User talk:Arcadian/Archive 4

If you are contacting me because I am an admin near the beginning of the alphabetical list, please first read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Arcadian (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Archives

1 • 2 • 3

Paresthesia

I saw your edits at Paresthesia. Care to throw your two cents in here?[1] Thanks. Suntag (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can help you there. --Arcadian (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Hepatitis, viral, human"

A page you created, Hepatitis, viral, human, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Oliver202 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Navbox request

As a template wizard, do you think it would be a good idea to split off a seperate epilepsy navigation box from {{Diseases of the nervous system}} ? If yes, could you create one? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure -- what do you think it should be called? "Epilepsy"? "Seizures and epilepsy?" I know there was a lot of controversy on wiki recently over how we were defining "seizure", so I'd want to tread lightly here. --Arcadian (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seizures and epilepsy sounds fine. By the way, did I already ask you if you had the assessment gadget turned on in your preferences, or was that JFW? Anyway, it's useful to remind a stub creator like yourself to assess articles (thus categorising them under WP:MED). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Done - Template:Seizures and epilepsy. --Arcadian (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! However, do we need both a general CNS and an epilepsy navbox on epilepsy articles? Can we use a toggle show-hide button? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I set it up so that the 6 high-level epilepsy topics (like Focal seizures) showed up on both Template:CNS diseases of the nervous system and Template:Seizures and epilepsy, but the 17 more detailed topics (like Frontal lobe epilepsy) only showed up on the dedicated epilepsy template. In my opinion, that breadcrumb arrangement maximizes the ease in which users can narrow or broaden their focus, but feel free to rearrange as needed. Per your second question -- the default behavior for Template:Navbox is to automatically hide the details when more than one nav is on the page (see Template:Navbox#Setup_parameters for details.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

ICD10 code

Can you fix the ICD10 code at Acute alcohol intoxication? It's Y91.x, but I couldn't figure out how to make the link work. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For knowing how to fix the ICD-10 links in the infoboxes, and for using that knowledge to help me! WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Featured Topic Task Force proposal

Hey Arcadian, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't make specific commitments, but I will keep an eye on it, and help nudge things forward where I can. --Arcadian (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Help needed

Hello. Could you please edit the template Template:Antithrombotics, because I need to know which drugs from this class are discontinued. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the general answer to your question, but if you have a question about a specific agent, I may be able to help. You may also want to offer your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Drug_navboxes -- there's a discussion there about defining standards for notating experimental and discontinued drugs in the infoboxes. --Arcadian (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Titin

Thanks for this. :-) --David Iberri (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. I admire your patience. --Arcadian (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

howardbloom.net

Hi, I found howardbloom.net is used as reference in the article War against Islam. Is this RS? I found no editorial board in this site. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm familiar enough with the subject to be of service here. --Arcadian (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for dropping by - its good to know there are wikipedians out there willing to help out those just beginning. Any who, I just wanted to let you know that I copied the article to my personal Sandbox for editing (prior to public release) - User:FoodPuma/Infoboxes. Feel free to make edits there if you wish, I just wanted a place to try changing things without messing up the entire article! Cheers!--FoodPuma (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I split Osteochondritis and Osteochondritis dissecans -- since you're being graded on your contributions, splitting now would probably be less disruptive than splitting later. Good luck. --Arcadian (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey! So I have been editing [Osteochondritis dissecans]] for a little while now and was wondering if you could stop by and take a look. I just wanted to make sure that my edits have put the references and information I've included in the right place (EG: I wasn't completely sure if I should "Functional Anatomy" should be under 'Cause' or 'Pathophysiology.' Thanks again! FoodPuma (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it works under Pathophysiology, but there is some flexibility in how the rules are applied. I'd recommend that you read not only Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), but also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), so you can get a sense of how the community interprets the manual of style. --Arcadian (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I was actually doing some research at school and posted that info under surgery in the article because I was leaving and needed to save it! I was really hoping no one would see it until I got home to put the citations in... what timing eh? I had actually seen the <refname=/> just a couple of days ago but haven't had a chance to go back and clean it up yet. Again, thanks for helping me out! FoodPuma (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just checked out that citation device and it works great! Thanks for sharing the wealth! FoodPuma (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! Perhaps you remember helping me out just a couple of days ago. Well, I've improved some on my article and have now listed it for Peer Review as I prepare to nominate it for GA status. If you wouldn't mind dropping by it's peer review page, you're input would be much appreciated! Thanks! FoodPuma (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: New articles needed

Hello. Could you please create an article about the drugs gefarnate and teprenone? These are drugs used for the treatment of gastric ulcers. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ileostomy

I see that you added a "surgical intervention" template to the above article some time ago however quite a number of the links don't work. Could you have a look at it? Thanks Richerman (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the broken links. --Arcadian (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD for C9orf3

I thought you might be interested to know that I have posted a longer reason as to why I think this gene should be deleted which I did not, through niavity, include in my original arguement. Dpmuk (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. --Arcadian (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Intensive care navbox

As a specialist navboxer, I'd like your opinion and maybe copy-editing of {{Intensive care medicine}}. cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Three thoughts: First, I've updated the separators, per the new standard defined at per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Navigation_boxes. (I'm not in a hurry to convert the old ones, but for new one I try to comply.) Second, I try to minimize the use of "General terms" as much as possible, because it makes it hard for subsequent editors to know where to place content. Finally, the "Conditions" box is rather long, so you might want to divide those by system (I usually try to follow ICD-10 ordering as much as I can.) But these are just quibbles -- I think you did a good job. --Arcadian (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remember to not add a space before {{·}} ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at this?

Hi Arcadian. I have a trouble because of this ban request at the ANI. Things are getting from bad to worse, with people coming to my talk page to accuse me of WP:COI violations in Biology articles. Could you please look at the article in question and check if it complies with WP:NPOV. WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability? And of course, you are very welcome to fix any problems if necessary. Perhaps I should stop editing political subjects... Thanks a lot. I also asked Tim about this.Biophys (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have responded here. --Arcadian (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

BBS7

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BBS7, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=BBS7. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed. --Arcadian (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

BBS9

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BBS9, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=BBS9. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, rats!

I was going to suggest that you should become an administrator, only to find you already are! Also, I notice you're a medical student. Are you in the UK? I ask only because I want to follow the same route, interested in your opinions etc. :) Hope everything's okay.

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to make your acquaintance more formally, seeing how our paths cross all the time. I'm in the US, where the process is a little different. But if I had to give one piece of advice, apart from the cliches: volunteer in hospitals as often as you can. Good luck! --Arcadian (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I see you all over the place (especially with template work) so it's good to finally say "Hi!" properly. IMHO, the U.S. system sounds better in terms of becoming a doctor, I like how you have to do a degree first (I'm probably going to do that here anyway). You got any ideas of which area of medicine you'd like to do into? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I'm really interested in tumor markers, and I'd love to get involved in early screening of pancreatic cancer. But it's too early to say for sure. --Arcadian (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So something oncology related? Sounds good, the area needs some new, thorough research, given it's absolutely dismal prognosis. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Coccidioidomycosis

I had updated the coccidioidomycosis page with a paragraph on biological warfare information and you reverted the page to eliminate my updates. The paragraph was purely informative and accurate. My post also had a link to information about one of the new books and if that is not allowed, I apologize, but I still feel the biological warfare information (with the CDC Select Agent home page citation) should stay.

