User talk:Davidruben/Archive 7

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


David, Sorry, I see that I was editing and adding references, while not realizing you were online, making comments and deleting. I have looked at your comments and see that I am not up to speed on technical issues, references, and other details. I'm not a tech person and Wiki is fairly complicated. I have just looked at the reference maker link you left ( and it will be a big help. I will stop editing for now and review these things. I could use some advice about the edit war with the commercial website and the false accusations of sock puppetry he has made against me.Reasonablelogicalman 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If the accusations are false, it will soon be proved, because your IP is recorded with each edit. If you don't know about "technical things" like IPs, look them up. About the link war: David himself removed and endorsed the removal of the link to, so I think asking him for help to replace that link will be futile. In addition, the DMOZ option is awful, since it simply links to the same sites David has excluded, plus a whole bunch of even worse ones!   Skopp   19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking David to replace the link to But, I am asking him to delete the link to, the commercial website, on the prostatitis page and on all other pages of Wikipedia, such as the pelvic myoneuropathy page. I look forward to the sock puppetry charges being proved false.Reasonablelogicalman 19:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonablelogicalman (talkcontribs) 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

David actually let the link to chronicprostatitis stand for a long time, based on the discussion in the prostatitis page archives. It does not sell anything to the public the webmaster assures me, yes it has some ads but so do almost all sites these days to pay for hosting fees, it has over 70 pages of unique content, and it certainly enlarges the info beyond what the page at wikipeddia has. In contrast, your website is a load of old cobblers with conspiracy theories about doctors, anecdotal mumbo-jumbo and highly cherry-picked research, all of which tends to support your monomaniacal theories about infection.   Skopp   19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Now now, comment on edits and material, not other editors :-) Had I let stand on past discussion, I don't recall. Have not a free moment now, but I'll look back on archived talk pages later. For now watchout for WP:3RR with your reverts. David Ruben Talk 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi David, sorry for any ill will that may have come from the melatonin article. As you may already know, the article has been nominated for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Collaboration of the Week. I am sure you would agree that this article badly needs an overhaul. Thus, I am wondering if you could vote to nominate this for collaboration of the week. Sincerely, God Gnipael| |Talk 00:50, 03 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi David, thanks for your edit over at Metformin. I was wondering if you could fill out reference 15, which is currently just a blue link to I'd do it myself, but I don't have access to the BNF since they limited free content... MedicinesComplete is way too expensive if I'll only use it for editing Wikipedia :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, that parasgraph convoluted with the last sentance repeating what was already stated - so rephrased and yes, I expanded ref citations :-) David Ruben Talk 01:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for adding a source at Goitrogen and glad a physician (or that *someone*) has finally discovered the article, and can add to it. The sources do seem to conflict, and, as you say, many sources are not very good. Any reliable information you can find regarding these foods (avocado, coconut, saturated fats, caffeine-containing foods) would be great. I think it's possible that coffee, for example, might disrupt the thyroid in complex ways, which may explain why some sources say it suppresses, while others say that it increases, thyroid function. Badagnani 20:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

One question: is there a term for foods that are the opposite of goitrogens? Because it might merit its own article. I have found no such term in any source. Badagnani 20:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There already is an article of Antithyroid agent which refers currently to drugs having such an effect, but not sure term would apply to foods.
Whilst tempting to guess as "thyrotoxics", this would be confused with thyrotoxicosis which is an alternative name for marked over activity of the thyroid gland - i.e. when the toxicity is from the thyroid to the rest of the body, rather than what you seek which is something toxic to the thyroid itself. David Ruben Talk 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, some people apparently see thyroid-stimulating foods as some sort of "antidote" to hypothyroidism, whereas in fact they can be as disrupting/damaging, just in an opposite way. Badagnani 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Should goitrogens be described as "anti-nutrients" (in that they interfere with iodine uptake)? I don't know the proper term.


