Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:41, 1 April 2008

Archives

/Archive 1

Hi

Hi -- thanks for opening a conversation with me about the DSM page. I added the globalization tag because, although in the intro it says it's an american thing, the tone is as thought it's almost univerally accepted. For example, in the "Use of the DSM" section, it says, "hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies require a 'five axis' DSM diagnosis of the patients that are seen." That's not actually true in the MAJORITY of countries in the World! The same sort of thing is true throughout the article... even the criticisms are from a "western" perspective. And, as far as I can tell, ALL of the references are from the United States (with perhaps one from England). That last fact, almost says it all, right ;-) Does that make any sense?

Re:DSM. The citation you say is from Spain, is from the Am. Journal of Psychiatry. That's my point. Even if it's used in Europe, or endorced by the UN, doesn't make it worldwide. That's what should be clear (speaking as a professional in psychology, and having worked in a number of places). I don't think the majority of cultures use it.

But, all your other points are very well taken. I appreciate it. I definately put the tag in the wrong place... where should it go?

And, I will certainly make more clear my reasoning in the discussion page in the future. Thanks greatly for your time.

B. Mistler 05:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhabdo on GA

Hey, thought you'd like to know that rhabdomyolysis has been promoted to Good Article. Well done on your hard work.

Thanks, JFW, but let's not forget that you did the hard work, and I did the easy parts.

BTW, I'd just been thinking of rhabdo immediately before seeing your note (and today's changes, which all looked reasonable): This news story talks about statin-related metabolic problems. I can't find the actual article, but I wonder if it might give us new and interesting information for rhabdomyolysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The study in question is doi:10.1038/nbt1387. This was published online yesterday. Many people suspect that mitochondria play part in statin toxicity (PMID 12353945), yet the exact mechanism remains elusive. I'm really not sure whether the study results have any bearing on the rhabdo article, but it's worth watching. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

LBAM page

thanks for your backup of my point regarding the external links in the light brown apple moth article. i'm still a reasonably new WP user and as an entomologist and being that it was one of my first articles, its sad to see it being dominated by political debate regarding the US eradication effort. I always envisaged it just being an informative article about the moth. cheers Goldfinger820 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that you had left a note on the talk page about it. Unfortunately, I think we have a radical political activist involved in this article. NPOV and verifiability standards don't seem as important to everyone. Oh, well: So far, I like the recent changes to this article, and I hope that moving the political mess to a separate article will keep normal readers from having to slog through the garbage about who filed which lawsuits when. (You know that in 20 years, the whole political mess will be reduced to a single paragraph: Pheromone spraying happened: nobody died, and the moth (did/didn't) continue to infest the area.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I totally agree that the generic "geographical" importance criteria are next to useless for medicine, and I find your proposed tailored assessment scale completely sensible. I'm sure it will be adopted swiftly. JFW | T@lk 06:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Brassiere & Cancer

Nicely stated. Mattnad (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your question on the talk page, in case you didn't see it. --Jonathan108 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed it. I've been off-wiki all day. It's much too late to see if I can find that paper tonight. I don't know if it's online (at all): you might have to go to the nearest university's science library and read it on paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to lay my hands on it. (One of those weeks.) However, here's what I can tell you from memory: The paper considers bra-wearing as -- not exactly a cause, because they're not manipulating this behavior, but as a potential marker. The authors conclude that the amount of breast tissue is more important, and that (at least) most of the reason that bra-wearing women get somewhat more breast cancer is because bra-wearing women have more breast tissue and/or more fat in the breasts. What I can't tell you from memory is whether they report an increased risk of premenopausal cancer because they didn't have enough data to report on postmenopausal cancer, or if postmenopausal and/or lifetime risks turned out to be the same.

Obesity, BTW, is a known risk factor for breast cancer even in cultures which do not use bras, and indeed before bras were invented, so it's been reasonably well established as an independent variable.

Finally, when you want to know what a researcher really thinks, it's often instructive to see what they're currently working on. These two authors have published literally dozens of papers that suggest breast cancer "starts" before birth, with the creation of breast-specific stem cells and exposure to hormones that promote their growth, but (later in life) not exposure to other (pregnancy-related) hormones that would cause proper terminal differentiation. They have subsequently ignored bras, even though surveys are so cheap, and their prestige so high, that funding is not likely to be an obstacle if they wanted to pursue this area. I think that's a reasonably good indication that they consider bras unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NCTM

Careful tossing around the insults. Jd2718 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture you wanted cropped

Do you still need it cropped or is it ok as it is. I am sorry about the delay I have been busy, then sick for the last many days. if you need it done still I would be happy to comply. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have cropped that picture as you requested. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks great! WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Human papillomavirus

In case you missed it, I asked you a question at Talk:Human_papillomavirus. NCdave (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have explained the removal of the link on the HPV talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Medical Technician article

Any suggestions for areas that need improvement in the article from your review?
Thanks for the upgrade,
JPINFV (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I put my comments on the EMT talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal note

Thank you for the personal note. It is difficult to accept this particular "win some, lose some" situation, for reasons that are personal (and I dont mean conflicts with WLU etc).