I had planned to update the coccidioidomycosis PRESENTATION section as well to reflect the newer information that emphasizes the severity of the disease. The newer, more severe, information appears in recent works like 2007's "Coccidioidomycosis: The Sixth International Symposium" or 2008's "Valley Fever Epidemic" but I would rather wait to update until after you tell me these updates will not be erased.

Thanks!

Micro2007 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the book link added at coccidioidomycosis would be allowable, but the symposium you mentioned looks interesting. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) may help provide guidance. Peer-reviewed articles (with a PMID) are usually much more appropriate than books or websites, but there are exceptions. Did you have a specific paper in mind? --Arcadian (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye

I am actually in school right now and I am doing limited editing as I am short on time. I planned on rewording when I got home, but your keen eye embarassed me! Heh! Sorry for any misunderstanding =) Food_Puma 17:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thank you for fixing it. --Arcadian (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

100,000

Wow, I just saw you now have over 100,000 edits on your name! That is quite an achievement. Keep going! ;-) --WS (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that this achievement is far more impressive. Congratulations! --Arcadian (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to you both ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! How many more years do you still have to go? --WS (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere between 2 1/2 and 6, depending upon how one defines "done". That said, if anyone watching this talk page is (or knows) a residency director ... my email is enabled, and I'd love to become better acquainted. :) And as long as I'm willing things into existence: if anybody needs a medical student to do scut for cancer research, drop me a line. I live in Illinois, but I have a strong background in software and stats, so if you've got access to data, we could collaborate at a distance. --Arcadian (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends if you are planning to do medical oncology (via internal medicine), radiation oncology, or one of the surgical oncology specialties. If you are interested in radiation oncology, happy to chat.Tdvorak (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear from you. You don't appear to have email enabled on your account (here or on wikibooks) so I can't email you. But I have email enabled, so if you click here and send me a message, we could then exchange contact information. --Arcadian (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal Iliopectineal fascia/arch

I just discovered Iliopectineal fascia and Iliopectineal arch and made a merge proposal. As far as I can tell they are about the same structure, but I don't know enough to simply merge them. Is "arch" more common? Hoping you know more, I invite you to do the merge or discuss it on the talk page.
Congrats to the 100.000 edit BTW, when it comes to human anatomy you are everywhere!
Thanks / Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and I commend you on your excellent anatomy contributions. (There aren't many people working on anatomy, so I'm always happy when I see your contributions pop up on my watchlist.) The two structures you mentioned are closely related but distinct, and I've added refs to make the distinction clearer. Normally, I'd recommend that they should have separate articles. However, I noticed that the IA article was a copyvio of this (one of the refs I added.) Depending on your level of interest, I'd recommend either rewriting the IA article to resolve the copyvio, or redirecting IA to IF. --Arcadian (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for both the edits and those words (when I look at my own contributions I seem to be the only editor around!)

I've removed the merge proposal and I'll try to fix the articles in question. I need to read a lot more about that region first, however.

/ Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WT:MED#Template:GPnotebook

I'd value your opinion here. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

New templates

I created a new template {{Diseases of the skin and appendages by morphology}} and put some comments on the discussion page. I plan on using this template as a guide to pages I create/work on. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated (I saw you did some work on the {{Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue}} template). Kilbad (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I created another new template {{Clinical and histological nomenclature for skin lesions}} and wanted to get some feedback about it. How do you feel about the overall content and organization? Please see the discussion page for my desired scope and rational. Kilbad (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts: use " · " as the separator, per the new standard at MEDMOS. And most navs use center alignment for the line headers, rather than text-align:left. But don't let formatting details slow you down -- I'm very happy that we have someone with your level of knowledge contributing to the dermatology articles, and the content is far more important than the formatting. In particular, I want to thank you for contributing your histology images. There really is no substitute for clear pictures, and it can be very hard to obtain appropriate images for use on Wikipedia. --Arcadian (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Location of pubic body

Hello, it's just me again.
I've been reading a lot on the pelvis lately and I'm increasingly confused. I was hoping maybe you had encountered this problem already.
In some contexts, the body of the pubic bone is defined as located next to the pubic symphysis between the two rami, and in other contexts as located next to the acetabulum laterally to the superior ramus. Here are two examples:

Anatomy and Human Movement, p 246: The pubis is an angulated bone. The body of the pubis projects laterally and superiorly as the superior ramus to join the ilium and ischium at the acetabulum, forming one-fifth of the acetabulum. A thin and flattened inferior ramus extends inferiorly and posterolaterally from the body to fuse with the ischium below the obturator foramen.

Structure and function of the musculoskeletal system, p 78: The pubis forms the anterior inferior portion of the innominate bone. It consists of the body, superior ramus, and inferior ramus. The body forms the anterior inferior one-fifth of the acetabulum. The superior ramus extends medially and also slightly forward and downward from the body to join the medial end of the inferior ramus. The junction between the two rami forms a fairly broad, flat region.

There are many more similar contradictions available. I've been googling a lot to find an explanation somewhere with no success.
I reworked the article on the body according to the information in my Swedish reference (see this diff), but I then discovered there seem to be different definitions around. Maybe I should revert myself? Is this a US vs. Europe issue? Or older literature vs. newer? The only hint I've been able to find is this brief sentence in Gray's here, section 16:

The Medial Portion of the superior ramus, formerly described as the body of the pubis, is somewhat quadrilateral in shape, and presents for examination two surfaces and three borders.

Any hint is welcome.
/ Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the "b" at the center right.

You'll have to click to enlarge. Then look at the acetabulum, on the right. On the inner lip, you'll see a label for "body of pubis", and on the outer lip, you'll see a label for "superior ramus of pubis")

A review of Netter didn't help me, and I don't have a skeleton here, so I'm limited to rotating images in my head, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I think that the inner lip of the acetabulum is the body of the pubis, and the outer lip is the superior ramus. Look at the first diagram to the right. "5" is the symphysis, "4" is the pubis, "4a" is part of the "body" of the pubis, the superior pubic ramus is where "4" meets "2", and the acetabulum is the cup where "2", "3", and "4" all converge. The question is: where in "4" is the border between the body and the superior ramus? The intuitive answer would be that it is slightly to the left (medial) of the label "b", but looking at Gray235.png, I think it has to be slightly to the right, on the lip. But I don't think you need to revert your changes. Just document what you find, provide references to support your additions, and leave it to those who come after us to resolve apparent paradoxes. This could easily be a US vs. Europe issue, but it could also be that we're approaching the end of the written record, and the remaining distinctions exist only as oral traditions. --Arcadian (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Oral traditions", sigh! Anyway, thanks for the reply, I guess no one knows why the various parts of that bone is defined in different ways. For simplicity I'll assume Gray's definition is the default.

/ Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-small cell lung carcinoma

Hi. I see that you moved "Non-small cell lung carcinoma staging" to "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". Have you seen "Lung cancer"? "Lung cancer" comprehensively describes non-small cell lung carcinoma, except for staging, which would unnecessarily bloat the "Lung cancer" article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is your objection to the presence of "Non-small cell lung carcinoma", or to the absence of "Non-small cell lung carcinoma staging" as a stand-alone article? --Arcadian (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My objection is to "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". It's not helpful to separate this from "Lung cancer". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, but it would be more productive to discuss this in front of a larger audience. Nominate it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and I will respond there. --Arcadian (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll invite WikiProject Medicine editors to comment as well. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to delete the page. I added most of the content under its initial title. I want to change the article's title. Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Way to alphabetize large list of links

I want to make this list more complete, and would prefer to just add diseases to the end of the list instead of looking where to add them within the alphabetized list; therefore, I wanted to know if there was some tag or "something" that will automatically output a list in alphabetical order? Kilbad (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my poking my head in here... Help:Sorting has some details on making sortable tables with class="wikitable sortable". --David Iberri (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

D's idea is a good one. I have converted the list into a sortable table. Also, by adding new columns, you might reduce the need for some of the detailed categorization you are working on. --Arcadian (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of dermatology articles

Do you think you could get a few more people to review our discussion on the categorization of dermatology articles? I realize the categorization scheme can be changed in the future, but I would like to get some more feedback before I start categorizing articles based on the current proposed tree. Also, I am almost ready to update the skin disease article with a complete list of all dermatologic diseases, and would like to have category headings on that page that closely mirror the categorization scheme we all finally decide on through our discussion on the medicine talk page. What do you think? Thanks. Kilbad (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage you because your dermatology contributions are very valuable, but in general, this is the sort of project that is usually better addressed incrementally. But, if you want a few suggestions: (1) Group "nails" and "hair" together under "adnexa" or "appendages". (2) Change "Cutaneous diseases" to "Cutaneous conditions" (this will help address mongolian spot and the like). (3) Don't divide "Infectious skin diseases" into "bacterial", "viral", etc. We have distinct classification systems to address those distinctions. (4) "Genetic skin diseases" will be problematic, because so many conditions have at least a genetic susceptibility. It would be better to just say "genetic diseases", and allow people to logically union. (4) In my opinion, the most important distinction in any disease (after segregating neoplasia) is inflammatory vs. non-inflammatory. I think that would make a useful high-level classification. (5) If you end up with a category that has only a couple items in it, consider deferring the decision to create a category for now. (6) Consider capturing some of this information in tables instead of categories, as described above. --Arcadian (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to your advice, I have made changes based on your first and second suggestions. However, just around the time I read your response here, I had nearly completed my update of the skin diseases article, which still divides the infectious causes of skin disease, and does not use a table. Therefore, feel free to remove the infectious subdivisions and make the list a table if you desire, or I will try to get around to it eventually. I really appreciate all your feedback. categorization scheme outlined here. kilbad (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation of dermatology articles on Wikipedia, input wanted

Hey Arcadian. Kilbad (talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look, and posted my thoughts in a response to the post above. --Arcadian (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Sex hormones}}

Hey Arcadian—I see you just removed "zerenol" from the template. That was probably a typo, it's supposed to be zeranol. I'm not sure it warrants an article, but I thought I'd leave a note just in case you stumble across it again. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've created a stub for zeranol. --Arcadian (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of a template redirect

I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to the deletion -- it was part of an typo I made in creating a navigation template (see the history.) --Arcadian (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Niemann Pick Type C Page

Hi Arcadian -- it looks like you did a number of citations for me on the Niemann Pick page -- thank you !!!!!!! -- I am new to Wikipedia as a contributor. Some new research has come out on NPC -- I have posted it on my blog Addi and Cassi Blog and Nature article is here Nature Medicine. Basically, it says that Niemann-Pick disease type C1 is a sphingosine storage disease that causes deregulation of lysosomal calcium that results in cholesterol accumulation. This is new news because the mechanism has not been known -- they talk about myriocin correcting the phenotype. The question I have for you is I am not sure how to best incorporate something like this Nature paper into the Niemann Pick page -- where do you put it? Also, it should go on sphingosine and also myriocin pages and possibly calcium. What do you suggest??

Also, Brown and Goldstein, awarded the famous Nobel Prize in 1985 for their discovery of the LDL-cholesterol receptor and its role in the control of cholesterol metabolism. Much of our current understanding of the impact of cholesterol on cardiovascular disease follows from their work and the multi billion dollar statin industry has been developed as a result of their work. They have released on PNAS very important papers on the regulation of cellular cholesterol metabolism and what they are discovering with NPC1 and NPC2. Brown and Goldstein Paper and Bill Balch Commentary on NPC1 and NPC2.

These papers need to not only be referenced on the Niemann Pick page but also on the cholesterol pages as again this very big news coming out about cholesterol I don't know how to best do this and I need some help by watching someone like you add this in -- then I can learn so when future papers come out how to do it. Would you help me with this project Arcadian? Chris | T@lk 03 November 2008

I would be glad to help. I have split Niemann-Pick disease, type C into its own article and added references to the three papers you mentioned above. You may want to rearrange them, or add more supporting text. Since you have many questions, I can only offer broad advice at this time: first read Wikipedia:Five pillars, then read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) (especially the section "Citing medical sources"). Citing medical journals can be challenging at first, but once you know how to get a PMID and feed it into this tool, it gets much easier. I recommend that you work on Niemann-Pick disease, type C for now, rather than adding information to cholesterol. The papers you describe are very important in the context of NP, but it may take some time and perspective to figure out the broader significance of these discoveries. Finally, make sure you read Wikipedia:Be bold, and if you have further questions, I would be happy to try to answer them. --Arcadian (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arcadian - Thanks for all your updates on the NPC pages, and for splitting out NPC into it's own page/ategory. I had Marc Patterson of the Mayo edit the main Niemann Pick Overview page -- he has been working on this for over 20 years. Also, he is going to review the NPC page to provide input. I am also have other experts look at the pages so they are completley accurate. How can we fix the Wikipedia search -- if you search on Niemann Pick Type C, it does not come up to the new page you created. Is there a way to fix wiki search. I am waiting for some pictures which hopefully you can help me get added in properly. Thanks against for everything! It's such a big relief to actually have accurate information up! Chris | T@lk 05 November 2008

It was probably just a caching issue -- I see it here. It is also visible to Google. When you're ready to upload pictures, I would be happy to help. The most important issue is to make sure that the owner of the copyright consents to Wikipedia's licensing. A good overview is available at Wikipedia:Uploading images, but if you have more specific questions, just ask. And thanks for your improvements to the main article. --Arcadian (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcadian: I have made lots of updates to the NPC pages tonight - Marc Patterson from Mayo Clinic sent me all the updates and edited both my page and what you did. These pages are veyr accurate -- some of the medical terms are not even on WikiPedia!! I am still having trouble with referencing papers -- I need more time to learn. Patterson wanted me to change on of our references to make it completely accurate. It's under Genetics on the main NP page

"Mutations in the SMPD1 gene cause Niemann-Pick disease types A and B, and mutations in NPC1 and NPC2 cause type C (NPC). Type D was originally separated from type C to delineate a group of otherwise identical patients who shared a common Nova Scotian ancestry. Patients in this group are now known to share a specific mutation in the NPC 1 gene, and NPC is now used to embrace both groups. The terms "Niemann-Pick type I" and "Niemann-Pick type II" were proposed to separate the high and low sphingomyelin forms of the disease in the early 1980s, before the molecular defects were described

The reference is: (Elleder M, Jirásek A. Niemann-Pick Disease. Report on a symposium held in Hlava's Institute of Pathology, Charles University, Prague 2nd-3rd September, 1982. Acta Univ Carol [Med] (Praha). 1983;29(3-4):259-67.)”

I can't make it work tonight, I am too tired. I hope you can help review both the NP and NPC pages and fix this reference. I am working to gather all sorts of images for the pages to make them complete and current. It would be helpful if you read this and determine other pages that could be linked -- there is a lot of good information here. We need some links into the cholesterol areas.