Should L-5-vinyl-2-thiooxazolidone, which is apparently one of the actual goitrogenic compounds in Brassica vegetables, be mentioned? Badagnani 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing personally anything on these two items, yes in principle it would be sensible to mention if a particular food item has had their active goitrogenic component identified, but this really does require a citation to verify each one (else the article risks being a list of items that is impossible to verify). At very least the list of items (either individually or as the whole list) needs citation to articles than do discuss their food items effect and to reliable secondary sources rather than wishy-washy blogs, or herbalist speculation articles. Finally identifying active substances might bring order to the list of foods - i.e. is there any common factor between foods; eg if A/D/G all have substance x and B/C/E/F all have y, then some meaningful arrange of items under x & y can be done, rather than say an unconnected list sequenced just by chance of their alphabetical order.David Ruben Talk 00:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Random IP

I just came on to wikipedia and got some message about abuse- you need to get your fact sraight —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As anon editor you will get any previous message left for anyone else who has made use of the same IP. In this case, this edit indicated that editor was this indefinitely blocked editor who was then granted a reprieve and allowed back. Any further disruptive POV pushing (as that edit was) would warrent instant blocking, but of course never entirely clear if an anon account will be repeatedly used by same person or not, so a single warning seemed appriopriate. If you under are nolonger Alpinist, then appologie offered, warning was not directed for you :-) David Ruben Talk 20:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Prostatitis page, consensus stacking

Hi David. The individual (Reasonablelogicalman) intent on getting his many websites, all registered as charities in the US, onto various WP pages (prostatitis page, human cloning page, and others), is becoming seriously disruptive. He has now broken another WP rule by consensus stacking here. If you look at the history of the page on prostatitis, you'll see that I have worked on it over a very long period and turned it from a stub-like page into a quite good page. His only contribution to WP is to add his links to the encyclopedia — a bannable offence. Today he made another inflammatory edit, removing a link to a site that uniquely hosts images and full published papers very useful to men with chronic pelvic pain, simply because that site links to another site with which he seems to have a vendetta. I urge you to use your admin powers to stop this editors self-serving and disruptive campaign to promote himself via wikipedia. Thanks.   Skopp   22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note: the meat puppet consensus stacking thread at that forum was created on Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:17 pm, not in July.   Skopp   03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, stupid me - indeed that is date of the thread - I had misread the "24 Jul 2007", which is the date of that user joining geocites - doh ! :-( David Ruben Talk 04:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Ruben, I just found your message to me. I am somewhat overwhelmed by all the rules that go on here at Wikipedia since I have little time to spend here. However, I am learning, mostly thanks to your comments and URLs to tools. And, I would like to contribute, and have in the past, by doing well-referenced posts on etiology. I continue to recommend the removal of the commercial link, which has possibly taken copyrighted photographs, covered them with spam links, and surrounded them with spam links. If the person responsible for that link is not commercially motivated, why not remove the link? The pictures of prostate muscles are not central to the prostatitis page. Reasonablelogicalman 04:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Prostate muscles? MastCell Talk 05:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Reasonablelogicalman has recruited meat puppets who now do his bidding on the page by removing links he considers in competition to his own large network of self-promotional websites. In collaboration with some concerned urologists and other medical personnel, I am considering penning a letter to Dr Leroy Nyberg of the NIDDK, carefully detailing the behaviour of this scoundrel. People need to know what is going on here.   Skopp   06:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • David, I do apologize for my harsh attack on the other editor, but I am becoming exasperated by his actions and clearly disruptive behaviour with his only purpose being the furthering of his personal agenda, not the improvement of the page. I ask you to consider the way I have built up that page so that it is really no longer a stub at all. He has only fiddled with the links and tried to subvert the conclusions reached in major studies by inserting his own study that found absurd conclusions, such as CPPS and BPH are caused by bacteria, and both can be cured by antibiotics and "prostate massage", which is a theory for which you cannot find any support in the literature. He has not been admonished for trying to consensus stack. His lie about the addition of the muscle diagram page link as a sneaky replacement for the link to is false, as the history of the page shows, but he is allowed to state it again and again, calling me "sneaky", without comment from you. He edits the page from various IPs and IDs, and gets away with it. Is there no way to stop this? Are you not disturbed by his actions?   Skopp   04:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Have faith, I am disturbed generally by both of your tone of commentating on the other editor rather than the content - accusations flying both ways (is Reasonablelogicalman the person soliciting WP:MEAT vs has Skoppensboer WP:COI involvement with ?) Warnings of WP:NPA to one and WP:OWN to the other (plus a checkuser request). Please let there be some space for other editors to feel free to join in and offer their $0.02 of opinions :-) David Ruben Talk 12:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Re: this diff, my apologies. I was under the impression i was reverting the testicle edit (see my edit comment) - no idea how i ended up restoring it. Thedreamdied 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update

Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

  • The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

Dr. Cash 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Inflammatory_diseases_of_unknown_etiology — Candidate for speedy deletion? This is WP:OR as well as unnecessary, IMO.   Skopp   23:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I have put a PROPOSED DELETE tag on that page. The page is clearly attempting to make an interpretation of facts and a synthesis of facts. This is expressly disallowed. from WP:OR: "Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses"   Skopp   04:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin mistakenly blocked another user as my sockpuppet

Hi David. Admin Rlevse left me a message saying that user:Silverye was blocked as my likely sockpuppet and a SPA. He is NOT my sockpuppet, and I resent the charge. What possible evidence is there? That the user agreed with me on a Talk page? This action is capricious and unfair. I now feel responsible for another user getting blocked for no reason other than his agreement with me on a Talk page! Ye gods.   Skopp   22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It was more than just Silverye agreeing with you, but the tone of continued personal attack against another editor. Alternatively, consider the inverse of this: that your previous incivil postings seemed to be similar to that of Silverye, and no such comparison could have been possible if your previous postings had been cool, calm, civil, polite, and oozing in good faith :-)
P.S. Just as Reasonablelogicalman's suggestion of that sockpuppetry has been agreed with for now, likewise your suggestion of sockpuppetry by Reasonablelogicalman has also been agreed with ! David Ruben Talk 23:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've advised Silverye to sort it out himself. I see that user:Schmoopster has been blocked warned, but with this message : "It is suspected that this user is a sock puppet of Schmoopster" rather than what it should read, namely "It is suspected that this user is a sock puppet of Reasonablelogicalman". BTW, just read the comments Schmoopster made on his Talk page .. clearly user RLM.   Skopp   23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Had not seen that user page, but I note no edit on that talk page since May 2007. Anyway, I've just posted a warning on Reasonablelogicalman about more recent events, so that's warnings made to both editors.
A short wikibreak to reflect might be wise :-) David Ruben Talk 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The message on Schmoopster's user page is nonsensical, and the link to the sockpuppet case, on that page, goes nowhere. I think, for the record, this should be fixed. I am also bemused to see that no block has been instituted against RLM, Schmoopster or any of the IPs he used, whereas in my case someone who is not' a sockpuppet has had an indefinite block put unfairly on him. Very disappointing, and is an unbalanced outcome on the face of it.   Skopp   23:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair point re recent IP use - I've add a warning to User: (no point blocking as not still being used and, as an IP, it might be used by someone else in the future). As for Schmoopster back in May, 6months ago is a long time and I'm not going to now waste further time digging up the distant past.
Current situation is that you have both received warnings, neither of you have been blocked and you both are free to "start afresh" as it were re WP:AGF/WP:NPA/WP:SOCK (take your pick) and so may change the discussion at Prostatis into some thing that is pleasant and welcoming to other editors. Further endless bickering about each other's behaviour will be seen as disruptive and grounds to block, so as I keep hinting, let things cool, please :-) David Ruben Talk 00:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking at the sockpuppet case against RLM [1], I cannot find a record of any block against him or his puppets. Can you advise where any action against him has been taken?   Skopp   23:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    Link to assessed behaviour in thread on Talk:Prostatitis and in warning on his user page.David Ruben Talk 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions on the diabetic diet

