia] - summary midway through page
    Gives: Asplenia - summary midway through page
Hope that helps. David Ruben Talk 01:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello David Ruben

You wrote

If of any interest, health.am links added to Polycystic ovarian syndrome also seemed to hung my computer for several minutes of apparent inactivity, but this was merely a quite excessive amount of frames (mostly for advertising unfortunately) to be jumped to and loaded. After a many minutes the real page loaded, the article was very good, but I shall hardly relish linking again to health.am pages :-)

First of all, thank you for c hecking my contributions. Give me 1 hour to check your remarks, i'll be back to You

Dr.Gangino 18:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

hospital infobox

Thanks for your interest. I've wanted to make up a better template, but I don't really have the programming skills to do it properly. I've taken a look at the proposal and it looks good to me. I've copied the proposed template over here, and added my comments Kerowyn Leave a note 02:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 

{{Infobox Hospital
| Name       = {{PAGENAME}}
| Image      = 
| Caption    = 
| Width      = 
| Logo       = 

| Location   = <!-- ---  Move US State details to the Region parameter -->
| Region     = <!-- NEW. UK: the County or city. US: City or County -->
| State      = <!-- NEW. UK: England, Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland. US: US State abbreviations (used in autogenerated Wiki-links) -->
| Country    = <!-- NEW. -->

I think these parameters could be combined into one, since "Location" generally includes city and state/county by default. 

| Org/Group  = <!-- NEW. UK: for NHS=Trust or Private company. US: Company organisation or group -->

I feel like this entry and "Affiliation" are basically the same thing, so they could be combined.

| Category   = <!-- NEW. UK:NHS or Private. US: Public or Private -->
| Type       = <!-- NEW. Community, District General, Teaching, Specialist -->
| Speciality = 

| Emergency  = <!-- New. UK: Yes/No, US: Trauma certification level (I/II/III) - 'Certificsation' depreciated but kept for compatability -->

It isn't necessary to keep the "certification" title here, since trauma levels are generally descriptive of emergency services. 

| Affiliation= 
| Beds       = 
| Founded    = 
| Closed     = <!-- NEW. -->
| Website    = 
| Wiki-Links = <!-- NEW. Template will automatically add 'List on hospitals in...' link for State or Country if defined -->
|}}
Thanks for thoughts
  1. re splitting location: this will allow the template to automatically wikify State and Country if the wikipedia articles exist (in UK this would be to England, Wales or Scotland, and in the US to the relevant US State). Furthermore the wikilinks at the end will automatically include a link to List of Hospitals in State if this exists, otherwise to List of Hospitals in Country if that exists. Hence splitting location allows the template to generate a series of links automatically and to the lowest subcategory of the Lists. That said, Location parameter remains unlinked (unless so defined by an article) and the proposal only absolutely requires Location and Country to be given; State & Region are optional to allow for current usage compatability.
  2. re Org/Group and (Medical School) Affiliation: these are not the same thing in the UK. Hence in London, we have Kings College Hospital, St Thomas' Hospital & Guys Hospital which all previously had their own Medical Schools, these are now merged into that of King's College university. However the actual hospitals are run by differing NHS Trusts (Kings is one and then Thomas' & Guys is the other) and each of these trusts has additional health centres and community hospitals which generally are purely service provision (i.e. little or no medical school training activity).
  3. re Certification: I agree should be dropped. I'll initially though leave it in as an alternatie to keep articles that use the template looking correct, until such time as I can work through these articles to upgrade their use of the newer template. Then I'll drop this parameter entirely. David Ruben Talk 02:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I didn't realize that about the locations automatically linking back the the appropriate list. Perhaps the Affliation parameter should be expanded to say "Medical School Affiliation" just so its clear?
Just as long as the trauma center level is listed somewhere, since that's a main index of quality for American hospitals. Kerowyn Leave a note 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hospital for Sick Children

I notice that you've been making some additions to the infobox for Hospital for Sick Children. I'm a little vague on proper usage for the infobox so, if I may, I'll just pass along the following:

  • Yes, Sick Kids does have an emergency department.[4]
  • For care system, it might be more accurate to list Ontario Health Insurance Plan. (The template seems to be sorting out the Canadian and U.S. systems on an internal level, I'm not going to futz with it)

-Dhodges 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Canadian health care

In answer to your question, here's a table from Medicare (Canada):

Province Name of plan
Alberta Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan
British Columbia Medical Services Plan
Manitoba Manitoba Health
New Brunswick Medicare
Newfoundland and Labrador Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Care Plan
Nova Scotia Medical Service Insurance
Ontario Ontario Health Insurance Plan
Prince Edward Island Medicare
Quebec Assurance maladie (Medicare)
Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Plan

All of the provinces have essentially similar insurance schemes, with the Feds trying (with mingled success) to keep it that way through the Canada Health Act.