Thanks - Chris | T@lk 11 November 2008

I'm sorry, but I'm having some trouble figuring out exactly what you're looking for. I'd be happy to add or format references, but I'd need a little more guidance about what you want to add and where you want it added. It it helps, here is a formatted version of the reference you've mentioned. --Arcadian (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Elleder M, Jirásek A (1983). "Niemann-Pick Disease. Report on a symposium held in Hlava's Institute of Pathology, Charles University, Prague 2nd-3rd September, 1982". Acta Univ Carol [Med] (Praha). 29 (3–4): 259–67. PMID 6637710.

I need your help.

This user User:Cannibaloki has been reverting all of my edits in the pages related to Iron Maiden, with the excuse that "my opinion doesn't interest him!". There was this version on the lead of Iron Maiden discography here, that needed to be re-written to meet Wikipedia's quality standars. Then after several weeks he re-wrote this lead. That lead he re-wrote had many issues, grammar errors and was longer than it was really needed, because it said some information about every album that was better placed in the album's pages. I re-wrote the lead. Now it contained the most important sentences he had written, some I wrote myself taking other Featured lists as references, and then was copy edited by User:Gary King. He just reverted the edit saying " His opinion does not interest me!" here. I told him to take Nine Inch Nails discography, Metallica discography, and many others as a reference. I can see how mad he is, it was like if he was using blinders, because he doesn't listen to any opinion and every edit I make to that page he reverts it saying it doesn't interest him. I hope you can find the solution to this problem. Thank you.

PD: If you don't have time to take care of this, please recommend me and admin that could help me. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is far outside my area of expertise, and in any case, I think that administrative action would be premature. I'd recommend that you go through the options described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If it does turn out that those efforts are unsuccessful, you will at least have built the paper trail that would be needed before administrative action to be invoked. --Arcadian (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tried helping this guy. I pointed him to WP:DAB to aid some of his edits but he removed my talk post; I'm assuming he's not interested. Because of the amount of edit warring occuring, I would be inclined to block soon as a preventative measure. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Scarian, I didn't delete your comment on purpose, my idea was to remove an automated message. Your comment was added back, of course I'm interested, I know you were trying to help me. Arcadian, thanks for your quick response. The past few days I had some personal problems, I;m really sorry I brought them over to Wikipedia. You guys can be absolutely sure this won't happen again. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 05:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [2], please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

From your edit history, you have left the same message on the talk pages of over 20 users, and apparently chose me because I am an admin with a username starting with an "A". This is not the most productive approach to resolving a dispute. As described in the above post, your best approach would be to follow the protocol described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and the linked pages. --Arcadian (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(Z)-4-Amino-2-butenoic acid

...is not the same as N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside, indeed they are entirely different compounds. I'll clear it up shortly. Meodipt (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm this is quite a puzzle - it seems that both these compounds have been given the abbreviation CACA at some point, and its now hard to work out what N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside actually does, as when you search for that name in PubMed it comes up with a whole load of research which actually uses (Z)-4-Amino-2-butenoic acid! The only paper I can find that definitely uses N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside is (PMID 3440022) mentioning it as a prodrug for cytosine. Another paper (PMID 18685793) says explicitly that N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside is a GABA_C agonist but I wonder whether the authors have themselves got the two CACA's mixed up... Meodipt (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Per this link at PubChem, they are synonyms, but it is possible that PubChem is wrong. In any case, I apologize for any confusion, and appreciate your efforts to clean things up. --Arcadian (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

EBV infectious mononucleosis

Hey. Can I ask why you've moved infectious mononucleosis to it's current title? I wasn't aware we were placing virus names in disease article names. I strictly believe infectious mononucleosis is more appropriate, it's aetiology is inferred from the article itself. Although, there are no other causes but EBV. Remember that page moves probably should be discussed first. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the references I added? MEDMOS defers to ICD-10. Observe this. The article as written assumed EBV, but if the article has the title "infectious mononucleosis", then we can't assume Epstein-Barr virus. At that name, cytomegalovirus (among other agents) would be one of the causes, not one of the differentials. (And it's not that ICD-10 is out of date or doesn't reflect current usage: see PMID 18371522, PMID 15168781, PMID 15113329, etc. According to this, "Primary CMV infection will cause up to 7 percent of cases of mononucleosis syndrome and will manifest symptoms almost indistinguishable from those of Epstein-Barr virus-induced mononucleosis.") In my opinion, the rename was the smallest change possible to make the article accurate. If you want to move it back, feel free, but make sure you rewrite it as needed to remove the errors that such a move would introduce. --Arcadian (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, i'm just not entirely certain it was necessary. If we mention the causes in the article (i.e. EBV and CMV) then we could just leave the title as infectious mononucleosis and allow the reader to distinguish between the two pathologies. If we leave it as EBV infectious mononucleosis, then we should remove information regarding CMV and place it in its own article. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(Pardon me for butting in.) I see Arcadian's point about the rename being the smallest change necessary for accuracy. I much prefer "infectious mononucleosis", however: 1) it's icd-10 compliant, 2) it's the generally used term, 3) for the casual reader, the difference between EBV infectious mononucleosis and CMV infectious mononucleosis (especially in terms of clinical presentation, management, etc.) are academic, and 4) we have plenty of articles on diseases with multiple etiologies (cf. pneumonia, gastroenteritis, aseptic meningitis), giving us precedence for using the general term and simply discussing the various causative organisms. Shall we rename to Infectious mononucleosis and generalize the article? --David Iberri (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (PS: This discussion is probably better suited for Talk:EBV infectious mononucleosis.)

If that means you're volunteering, go for it. (You may want to take a look at PMID 17904463 while you're in there.) --Arcadian (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have copied this thread to Talk:EBV_infectious_mononucleosis#Causes, and agree with Diberri's comment that further comment should be directed there. --Arcadian (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pharmcology stubs

Hi. Thanks for your work on these articles. However I just noticed the pharmocology stub category is jammed full with 2600 +!! Could you please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/November and suggest ways in which we can conceivably split this category into more manageable stub categories by specific sub order. Thanks Count Blofeld 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Glycopyrrolate

Hello arcadian, I just edited the article you contributed to about glycopyrrolate to include its other name of glycopyyronium bromide. I was wondering if you could make it so that a search for glycopyrronium bromide would redirect to the glycopyrrolate page. Im a newbie to editing here and dont know how. Hopefully you can help me out. Regards, Shaun3001 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We already had a redirect from glycopyrronium, but not from glycopyrronium bromide, so I've added it. It now shows up on the internal Wiki search, but it will probably take a few days for it to show up on a Google search for "glycopyrronium bromide". I've also added several references to the glycopyrrolate article. --Arcadian (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again Arcadian, thats great! Im trying to get into editing and contributing to medicine related articles. You have been a great help. Regards Shaun3001 (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename list of skin diseases

Thank you again for all your help with the dermatology content on wikipedia. With regard to the list of skin diseases, would you support a renaming of that article to something like "Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system"? I would like to rename it to something broader so that conditions of the adnexa may remain in the list. kilbad (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Have you read Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Renaming_.2F_Moving? If you're looking for technical help, or if you need a statement of support somewhere, just let me know. --Arcadian (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Myocytes

Would you be able to motivate why you reversed the template about cell types? What do you think myocytes are and why do you think they are part of circulatory system? Why then there is such a thing as skeletal myocytes [3]? (unsigned comment, from User talk:96.237.4.57