Dear David Ruben, Thank you so much for tidying up that weird section that seems to have got into both the articles on glycemic index and diabetic diet. Perhaps people involved with medicine who are Wikipedians had better keep close scrutiny on articles on related topics - there seems to be some one determined to insert personal opinion somewhere, and I note that contributor is signed as having a B.Sc. in chemistry, but not in bio-chemistry and does not appear to have medical qualifcations. ACEOREVIVED 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree a POV pusher, but there is no requirement to have formal qualifications to be a useful editor to a topic - often the "committed amateur" gains a more detailed knowledge over a small area than a specialist in an overall discipline can ever hope to :-) David Ruben Talk 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New Paper

This paper PMID 17961909 would be a worthwhile addition to the reading list. I do not have access to the full text, do you?   Skopp   08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Further warning issued to GdB

Hi David, I thought I should inform you that I have given Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) a further warning for WP:NPA violations on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. If I hadn't clashed with him in the past I would probably have blocked him, given that you already issued {{uw-npa4}} to him on 2007-10-27. JFW | T@lk 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Dr. Ruben, user:CCradick, I am very new to Wikipedia. In a site under Fibromyalgia:Archive 1, I wrote about my Fibro and other health related issues. I didn't realize that I wasn't suppose to be dicussing anything pertaining to myself. All I wanted to do is find a place on Wikipedia to have conversations with other people with similiar conditions or syndromes. Like I said I'm new at this and a person named Meg in the article Fibromyalgia:Archive 1 responded, in my opinion kind of rude, and so I too responded to her in a rude sort of way. The reason I'm writing to you is to ask you if you could please remove what I wrote concerning my health,etc. Meg said it wasn't the proper place for the subject. After my rude responce(which I am truly sorry and I do apologize for my behaviour), you commented after mine to Meg. I need to know if there is any place within Wikipedia that a person can talk to other sufferer's of Fibromyalgia and other conditions such as arthritis, oesteoporosis, etc. I'm sorry, for not introducing myself. My name is CCradick, I'm only 48 yrs. of age with alot of health problems. I'm also sorry for ranting on, but I want to know if you could please remove what I wrote in the above mentioned sight, since it does not belong there in that part of Fibro. Since this is coming directly to you, I'm not sure where to look for your response. Thank You so much and I hope that you can be helpful to me since I don;t know where to go for these conversations. Have a good day Sir and I appreciate your time. Thank You and God Bless! 'CCradick 19:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)'

Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox window covering articles

You returned attention here would be appreciated. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He's not getting it, and my patience is running thin... --ZimZalaBim talk 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Infobox window covering shouldn’t be deleted because it resembles a window with a shade and curtains. It’s for articles about window coverings. Also, my summary of the New Testament was a good section, my article on housecleaning could have been finished, my subpage for copies on internet sources was a good idea, and square monitors should be considered standard when making portals and other tables. Chuck Marean 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


I made the incorrect reversion. --Jab843 02:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks David Ruben Talk 02:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on RfD page

Your comment on my behaviour on the RfD page for another page is not relevant there in any way. If you want to alert me to actions you see as "belittling" (viz. saying that I was surprised an admin had not seen OR immediately), then surely my user page is the place for that? Currently that comment, where it is, makes your argument there confusing, at least to me.   Skopp   08:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

After deciding the author would never do it radically enough, I went & reworked it; you may wish to comment at the AfD.DGG (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work - I've since had a go at all the (PMID xxxxx) type links, and had a go a layout. Still might be better as a "List of" article, rather than an article which fails to draw together any observations or conclusions about the various disorders mentioned (which would need to be carefully supported by citation). David Ruben Talk 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Health Insurance BC question on Medical Services Plan of British Columbia

