User talk:Dozenist/archive2

This is an archive of old discussions. You may edit this page to fix malformed signatures or to update links, but please direct new comments to my talk page.

Adrian

I hope you're prepared to stay off appling in a few days, i imagine there will be a big hubub (word?) soon . . . - Jersyko 15:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! hmm, what the heck is up with our signatures?? - Jersyko 17:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, here we go. The signature needs quotation marks; the html needs to look like this, i think, font color="darkgreen" size="1". - Jersyko talk 22:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth development

Your recent editing to this article is over the top. You, sir, are addicted to wikipedia. Take a deep breath, let go of the mouse . . . just back away . . . that's it . . . Seriously, though, good work :) - Jersyko talk 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth picture

You're welcome! I even notice that it's been translated into several different languages, which is quite cool, and shows how quickly wikipedia can spread stuff around. If you have any need for similar tooth cross-sections, feel free to let me know. Keep writing those great articles! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 03:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maxillary ... Mandibular ... articles

Hi.

The articles you've added look pretty good, not that I know anything about teeth myself :).

I've spent the afternoon editing articles that link to the Function disambiguation page and point them to the subpages, like social function and function (mathematics) or subroutine. I was thinking that for your dozen or so articles, the word "function" doesn't really need to be a link, since none of the function articles is relevent to teeth.

Let me know what you think. Thanks, Volfy 03:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth development

You want to get this peer reviewed, or are you still working on it? Do you want Zan to take a look first? Let me know. - Jersyko talk 16:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article dispute

Dozenist, I invite you to comment on the dispute mentioned here: Talk:Roy Buchanan. I would like to hear your feedback on this issue if you are willing to give it. - Jersyko talk 02:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to comment. This is really getting ridiculous. I hope you can see from the first couple comments on my talk page that I was trying to be as civil as possible with this guy, while even his FIRST comment on my talk page employs a condescending, dismissive tone, which only grows as he makes more comments. Thanks for stepping in, I think some good will come of it and I can move on from this silliness to more constructive tasks. - Jersyko talk 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth articles

Hello Dozenist,

Thank you for your message on my Dutch talk page about the teeth articles! Your assumption is right, the articles on the NL-Wikipedia are about all the teeth, both in the upper and lower jaw. There are no separate articles about the teeth in the upper or lower jaw on the NL-Wikipedia. Anyway, adding intetwiki-links is the only addition I can make to the articles in this case, since I have no further knowledge about the subject. I will relay your message about the images to the Dutch user! Regards, Tdevries 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dozenist, Tdevries told me about your conversation about the "teeth pages". I made the box, the images and most of the actual pages in the previous weeks. Thank you for your compliments, the images took a lot of my time, but I think that they are quite necessary when reading articles about teeth most people wouldn't recognize :D I didn't make special pages for upper and lower teeth, because I did not have alot to tell about them. But I see your a dental student, so you probably know much more about it! It must be nice to be able to write about something you study or about your work, expert information is a great addition to wikipedia. I'm sure I'll write all about earth science when I study that, next year. - Renee1137

- Hi, I really like the boxes you made. It makes things very clear, because I was still confused about the whole maxillary, mandibular thing :D But it makes sense now. Good luck with all your further (dental) work on wikipedia. - Renee1137

Fantastic work!

Dozenist, I must congratulate you on the amazing work you put into Tooth development! Fantastic! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which . . . - Jersyko talk 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, tooth development is now a featured article :). - Jersyko talk 20:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Branchial arches

I've noticed you've done a heap with these pages. I just finished a big edit to add anatomy info and feel the first branchial arch page should be merged into branchial arch. Just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't watching. I'd appreciate your opinion. --Mattopaedia 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for the heads up. I see the Branchial arch article as a general article, and I could see why you would nominate to merge the subcategories, such as the First branchial arch, into it. They were previously stubs for the most part. But I initially, and continue to see, that in the future all that information placed into the branchial arch article would make for a sprawling article, and it would be better to have the information broken up. As it stands now, the first branchial arch article is really very small considering the amount of information that could and probably should be in there. But my focus is not in that field--- it only touches upon it. This is why I made the stub in the first place. If the articles are merged together, no harm will be done in the short term, but I think it will save time and effort in the long term because the information is going to need to be split up eventually anyways. Other articles may want to link to an article solely on the second branchial arch or on the sixth branchial arch, and it would be better to have readers see the specific information in that article. Also, concerning the branchial pouches and branchial grooves, I think they DEFINITELY belong on a different article. Though associated, they are entirely unique and separate topics from that of the branchial arch--- enough so that they warrant their own article. I never created separate articles for the pouches and grooves, but I figured someone would come along and create them. - Dozenist talk 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see my reply here --Mattopaedia 08:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob McEwen