Thank you for your feedback. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Wikipedia:Five pillars. Usually, when brand new, anonymous editors start editing templates without leaving edit summaries, those edits usually get reverted. You don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, but you may find that having account helps you achieve your goals. --Arcadian (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I too recommend you understand what you are doing. I don't understand how will an account make up for the loss of time incurred by your arrogant incompetence. When you mindlessly reverted my edits, it did not matter that I did not have an account, it was more important that you are still unable to understand the difference between muscle cells (aka myocytes) and myocardocytes. News for you: myocytes are not in any way specific to heart muscle. Your edits on myocyte show you still haven't grasp it, and you continue to waste everybody else's time. (unsigned, from 71.174.180.186)

Vuerqex

Evil tendencies are early shown. Vuerqex (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A hypocrite deceives no one but himself. Vuerqex (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. --Arcadian (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Vaptans

Thank you :-) It never ceases to amaze me how many new drugs keep on being invented the whole time, but I think we are finally starting to get most of them covered! Good job on arranging them all into categories. Meodipt (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Foreign body

In the Foreign body you deleted too much ! --Tamás Kádár (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not deleted; it's in foreign body in alimentary tract. --Arcadian (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dietary mineral

Hi, I am writing about my substantial edit on dietary mineral. This topic sometimes generates strong feelings, in part because of commercialization of dietary supplements and in part because of suspicion of biochemistry by some. So if you strongly disagree or want to discuss what I did, please leave a note here. I have been working intermittently on this article for years, and periodically various exotic elements creep in, like Li, Al, V, Cr, As, Te, Sn, Ge, Cs, Rb, Bi, W. Beats me, but I can only guess that vendors of these supplements are driving such edits, as we found on chromium picolinate, a multimillion dollar product. In any case, let me know. Best wishes,--Smokefoot (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me. Thanks for the update. --Arcadian (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Physical dependence

Good work adding those references. The are still some issues, especially if tolerance alone is sufficient to declare physical dependence. See Talk:Physical dependence. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already put in just about all I know and all I could find from reliable sources, so I probably can't help you on that Europe issue. --Arcadian (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Disease

Hi, hoping you can explain why our Mitochondrial Disease Symptom Guide for Clinicians link keeps getting removed? Is it because MitoAction is a charity? Because you have to register to view the guide (this is for legal reasons - medical advice, etc etc)? The resource guide is a clinical document written by doctors and we feel one of the best resources online for doctors who often find themselves faced with diagnosing and dealing with this often previously un-dealt with disease. Can you please offer a few words of explanation? (unsigned, from User talk:Accessionmedia)

There are a few different issues with the addition, but the major one is discussed at Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration, which states "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference.". Your site states "Proceed to the Clinician's Mito Symptom Guide (you will be prompted to login/register and accept terms of use)". Also, per MOSMED#External_links, if a Open Directory Project page exists for the condition (as it does here), then Wikipedia links to that instead of linking to each individual charity. --Arcadian (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Penicillin G

Would you mind my moving this to benzylpenicillin (the INN?) I hope you and your loved ones enjoyed (or are enjoying :) the holidays. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Should Penicillin V also be moved? --Arcadian (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely :) By the way, I've been meaning to ask you for a while now—it's just a nitpick, but I'd really appreciate it if you could use {{drugbox}} and {{pharma-stub}} instead of {{chemistry-stub}} when you create new stubs on drugs. Using {{drugbox}} instead of {{chembox}} helps WP:CHEM's data curation efforts (which have separate lists for chemicals and pharmaceuticals), and sorting with {{pharma-stub}} gives WP:PHARM an adequate picture of 1) the number of articles under its scope and 2) how far we still have to go on article assessment. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Penicillin V is now moved. Per the other issue, I use drugbox/pharma-stub for approved drugs, but I currently think chembox/chemistry-stub may be more appropriate for investigational agents, and I'd prefer to be conservative about identifying molecules as "drugs". But if you could push a sentence through over at MEDMOS, I'd be happy to work with the consensus. --Arcadian (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's your reasoning, I think it's quite appropriate. I personally use {{pharma-stub}} even for investigational agents because {{chemistry-stub}} shouldn't be used for organic compounds, regardless of their application (we have {{organic-compound-stub}} and its subcategories for that), but feel free to continue using the chembox if you prefer. There's still a lot to work to be done regarding our categorization of compounds as drugs (I recently had a minor argument over it at WT:CHEM), and perhaps I would be wise to follow a more conservative approach myself. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interventions infobox template

Hi, I've just been looking at the above template and trying to understand it. What is the reason for the ICD-10 field? ICD-10 does not have an interventions classification. Canada, Australia, the UK and the US have all developed their own - none of which are called ICD-10. This is not the same as ICD-9-CM in which the procedure classification is a part of the base classification. The WHO have taken the Australian classification and released a highly simplified version of it as ICHI (International Classification of Health Interventions), but it is really too broad to be of much use on Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the ICD-10 field in the Template:Interventions infobox was for ICD-10 Procedure Coding System procedure code. --Arcadian (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• What should the uppermost pharm category be (i.e. the category that should contain all pharm-related content... not just drugs)? I posted this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization. kilbad (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's define Category:Pharmacology as level-1. First, I'd recommend looking at Template:Pharmacology. This is a good summary of many of the subjects which relate to pharmacology in general (and usually appear in the first section in any pharmacology textbook) but not to any organ-specific section or mechanism. The book I have in front of me calls this "general principles of pharmacology", but that's not useful for a Wiki category, so I'd recommend something like "pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics" as a level-2 category. The other two level-2 sisters could be "pharmacological agents" and "pharmacological mechanisms". The agents would be the individual molecules (or monoclonal antibodies, or polymers, or vaccines) and the mechanisms would be for pages like neurotransmitter uptake inhibitor and channel blocker. I'm assuming your interest is in "pharmacological agents", so we won't worry about drilling down the others right now. At level-3 under "pharmacological agents", create two categories: "pharmacological agents by organ system" and "pharmacological agents by mechanism". At level-4 under "pharmacological agents by organ system", follow ATC as closely as possible. At level-4 under "pharmacological agents by mechanism", follow DrugBank as closely as possible. Don't worry about trying to classify by chemical structure (unless the mechanism is unknown and so we can only infer a mechanism from the structure), because the fine folks at WP:Chemistry have been and will be doing this independently of your efforts. --Arcadian (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I put an outline of what you're proposing at WT:PHARM:CAT, and posted a follow-up comment. Thanks again. kilbad (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I posted a on outline for first level ATC sections --> category names at WT:PHARM:CAT. What do you think? kilbad (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a note indicating my support for the proposal. --Arcadian (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I replied... also, are you watching that page? If so, I will stop bothering you here? kilbad (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have that page on my watchpage (every page I edit is automatically added to my watchlist). I both appreciate and support the classification work you are doing, but I'm not going to be able to offer feedback at every stage of the process. --Arcadian (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcadian, thank you for your help in the past with WT:PHARM:CAT. Some additional progress has been made with the proposed categorization scheme, and I just wanted to leave a few follow-up questions here, if you had time to give me feedback. However, I have read and appreciate your last post of this thread, and understand if you are too busy at this time to give me a comment!

Some specific question I have for you are:

• With regard to your initial suggestion for a "Pharmacological agents by mechanism" category, which has slowly evolved to "Drugs by mechanism of action," had you envisioned subcategories of it to contain subcategories that are (1) broad in scope, like Category:Receptor agonists or (2) more specific in scope, like Category:Serotonin receptor agonists? I posted this question in the current discussion, but there is no clear consensus yet.
• Right now, most of the ATC level one category names have been agreed on by rough consensus (I will request more "support or oppose" threads in the discussion as time goes on), and ATC level 2 categories are under discussion now (...still needing a lot of work). From my perspective, those are all the ATC categories I need for my project, but do you think the third ATC level and/or deeper levels should be somehow integrated into the categorization scheme as well?
• Finally, another issue that has come up in latter discussions is what to do with longer category names like "Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system, and sex hormones" and "Systemic hormonal preparations, excluding sex hormones and insulins?" Attempts to remove the term "sex hormones," etc., from these names leaves articles pertaining to sex hormones without a clear cut ATC category. How is an editor or reader going to know where to find them?