Per your question if you go to the HIBC web page you will find that they call themselves the operational arm of MSP of BC. ie: they are contracted to perform the admin and operational process fo MSP of BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:01, 26 November 2007

Ok, then Medical Services Plan of British Columbia probably stay named as it is. David Ruben Talk 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Heart failure

Dr Ruben, Please forgive my being a bull in a china closet. I practice in rural South Carolina. I see mostly older patients and am a daily student of heart disease. Foundations of theory are difficult constructs but many of the pieces to Systole and Diastole are already there in Wikipedia. Understood as determinants of myocardial performance, the bricks start to fall in place. One may next imagine an external, non-blood exposed pacemaker for diastolic heart failure and parasympathetic amputation deployed in the pericardial space as a web of electrodes. This is a pacemaker that depolarizes the myocardium from the "outside in" versus the traditionally understood sinoatrial mechanism of "inside out". Quite a few WIPO and US Patent Applications addressing myocardial autonomic insufficiency are pending at this time. Publications based on large animal testing are politically unpopular but probably necessary. This technology is imminent and should be interesting to watch unfold in the coming year from a Wikipedia perspective. I thank you for your previous edits, I remain greatly interested in mathematical representations of systole and diatole. Best (general) sources are Arthur Guyton, Carlos Chaga, Carolyn Thomas, Charles Peskin/David McQueen, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Francisco Torrent-Guasp, Gerald Buckberg, Randas Batista and Paul Lunkenheimer. Lbeben (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

let me make the changes, your english could use some work

Looks like I have a let me make the changes because I can phrase things better and because I'm better at grammar.

What was your first language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightShade15 (talkcontribs) 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that...I really showed a lack of tact.

I just read over what I sent you and I'm embarrassed that I didn't realize it was blatantly offensive!

Thank you for your welcome. I really enjoy wikipedia.

I have one question though--is there any way to semi-lock the page so that no one can come and delete the hard work we just put in?

thanks for the welcome, and good working with you, NightShade —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightShade15 (talkcontribs) 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Prosper Ménière

Hi David. I got your message about the copyright violation. Yes, I am very sorry about that. I did that back when I was a relatively new wikipedia contributor. Since then, I have become much more familiar with the rules and I can guarantee you that won't happen again. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DM7 (talkcontribs) 14:51, 30 November 2007

Ok, thanks David Ruben Talk 18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir, As a respected editor, where do you stand on inclusion of theory within the framework of Wikipedia?--Lbeben (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As for anything else, it needs be WP:Notable (i.e. of importance to warrent including in a general encyclopaedia), and adherent to WP:NPOV - in particular (if a theory) that held to be true by either the majority, or a significant minority (but trivial minority viewpoints must not be included). Then one must WP:Cite from WP:Reliable sources in order to WP:Verify. So one's own professor's abstract musings as to which way research might go, is unlikely to be useful if not published and then a reliable 3rd party has commented upon it (the inclusion into wikipedia is based more on the 3rd party's stating it is notable, rather than just the professor's own "authority"). David Ruben Talk 02:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Greetings. I was cleaning out some CAT:TEMP pages and came across User talk:, that you'd indefblocked. I've been told that, normally, we don't indefblock IPs as such. The reasoning is that if the user changes ISP and the blocked IP were eventually assigned to a new computer, it would in turn be indefblocked. Would you consider unblocking and reblocking them say, for 6 months or perhaps a year? Thanks for your consideration, --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, upon reviewing policies (having burrowed down rather further this time), I take on board your kind observations and have so changed that IP's block. Thanks David Ruben Talk 03:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Very good. I know about how IPs are treated because I indefblocked a few myself a couple of years ago. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