Thanks for tagging this article "good" per my nomination. I would note, once again, that inline cites are not necessary and I've had several articles become featured articles without them. And I challenge anyone to find photos for McEwen that won't be objected to at FAC. PedanticallySpeaking 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disease of the teeth

Hi, I can't seem to find a category for dental diseases and disorders. I know of two dental genetic disorders with articles, making a category just for them doesn't seem worth it, but if there are others that you know of then if might be a good idea to mkae one. let me know what you think.--nixie 01:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll lave the detail up to you. For your records, the articles I know of Osteogenesis imperfecta (teeth and bones) and Dentinogenesis imperfecta.--nixie 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranula

Thanks for the compliment. I was fortunate to have your strong foundation to build on. --Arcadian 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canine

Thanks for working on disambiguating. The tricky bit, though, is that "canine" is used often in comman parlance to mean just "dog" as a synonym (I've now added that meaning to the canine page). Therefore, a lot of changes to canidae actually don't make sense. If you want to give me a little time to find those and fix them with appropriate wording, I'd be glad to do it; otherwise I'll have to be changing what you've already changed. :-) Elf | Talk 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that with my usual excellent timing, I managed to leave you a message after you had already completed the entire list. Well--sigh--that wasn't what I had *intended* to do with my saturday morning, but now it's done and I think probably OK for now. BTW, I added a nice photo to canine tooth while I as at it. :-) Elf | Talk 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not my photo, but I happened to know that it existed. :-) Elf | Talk 18:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water fluoridation/water fluoridation controversy . . . controversy

user:24.191.107.193, i'm sure you've noticed, has been making edits to these articles and also making conspirationally-inclined comments on their talk pages. This edit, done today, is a good example of the amount of work the editor has put into trying to slant the articles to his/her perspective. Just wanted to let you know. - Jersyko talk 17:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese teeth

I think you're right. I imagine that it will become featured in Japanese as well . . . - Jersyko talk 15:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A useful little script

Dozenist,

I recently ran across a useful little [[user created script that produces little previews of articles when you hover over a link. It's called Navigation Popups. You might want to give it a look. --Zantastik 22:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you erase what I put on the dental fillings page?

Mr. Dozenist,

I am trying to clean up the dental amalgam controversy article. I am trying to remove the historical and biographical information from the controversy page and move it onto the amalgam part of the Dental fillings page. I removed the bit about the controversy that was on the fillings page over to the controversy page (the part about the ADA and FDA's stance on such matters). I have researched the information I put onto the fillings page (which I am assuming is your page considering you deleted it while I was still editing it). Why did you delete it? This is an instrumental part of fixing the badly organized dental amalgam controversy page. Please explain.

Thanks - email me at [1] Staypuftman 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are about to have a real problem with each other...

Did you erase the source material I put on the amalgam talk page before anyone could look at it??? I am starting to think you have an agenda here...please reassure me that I am not seeing what I think Im seeing. I will repost what I put on the amalgam talk page again so people can see it - those are all peer reviewed journals. There are a lot of well respected scientific articles that point to mercury poisoning from amalgams - those need to be included in this discussion. Are you trying to keep this information from the public?

You have a lot of answering to do... Staypuftman 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research Re-posted

Dozenist -

I have reposted my research on the amalgam talk page. This research is simply the science I have found. I would greatly appreciate your scientific additions because this is a big project. I do not appreciate you erasing everything I write. I even checked and you went back into the history of the talk page and erased what I had written to make it look like it never existed. This is very strange behavior. I will look past this transgression in the hopes that we let the research do the talking and work collaboratively on this project.

Take Care John Staypuftman 21:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things still dont quite add up, but...

I accept your apology for potentially delteing my post without prior knowledge, although I remain puzzled as to why only one after I made that post it suddenly disappeared and your name was attached to the most recent post with the tag research from all fields support the safe use of amalgam. I emailed another independent person who viewed my research post before it was accidentally removed - so I am sure that it did exist for a while at least. I would welcome your additions to the post that show scientific proof that disassociates mercurial body load and amalgams. As I have said, I have had a hell of a time finding anything not directly sponsored by the ADA that supports such an argument.

I also understand most of the dental community thinks amalgams are OK - but that still does not absolve us from investigating the matter. There is a substantial body of research on both sides of the issue that make this the controversy that it is. I am not completely convinced that mercury solely comes from amalgams - especially reading about the environmental mercury that is pouring out of coal power plants and working its way up the food chain to us. It is just, at this point, the research I have seen has shown me a lot of mercury comes from these fillings. Please, if I am so wrong with this idea that I have derived from the research I have done, post the journals I should read to correct this. Change my mind as a good researcher would.

Staypuftman 01:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]