Well, thanks again for all your help. Also, I replied back with a direct fb link... kilbad (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:PBB/7273

Thanks for your quick response to my request to semi-protect the Template:PBB/7273 page. I was becoming tired of reverting all the "non-word" nonsense ;-) Best regards, Boghog2 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'm just being selfish -- all that time you spend fighting vandals could be better invested expanding my gene stubs. :) --Arcadian (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica

Thank you for your edits, not least the section headings. I should try and improve the clinical and patient care parts in future revisions of the article. Courrege (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your additions to the article. --Arcadian (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WASH6P

Hi. The WASH6P article is about a pseudogene and therefore is probably not notable. I hope you don't take offense, but I would suggest that this article should be deleted. The rest of your stubs were interesting and taught me something about the pseudoautosomal region which I was not aware of until now. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. I have deleted it. --Arcadian (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica could use your help!

Strombollii from the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 could really use your help on his current project: Osteitis fibrosa cystica. He has had trouble finding suitable information (in both verifiability and quantity) for the topic and is relatively unfamiliar to the style and formating for medicine articles on Wikipedia. As a friend, I told him I would gladly message those who I respected as fellow wiki-editors and who I believed could add to his medicine related article. You, of course (from your help and critizim in Osteochondritis dissecans), were one of my choices. So if you can spare the time, I am sure your help would be much appreciated. Again, thank you for your own help in my article... without you and several other editors, I would have never made GA. Cheers! Food_Puma 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. You did a wonderful job on your page, and I'm delighted to see you mentoring other students. It looks the OFC page is in reasonably good shape. I added a ref, fixed a spelling error, and put it on my watchlist. (Does your friend have journal access? If not, have him try this search.) I'm a fan of tables, and the Pathophysiology section of the article might be clearer if put in that format. --Arcadian (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

eMedicine template usage

Thanks for noticing :-) I came to this because I could not set up {{Infobox Disease}} on a new article for the new eMedicine website structure. I've now corrected in sequence {{eMedicine}}, {{eMedicine2}} and {{Infobox Disease}} along with documentation & talk pages too (ugh)!

Please have a look at {{Infobox Disease}} discussion page thread I've set up and improve the documentation if required :-) David Ruben ^Talk 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Brucellosis vaccine

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Brucellosis vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/aug05/aug15/Studyaimstofindnewvaccineto.cfm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag placed in error; removed. --Arcadian (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Plague vaccine

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

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag placed in error; removed. --Arcadian (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yellow fever vaccine

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Yellow fever vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccineInfo/vaccine_detail.cfv?id=28. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag placed in error; removed. --Arcadian (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Did you catch my note about Amoebiasis at WT:MED? I (respectfully) disagreed with your edits and provided a few sources, but you don't seem to have responded. Entamoeba has asked for MarcoTolo's opinion on the matter—just letting you know in case you missed by original post at the project. Best as always, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added more content at Amoebiasis in the last couple of weeks to help clarify the relationship between Entamoebiasis and Amoebiasis. When I posted at WT:MED, I asked for feedback at Talk:Entamebiasis. I (respectfully) disagree with your response at WP:MED, but it didn't seem productive to move the debate to that location. It would be useful to keep the discussion centralized, so future editors will be able to follow the discussion more easily. --Arcadian (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Disease vs Condition

Would you mind taking a look at a category renaming I proposed, and adding your input? Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_10#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages I ask, because I am most likely going to be proposing other renames in the future, and want to get a great consensus regarding the use of the word "condition". kilbad (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note there, supporting your proposal. --Arcadian (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. kilbad (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you still feel the same way, would you mind commenting again at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_26#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages as the first CfD was inconclusive? kilbad (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating unconnected vaccine stubs

I notice you have been creating a lot of disconnected stub articles about vaccines lately. Rather than creating a one sentence articles that aren't connected to the article about the item being vaccinated against, seems like it might make more sense to add the vaccine material as a section in the main article (with a redirect, as appropriate), until enough material collects to warrant a separate article. (Talking about things like Brucellosis vaccine, Japanese encephalitis vaccine, Tick-borne encephalitis vaccine, etc.)

At the very least, please add links to the new vaccine articles from the pathogen or disease article in question. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks and citing tool

Thanks for improving my cite at Dientamoeba_fragilis. Can you tell me what citation tool you use to do this quickly. I still haven't found a good one. I find manually filling in citweb very slow and guess there must be a better way.Mccready (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. The tool you're looking for is at User:Diberri/Template filler. --Arcadian (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I had used it before but didn't realise the best route might be via PMID, which I found from your remarks above. BTW congrats on an incredible contribution here.Mccready (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Borna disease split

When you split Borna disease into Borna disease virus, the most natural article name is actually Bornavirus. On top of that, there hasn't been (to my knowledge) a consensus in WP:VIRUS to separate the disease from the disease causing agent, and most of the articles aren't necessary long enough for a split to occur anyways. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Bornavirus. Per Borna disease: do you think the article is better now, or how it was two days ago? --Arcadian (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was better before the split; the information about Bornavirus was all grouped together rather than dispersed among the two articles, this makes it easier for the reader to access all(I think some readers won't be able to jump around so that can be another issue). Same applies to several other article, and it would have been helpful if you left a note in the discussion to help remind us which and what sections. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When you say "it would have been helpful if you left a note in the discussion", to what discussion to you refer? Only one message has ever been left at Talk:Borna disease, and that was almost two years ago. And both WP:Viruses and WP:Microbiology are essentially dormant:

WP:Virus's last 50 edits go back 416 days.

WP:Microbiology's last 50 edits go back 678 days.

By comparison, WP:Medicine's last 50 edits go back 2 days.

Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Before I made my edits, the article (which was created on 20 April 2004) had exactly one in-line reference, and that was to a dead link. The current version of Borna disease isn't perfect, but it is much closer to MEDMOS compliance. There is a general consensus that tiny articles without references should usually have the virus and the condition on the same page, and that larger articles with many references should usually have them split. Unfocused articles improve much more slowly than focused ones. But there isn't a consensus as to the exact dividing line. I wish there was an active and centralized microbiology community on Wikipedia with clear standards and a defined style guide, but there isn't one yet. But if you'd be interested in building one together, I'd be happy to collaborate with you. --Arcadian (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(ouddent) I said it was helpful, not policy. When I was looking at the article wondering what happened the virology section, I almost copied and paste it back in — and it took me a while to figure out where you've split it to (edit summaries work too, but discussions are more direct). I don't necessarily agree that splitting the disease and the disease causing agent will cause the article to be more focused; right now I think we should move virology back into Borna disease and then csd move it into the Bornavirus.

I've been to WP:MEDMOS and they seem more intent on getting the language right than worrying about how to draw the boundaries for articles. When I referring to other articles, I was a bit ambiguous, sorry about that. I understand why Rabies was split, but the virology section was grossly incomplete and I don't think it was a bit excessive to split it into Rabies virus. IMO the general consensus is essentially implied in WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOFF; however I don't necessarily agree that splitting off the virology would necessarily allow the article to be more focus.