david, you had started a question of notability to the entry belaray dermatology. this started a discussion thread attached to the article, which you can see on my talk page: the topic has since been deleted, but it is not clear to me that the discussion was considered. i was hoping that you might reconsider this topic. perhaps you had not seen the discussion that followed your original question of notability. happy holidays Spamwatch (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether they have an important novel approach at treatment is, from the point of writing an encyclopaedia, almost irrelevant without sources to support the opinions being given. Hence information must also WP:Cite from WP:Reliable sources in order to WP:Verify, otherwise the opinion is merely ones own, and so excluded by WP:No original research. Responsibility for adequately citing sources is with the editor who adds information, and as previously explained, without sources to both confirm that a clinic is notable to warrant an article and then references to support the information that the article contains, the article is posed for deletion. If you can find some suitable 3rd party reliable sources (medical journal articles or national media), then you are welcome to recreate the article - given recent deletion though, you might consider working up the new version as a subpage of your user page and I would be more than happy to help copyedit or advise prior to trying to "Go live". David Ruben Talk 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you mean... but I would have thought that if there was active discussion on the topic, it would be reasonable to see what other wikipedia members bring to the table. Spamwatch (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello David, In regards to the notability tag added to the article Positive Expectation Policy, I would like to ask for a more detailed explanation. I am relatively new to writing Wikipedia articles and had been under the impression that Wikipedia distinguishes itself from other encyclopedias because of its broad range of covered topics. I have read Wikipedia:Notability and am unsure of a course of action. Your help is much appreciated. Merry Christmas! OneElitePenguin (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've set up discussion thread at Talk:Positive Expectation Policy. David Ruben Talk 02:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oxidative stress -- my mistake

Sorry! I was doing anti-vandalism patrol and apparently reverted the wrong article. Sorry for the trouble! KathrynLybarger (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

Thanks for sorting out the citations and fixing the talk page. The article isn't in great shape and this whole business has encouraged me to be more active in improving it. Colin°Talk 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My edits

Happy New year to you sir and my congrats in linking my patent application to the discussion. Followed in detail you soon see that my application is probably legally dead at the US Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO] but (for reasons unclear to me) remains viewable there as well as other sites (also translated into Kanji). The provisional application (entitled Pericardial Augmentation Device #60/442,480) was first acknowledged by the USPTO on 1/27/03 and claimed a means to augment electrical systole from an external electrical/grid pacemaker deployed in the pericardial space. The contested intellectual property regarding an external pacemaker remains well represented by many other US and [WIPO] published applications. Computational solutions to electrical insufficiency in heart failure remain outside the intellectual property claimed within the grid but integrally tied to performance of same. It is my opinion that one of these applications will be awarded a letter in the next year or two. I further suggest that Wikipedia is uniquely positioned as a public observer of published developing technology and could make this process much more transparent. At this juncture I am only a bystander. I have not intentionally set upon a course to raise your blood pressure by using single instead of double brackets. I am not a corporation or similar entity, I am an independent inventor. This is the source of my curiosity regarding the subject matter. My primary interest in the congestive heart failure article is consensus regarding literal rendering of autonomic influence of the myocardium. Given my acknowledged COI, would it be agreeable for me to refrain from further discussion regarding heart failure and transition to edits upon the artcles regarding the autonomic nervous system? I remain further interested in literal elaboration of [torque] within the [myocardium]. I would appreciate further discussion. --Lbeben (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Fireworks in monterrey.jpg

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs).
Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.

Asthma and Chronic Dehydration

Dear David,

My name is Nicholas Lock and I'm the one who wrote the short piece about asthma being the result of chronic dehydration. I am an asthma sufferer but have been doing remarkably well since I started drinking more water after reading ABC of Asthma Allergies and Lupus. I no longer have any need for medication.

As far as I can tell you are the one who removed my contribution. Can you please provide an explanation? My e-mail address is

Many thanks,

Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by NWMLock (talkcontribs) 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page User talk:NWMLock, lots of interesting papers but, IMHO, no clear consensus for underlying cause of attacks.David Ruben Talk 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)