I actually dont think my opinion about what constitutes UNDUE in the Natalizumab article is a minority position, people can't be that blind, BUT I do agree that I have approximately that snowball's chance of getting it fixed. If you look back to Thursday, the other Natalizumab editors had already disengaged from the conversation because they didnt like my pointed questions: the decision was already made back THEN. So on Saturday I posted the POV-check and Expert-call, and suddenly they are back to post sarcasm etc on it. Yes even MastCell and FV suggested then maybe it could but improved, but they still insist PML/death should be in the opening words, so what's the point. I sent MastCell a message yesterday, but he refused to reply.

Originally, JDWolff more or less supported my right to fix the page, but then he never re-appeared. In fact Ed Johnston wrote in the talk that there was practically zero info about what N actually does. You can read this.

So WLU twice said I should use an AN/I (he also told me to F___OFF twice) - and so I did, but THAT was my mistake - they even corrected the title of my incident report to protect WLU ... and his supporters arrived, and closed ranks.

OK, so it's over. Well....after all this - and believe me, with coverage of PML in 4 different sections, the page is a POS of undue-weight (my opinion of course, seeing as you disagree) .....is that the way it stays because I am too lazy to do anything ? Or because I need "friends" on Wiki ? Or because I ran into organised nihilism, that pissed all over even my POV-check ?

Well I have no time now, and was going to work on an ALZ table (late clinical trials) but I now see that even THAT is running into serious oposition on the most bizarre grounds (you probably know Orange-Marlin) - and I believe that stems from the N issue....but am considering arbitration....after all it was disgraceful what WLU initially did, and he admits to knowing nothing about the subject (MS), and afterwards, he did not admit he was wrong, even though the proof was there, many times...

Infant Formula article

Thanks for contacting me about the Infant_Formula wiki. I became interested in the wiki because of the recent birth of my first-born son. I use wikipedia a lot, mostly as a technical reference, and was very suprised at the unusually negative tone of Infant_Formula. There was a lot more content about breastfeeding than there was about infant formula.

My concerns were increased when I saw that several contributors also Talk:Infant_Formula complained about the lack of NPOV]] on the page. I've expressed many concerns on the talk page.65.7.144.194 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summ read "Decreasing popularity: Please don't fact-tag section headings. Please also check the nearest ref: it may support more than one sentence." I had read the nearest reference - it directly contradicted the thrust of the first paragraph - saying the use of infant formula and breast feeding have both been increasing while the use of cows milk has been decreasing. With choices between ugly layout, wholesale deletion or leaving naive readers totally defenseless I went for ugly layout - I really couldn't think of a new section heading! :-( SmithBlue (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If an entire section needs help, there are all sorts of templates like {{Refimprovesect}} that are better suited to the task. You might like to look at the options at Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates

I basically define cow's milk, when it is being used as a substitute for breast milk, as being a kind of infant formula (for the under six months crowd, at least). If breast-feeding goes up, then other forms of feeding must go down: a baby only eats so much, after all. If you count milk as a solid food/non-formula, then I can see your point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking off the top of my hat on "If breast-feeding goes up, then other forms of feeding must go down" - Fomon data seems to be suggesting that more and more infants are always/sometimes/occasionally/"at least once?" being fed formula - So they count as formula babies and probably count as breast babies too. Maybe formula as % of total baby food is declining? But Fomol (to date as I read it) is saying something else. SmithBlue (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OMM lede

Thank you for your reply. I have left a reply and a request for your further comment and consideration.--TheNautilus (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put the article on my watchlist. Let's see if we get any other responses first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pain

Would appreciate you separating items in your latest post on talk:pain into separate sections ( ==History of pain definitions== etc) so we can discuss each. I tried editing the lead of Pain some time ago - the beauty of the IASP definition is that is allows a simplified article in which there is some chance that some readers will 'get it that the human experience of pain is not a physiological event but a subjective experience in consciousness. However now may be a good time to give a more accurate, complex, inclusive account of pain. (An example of the complexity available - Some cultures ascribe pain to "the earth" - this adds another level to modern Western cultures ascribing pain to animals?) SmithBlue (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to you adding breaks if that makes things easier to edit. I dislike really long sections myself and have been known to add arbitrary breaks for my own convenience. I also want to give you a heads up that I've been off-wiki nearly all day, and except for a few minutes here and there probably won't be on-wiki again much until the weekend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I too edit in bursts and am in no hurry. SmithBlue (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is good news indeed - there are so many questions I have! The price of gold in a weeks time would be enough for now though. Yes working on P&N now makes much better sense. See you there. SmithBlue (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Any ideas what to do with the following: "Booy, for instance, diffrentiates between "real pain" and "imaginary pain". In his view "real pain"has a somatic cause, confirmed by a physician." Treatment of Chronic Pain: Possibilities, Limitations, and Long-Term Follow-up Chapter 19 The Limitations of the Behavioural Managemnet of Pain, N.H. Groenman, pg 156 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8hHT8OlF3QMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA156&dq=definition+%2BNociception&ots=MIKxq_pxLG&sig=qmtIbFOHO7phQrgwpk0Pay6byy4#PPA156,M1

SmithBlue (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected. Hope you can help…

NCurse _work 16:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine RfC

Hi there, just a note to alert you to the fact that one of the editors of this article is now edit-warring to remove the sourced criticism that was agreed to in this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Its no edit war on my side, changes were made to accommodate remarks on the talk page. But you are showing a bias in warning me and ignoring the 3RR violation already in place on the page, by someone else. You also don't make mention of the error introduced on the page that incorrectly referred to "NNT%" by the same person. The quote from BW is the best description I have seen on the page in plain English of NNT. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)