A guideline discussing when articles should be divided and among what lines would be helpful; so let's organize our thoughts before we bring it to the community:

1. WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOFF implies when or if the article should be split
2. Virology should be split into scientific name, where as the main article would be in the common name
   1. For articles like Bornavirus where the common essentially adopts the scientific name and a spin off of the virology section would be unnatural (Bornavirus virus is unnatural), then it would be Virology of Bornavirus
   2. For articles where the the scientific name adopts the common name (e.g. Rabies), the split may be along the lines of Rabies virus
3. Epidemiology (that is the study of how it transmits, prevalence, so on) is split by similar means, but there hasn't necessarily been enough activity along these lines to draw any serious conclusions (I'm actually interested in starting an Epidemiology wikiproject if there are more people)

This is what I got. Point 2.1 seems a bit weak since we could also argue that "Borna disease" is the more natural name even though it seems unlikely that a reader would type all that into the search box (they'd more likely go through the infobox); so we could drop that one and give a "For the disease...". ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we're largely in agreement. Should we drill down to the genus, or the species? When I'm trying to figure out appropriate terminology, I often consult MeSH. Per Borna+disease+virus at the U.S. National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), "Borna disease virus" is the species, and "Bornavirus" is the genus. In my opinion, either could work as the title for a dedicated article about the virus, but I'd be happy to defer to you or others as to which would be more appropriate. (Certainly, virus classification is less mature than that of other pathogens.) Also, when you say "bring it to the community", which community do you recommend? I'm thinking we should work to try to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses and Wikipedia:WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists into Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, and then bring our thoughts to WikiProject Microbiology. (Although that project is inactive, I think it could become more active with a little creative nudging.) But I'm open to other approaches. --Arcadian (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need more than just inactivity for a wikiproject merge; the other approach would simply to let it be, and most people who are interested in the community can enroll in WP:MICRO just as easily as WP:VIRUS. I would bring it to WP:VIRUS first (also because I've been a part of it long enough to know some of the people), and then to WP:MICRO if we can get a consensus in WP:VIRUS; another reason to bring it to WP:VIRUS is that the issue have been essentially about virology and spinning off the virology section. I other news, I've redrafted point 2.1, now that our former example is no longer valid. If we have a go on points 1, 2.1, and 2.2 — then we can begin drafting the full proposal and rationale; and we can send a joint proposal to WP:VIRUS.

Ok, thanks for clarifying Borna disease virus, I'm actually quite a bit surprised that I didn't catch that, BVD is the species and Bornavirus is the genus; it's even listed in the infobox. Nevertheless, that redraws how we're dividing it, Bornavirus stays as it is; so the only issue left is to CSD move Borna disease to Borna disease virus (BVD is the most likely search term), and then writing a short virology section there. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to use WP:VIRUS, then I'm not confident that we can get enough eyeballs, but if you want to bring it there, let me know, and I will be happy to offer my support in that forum. --Arcadian (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses#Virus spinoff guideline or recommendation. I think you might be right, however I guess this can be our trial balloon to see how our idea fairs. ;) ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

MHC class I

This is the first time I have edited a page, so if I mess up please let me know. I am looking at your article on MHC class I, and noticed that you are the author of a change suggesting that sec61 transports extra peptides not displayed by MHC Class I into cytosol. Do you have a reference for this? Bfeuerstein (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved that content to its current location, but I didn't create it, so I can't affirm original sources. I've added some references to the article, but if you are aware of ways that the page could be improved, I'd be happy to work with you to make it better. --Arcadian (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MPRP

I forgot to ask, being part of the Main page redesign proposal, the project is essentially finished except for one issue, which requires a third party to help shed a new view point. This project has been going on for a while, and participation has gone quite a ways down; with this one issue resolved I believe we can get it over with. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem much different from the current version, but I have no problem with it. (I like the watermark.) --Arcadian (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good, can you add your comment to the "Header code fix" section? That's the last one essentially before we have to begin planning out a Straw Poll. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox question

Hi. I was just looking at the infobox that you added to the Zygote article way back in October 2007, and I'm curious about it. Is there any particular reason that the article should have an (essentially empty) infobox? I like infoboxes as much as the next person and I certainly don't want to be overly bold and remove something that has a purpose, but I don't understand it. The main reason I'm wondering about it is that the code has been vandalized (though it doesn't show up in the actual infobox; I stumbled across it quite by accident) and I was about to delete the vandalism, but then I began to wonder whether we need the box at all and I decided to go right to the source to find out. Also, if the box is serving a purpose, could you please explain to me why it says "Days -- 1"? That's stumping me. Thanks -- edi(talk) 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the box. --Arcadian (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your time. :) -- edi(talk) 22:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hemophilia

Why did you delete the list of support groups for the external links in this article I do not understand your comment: "Support group links: dmoz, per MEDMOS". Many of these are important sources of information, which is the purpose of this section I thought. I'm going to add back a number of the better of these unless you present some compelling argument otherwise (particularly the National Hemophilia Foundation). Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#External_links before restoring the links. --Arcadian (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ClinicalTrials

Template:ClinicalTrials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As creator, I am happy that a better version exists, and I have no objection to deletion or redirection. --Arcadian (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me just say, I looked through and categorized almost all of the templates you created. (I was bored, OK?!) You have done a huge amount of excellent work on medical and biological subjects. It almost makes me wish I had gone to medical school instead of law school.  :) (Incidentally, the legal field has been decimated by the ongoing recession/financial crisis, and there is very little work to be had. I'm guessing you doctors are probably still doing OK though.) --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 00:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but "doctor" is not a title I've earned. And I think if you saw the odometer on my car, you'd be working from a different set of assumptions. :) Thanks for the classification work you did. --Arcadian (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving chemotherapy

I'm not sure why you moved chemotherapy to chemotherapy (oncology). The page is currently about its most common use (cancer chemotherapy), and the intro already clearly disambiguates to alternative uses. Also, the move was not discussed. I've moved it back for the time being. JFW | T@lk 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind then if I move the details on that page to antineoplastic? Using "chemotherapy" as the overview for cancer pharmacology creates all sorts of cascading inaccuracies. Even when defined broadly, monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and hormone modulators are almost never considered chemotherapy (though some of these are sometimes considered targeted therapy). --Arcadian (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the chemotherapy article should only deal with actual chemotherapy drugs, but I think the term "antineoplastic" is inaccurate because benign tumours are also neoplasms. The whole world (lay and professional) refers to stuff like cisplatin or daunorubicin as "chemo[therapy]". At the same time, antineoplastic or cancer drug (presently a redirect) would be good container articles to discuss all pharmacological cancer treatment modalities (to the exclusion of surgery and EBRT). Perhaps this is good subject for a discussion on WT:MED. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on board for that. If you lay that out on WT:MED, I'll express my support. --Arcadian (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, we already have a very good container in the cancer article itself: the cancer#treatment section. Rather than creating more container articles, I have simply removed all the content on targeted therapy and hormonal therapy. Could I recommend that we turn antineoplastic into a redirect to cancer#treatment. The only content in that article that needs shifting is the section on occupational harm from exposure to cytostatics; this could actuall be merged into chemotherapy. JFW | T@lk 10:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the content at cancer#treatment is better than the content at antineoplastic, but if we merge, I think it makes sense to merge in the opposite direction. --Arcadian (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Phytic acid

Hi there

I removed the image of phytate because it is not the same as phytic acid. The image does not agree with the formula and MW in the box. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found the appropriate free acid image now, so it's moot. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Arcadian (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Drugbox

Thanks for quick responses. I think I've now got things set up for those 3 options of killed/inactivated bacteria/viruses, attenuated viruses and live bacteria. If on implementing this it looks all horribly wrong, feel free to revert the drugbox and its /doc to prior verions and we can re-work on this after my holiday :-) David Ruben ^Talk 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem -- and thank you, you did most of the work. --Arcadian (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Arcadian, I'm not sure why you changed Chronic lymphocytic leukemia to B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I left a message about it in Talk:B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

There are recent sources that refer to T-cell CLL, so I wonder why you reject them. Nbauman (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Response here. --Arcadian (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job on the Thalassemia split per WP:SS

SBHarris 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Arcadian (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans ready for FA?