Cheers, Dhodges 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hospital infobox

I just noticed you were working on this, so I added it to Toronto Western Hospital. Also, I'm pretty sure I have some better photos I took this year, and will hunt for them next week. --ArmadilloFromHell 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

re NHS Hospital template

Hmm - yes, you have a point. (The trouble with coming late to a debate!) The St Thomas's box looks better. One minor point - I understand that the department / speciality formerly known as 'Casualty' and 'Accident & Emergency' is now Emergency Medicine, residing in Emergency Departments.

We do it just to confuse ...

(And I thought I *had* put the tildes in. See if I can do it now.)

Servant of Maleldil 09:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the renaming is indeed "official" policy, but for the UK Public and GPs that is certainly not the name we know and indeed not what hospital doctors necessarily use (on phoning to arrange acute admissions, I'm still told by Registrars whether to send a patient to a particular ward or "A&E") David Ruben Talk 10:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Aga Khan hospitals - naming

Hi David. Thanks - I agree with you, "The" needed to be dropped from the article names. I have renamed the articles by moving them. Appreciate your pointing this out. -- Aylahs (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry about my revert to the infobox you changed in Royal Victoria Hospital, Barrie, looking back at my edit I'm not entirely sure why I thought it was vandalism. I must have been tired. :-) Thanks for letting me know. Imaninjapirate 21:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine - sorry I reacted a little abbrasively back :-) Keep up the good anti-vandal work :-) David Ruben Talk 02:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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, --Sharlene Thompson 18:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

CMV

Hello David, my name is Mihajlo and I have a question for you. Recently, I found out that I have CMV (cytomegalovirus), and I would like to ask you what is the treatment for it (can I go playing basketball, go skiing, and other stuff that means phisical activity)?? Thank you in advanced!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.110.195.13 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, I do not give out specific e-correspondence medical advice, and nor is wikipedia (like anywhere else on the web) the place to search for this. Articles such as cytomegalovirus have some information and pointers to specific situations (which I can not be aware of by e-correspondence), but this is the role for your own doctor to discuss with you. So having done the history, examination, investigation and diagnosis bits, I think you need to return to your doctor for the implications, treatment, prognosis & general advice... - it is all what doctors are there for and they wont (shouldn't) bite :-) 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA

It is my pleasure to hereby nominate you for adminship. Please expand/adjust Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davidruben and transclude it into Wikipedia:Requests for adminship when done. Don't forget to adjust the ending time when putting the page live. Good luck and thank you in advance for your acceptance! --Ligulem 15:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


- Last day of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davidruben process. David Ruben Talk 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Asthma

Hi David. The merge tag on Asthma medication is still there yet the tag on Asthma was removed. I think we need to match up one way or another on these tags, but don't want to open up old wounds. What would you advise?

Regan123 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I merged Asthma medication into Asthma and then redirected. David Ruben Talk 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


No sweat I think that nearly all from one particular user has been fixed. And good luck with your nomination. I hope it succeeds!.Regan123 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected template

Can you check and make sure I've done it correctly? Ral315 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes OK David Ruben Talk 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Hi David. Sorry to bother you, you've previously commented on the User:Jance dispute; was wondering if you could comment at the RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 03:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicosan

with Admiration, I am contacting you. I am researching Nicosan, a drug manufactured by XeChem in Nigeia. I see in your portfolio that youu athoured the Wiki article on Nicosan. I am hoping you can help me. I have researched much on Nicosan, and knowing that it has approval in Europe, I do not see much information nor publised input about Nicosan and it's potential , coming out of Europe. Am I not looking in the right places? I am trying to get an understanding about the exposure, general feeling and actual application of Nicosan and it's results in Europe. I am hoping you can help, I know your time is valuable and will sincerely appreciate your response. 

  Jim

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.206.8.87 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Aga Khan hospitals "See alsos"

Hi David. Thanks for your messages about the See also sections. I can see where you are comming from regarding duplication of links. I agree that the extra Aga Khan Health Services link can be removed. However, I think the Aga Khan Development Network link should remain (since it is the only instance of that link on many of these pages). Your idea to move the List of Aga Khan Hospitals link into the infobox sounds appealing, but I tried it using the Wiki-Links parameter, and it didn't render so well in the info-box. With the Aga Khan Hospital, Dar es Salaam, the link was in the infobox See also section, right up against Hospitals in Tanzania (no space between them). It would be nice if there was a line break between items in that section. -- Aylahs (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good observation - so enacted and Aga Khan Hospital, Dar es Salaam now makes use of this. Thanks :-) David Ruben Talk 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks David! I will similarly update the other AK hospital pages. Regards -- Aylahs (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davidruben/Archive_4&oldid=1138913875"