I am at a loss for how to improve the article as it stands. Recently my edits have mainly been focusing on minor copyediting, and at this point I feel as though it's time to jump the cliff and hope for the best. I was advised by my teacher (JimmyButler) to wait until my diagram images have passed OTRS verification. At that point, would you support a move for FA? Kind regards, Food_Puma 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I rarely get involved in the FA process, but I think your work has been extraordinary, and I would be happy to make an exception for you. Just let me know what you need, and when you need it. --Arcadian (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I just got image rights approved by the author for OTRS and sent the forwarded copy in. Hopefully we'll have verification complete within the next couple days and I can go ahead and nominate it. In the mean time, if you wouldn't mind looking for MoS issues and/or things like sentence fluency, I would appreciate it. I find myself in a bind for time between school and work, as I'm sure you do too, so any help is always a sight for sore eyes. Amazing how far we've come, eh? :-) Food_Puma 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any major issues (though I am not as experienced with FA standards as others are). I've added a supportive note at Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans. Let me know when it is nominated. --Arcadian (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mohs surgery

Would you look at a thread for me, someone expressing concern about some recent edits: User_talk:Kilbad#Nickcoop.2C_the_GP_from_New_Zealand_is_attacking_the_Mohs_surgery_article_again kilbad (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Cyclonenim has taken care of what needs to be done for now. However, seeing that this has gone on for years, you're probably looking for a longer term solution. Here's what I recommend: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is missing specific guidelines for articles about procedures. My reading of the community is that there is a consensus that this is needed. There are new suggestions every few months, but no one has taken the initiative to drag it across the finish line. With clear guidelines, many disputes melt away. Your experience with your dermatology and pharmacology proposals have probably shown you what is needed to make this happen: you need to be patient, polite, precise, disciplined, detailed, and relentless. I have too much on my plate right now to initiate this, but if you take the lead on it, I can help put my shoulder to the boulder. (And if you succeed, it would look nice on your wiki-resume if you'd be interested in adminship at some point.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sclerosis (medicine)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sclerosis (medicine), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Sclerosis. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue

I see you've edited this template several times. I'd appreciate your input here on merging Skin ulcer and Ulcer (dermatology), and how to handle the link in the template. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. --Arcadian (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help. Also, with regard to skin ulcers, if you have a preference with regard to the actual article name and redirect, feel free to change it. I did not have a strong preference as to which was the article, and which the redirect. kilbad (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Endocrine-related skin conditions

I wanted to know if the you would review a recent CFD I posted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_21#Category:Endocrine-related_diseases_and_the_skin. I am looking to get more opinions. kilbad (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added my support. (Also, per your last message a few sections above -- I'm supportive of the most recent versions of the proposed pharmacology classification, and in my opinion, the last few implementation decisions are probably best addressed as they arise. I think it's just about ready to implement.) --Arcadian (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I think WT:PHARM:CAT is coming along. I just want to let it sit for a little longer to make sure everyone has a chance to give input. Thanks again for your help with that discussion. kilbad (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also...

Are you a US medical student? If so, have you decided what you want to go into? If not, can I talk you into dermatology? Maybe you can do an away elective at my academic institution in Chicago? ;) kilbad (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a US medical student. If you're in or near Chicago, we should have coffee. --Arcadian (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I did medical school at Loyola, am doing my transitional year at St Francis in Evanston, and am doing my derm residency at UIC, starting in June. Yeah, we should have coffee. Are you married or dating? Maybe I can bring my wife? kilbad (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. --Arcadian (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Project Charity - The Children's Rare Disease Network

Hi Arcadian: I am adding links in the lysosomal storage disease area to The Children's Rare Disease Network and now I see that these links are not up after I spend considerable time putting them on Wiki today. I added the links which are appropraite for people who suffer from rare diseaes, especially the children's diseases. This is a non profit organization that is the main hub for families who are dealing with rare diseases of all types. Some of these small rare disease states do not even have non-profits supporting them and they have no money -- The Project Charity -- The Children's Rare Disease Network will be the main non profit for families and kids to go to for support. Some diseases only have 200 kids worldwide -- certainly not a community and this is why I need to put up so many links. It's not like added links to the Cancer Page to the Cancer Society when millions are affected. This is the umbrella organization supporting Rare Diseases of all types. This site needs to be added to all the Rare Disease pages that are under represented -- this is their organization. Would you be taking down links to NORD if I put them up on Wiki? I read the rules and it appears to be appropriate given the nature of this organization and how rare each disease is. It's going to be lots of links for lots of different obscure or rare disease, many which have no organization support. I am a volunteer for them along with many other families who have children with rare disease. Chris | T@lk 26 February 2009

From my reading of the policies, the addition of dozens of links to the same exact URL (http://www.theprojectcharity.org) is not in accordance with the guidelines. I understand that you feel I am wrong in my interpretation. I am proud of our collaboration on Niemann-Pick disease, type C, and I believe that we share most of the same goals. I will recuse myself from removing this link in the future. However, I think that it is inevitable that it will be removed by other editors. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:External links (especially (Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided), which contains much more detail about the relevant policies. --Arcadian (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arcadian, I am going to look into what you say more. One of the biggest challenges I faced in dealing with a rare disease that only affects so few is that there is no community -- there are very few organizations that support rare disease that impact children. Rare disease is different than any other disease state where there are thousands if not millions of people impacted. Part of the problem is the fractured nature of rare disease. I would love if there was just one link I could put up to help people. Are you interested in helping me with the rare diseases that have no information on them? I would like to keep working with you on this! I am very committed not only to Niemann Pick Type C and Lysosomal Storage Diseases but rare diseases in general. Chris | T@lk 27 February 2009

I would be very happy to. If you send me an email (click here), I could share my thoughts in more detail off-wiki. --Arcadian (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

List of skin-related conditions

• I have been going through Fitzpatrick's and Andrews' texts simultaneously to (1) create a comprehensive list of skin-related conditions, and (2) create stubs on any red links that appear in that listing. Ultimately, I also want to do the same with Rook's and Bolognia. However, before I get too much further in the process, I wanted to get your feedback on a couple things.
• Within the listing, I am only placing intext citations for introductory sentences at the beginning of each section. I have not been placing citations next to every disease name and synonym, but am leaving it to the actual articles to do. Is that ok? My rational is that citing every disease name would get very cluttered and cumbersome.
• With that being said, I simply created a bibliography citing Fitzpatrick's and Andrews' as sources for the listing, and placed a footnote indicating so. Is this ok to do?
• What other thoughts do you have? I just don't want to be wasting my time if I am doing something wrong.
• Also, I emailed you back. kilbad (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Colour schemes for templates

Please see my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:CNS_diseases_of_the_nervous_system My status as a wikipedia dissident unfortunatly dictates my use of IP addresses rather than an account. Thanks 79.72.116.123 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)