User talk:Nephron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives /Archive 1

Contents 1 In search of free license histology images 2 Your comments 3 Misqueue 4 David Ruben RfA 5 Thanks 6 Seraphimblade's RfA 7 Belated comment on your comment 8 Happy Holidays! 9 more 10 My Request for Adminship 11 Email 12 A bit of help please 13 Proposed merge of WP:DRUGS and WikiProject Pharmacology 14 SVG?? 15 Bioartificial liver device 16 Medicine nav template list update 17 Medecine 18 Barnstar 19 Welcome to WikiProject Germany 20 Historical Eastern Germany 21 Renal tubular acidosis 22 image 23 Thanks 24 Tooth 25 Citing sources

[edit] In search of free license histology images

I'd appreciate your thoughts over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Getting_Image_Permissions_from_a_Med_School Robotsintrouble 19:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments

RE: the RFc. Thank you. First, your supposition of my personal experience is correct. That is why I am alarmed at the apparent lack of interest in the effects of rupture. Further, Holmich was originally cited by Droliver (not I), in a statement that said either 3-8% or 5-8% (I cannot now recall) at 10 years. In fact, if you read Homich, the study concluded that a minimum of 15% (of the newer implants rupture) between 3-10 years. So I am not selectively choosing studies as you suggested, since I did not provide this reference. Unfortunately, the misquoted statement was only representative of the manner in which this article was edited. If you look at the BI article now, you will see that there is currently a disagreement on links. The primary editor does not want any links that do not support a glossy assessment of implants. The fact is, that this issue has become political, and the organizations like NOW and National Women's Health Network are decrying the FDA decision, and pointing out the limitations of the "vast" body of literature. Senators in Congress have also raised the issue. To not mention any of this, even in a link, is disingenous.

Those who insist there is no global warning are about as informed as those who insist the earth is 6,000 years old. I don't appreciate being compared to these people, even speculatively. I also am an engineer (electrical) , but chose law instead of medicine as an advanced degree. However, I was too sick to work for three years. My health dramtically improved after removing ruptured implants. The FDA has acknowledged the lack of studies on rupture (beyond 10 years), hence the recommendation for regular MRIs--which are expensive tests. Of course there are no studies on rupture of the older implants, which many women still have. As to the RFC...there were insults to go around by all. However, Wikipedia sometimes reminds me of a condo board (a small group of thugs).Jance 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a thoughtful and kind response. The Holmich article to which I referred is here. It most certainy does concludes, "A minimum of 15% of modern implants can be expected to rupture between the third and tenth year after implantation." I agree that in the short term, there is no association. The fact remains that there are no long term studies showing the rupture rate, or its effects. No studies of rupture rate in the older implants, or what happens if ruptured implants remain in a woman's body for any length of time. If doctors believe that this is sufficient to show "no association" then so be it. And of course, as you know, a joint replacement is not the same as silicone gel. And yes, some people do reject (some) foreign bodies, don't they? Isn't that the purpose of immunosupressant anti-rejection drugs for organ replacement? Also, some people do reject hip /joint replacements. I do believe that my consistently high ANA, anti-Smith antibodies, anti-SSA, anti-RNP, high 24-hr urine tests, polyarthritis, malar rash, low-grade fevers, photosensitive rashes, oral ulcers, vertigo, ataxia, numbness, abnormal brain and c-spine MRI, abnormal spinal tap (elevated igG and oligoclonal banding) are more than 'not feeling well' as one here suggested. In fact, although I am not a medical doctor, I would say all of this probably indicates an immune dysfunction, wouldn't you? Anyway, a couple neurologists and rheumatologists that treated me concluded it did. I have had normal blood tests for over two years now, and no signs of lupus or MS. Haven't had the pleasure of repeat MRIs or spinal tap (I won't do it). I also understand that these illnesses can go into remission. However, the timing and degree of the change convinced me that my rapidly declining health was related to the implants that had been ruptured in my body for five years. I no longer wake up in hives and thus I no longer carry an epipen. I discontinued Avonex because the side effects outweighed any benefit, to me anyway. Unlike those that market the interferons, I could not see that MS drug studies showed an improvement beyond a reasonable doubt. I still take plaquenil and wonder if someday I can discontinue it. I won't be able to base this on any medical advice or studies, of course, since the "standard of care" would be to continue the medication - especially since there will be no studies to determine whether or not this might be reversible, as is a drug-induced lupus. If many doctors have shut minds as did the one here who expressed "antipathy" toward women who had BI and believe they have immune dysfunction, there are not likely to be any. I do not suggest politics should be equated with science. I do suggest that the controversy and ongoing concerns be mentioned. To write this off as a "few women who claim they became ill" is misleading. But I don't care to edit with the doc mentioned above, and with Oliver here - athough I must say it has been an education.

By the way, my father died of mesothelioma. I suspect studies would show no association between asbestos and mesothelioma at 10 years. He died 40 years after his exposure, approximately 5 months after he was diagnosed., He never smoke, drank or used drugs. He was a geologist and loved the outdoors. One bright bulb here on Wikipedia tried to tell me that there was no way to prove he or anyone died from asbestos exposure. The presence of asbesotos fibers in the lungs does not prove anything. Yep, true enough.

One last thing - it was not only historical perspective and remaining concerns that Oliver wanted to eliminate, as links. He also wanted to eliminate a statement that the FDA recommended regular MRIs after implantation to detect rupture (it was too US-centric) and that augmentation was approved for women 22 years old and older (he can use implants off label so why bother mentioning it). Jance 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, Nephron. I still am not used to some of the Wiki notation. First, I was appalled at the misstatements of case holdings on defamation lawsuits which Barrett (of Junkscience) filed against various people. For exmaple, the CA Supreme Court did not find for defendants on the merits, in one instance. The court never reached the merits, but instead interpreted the meaning of computer "user" under "The Communications Decency Act" (typically misnamed, as usual) which provided computer users with immunity from defamation liability. Secondly, I wonder why doctors despise lawsuits and lawyers unless it is their own. I agree with some of the "Junkscience" articles but wonder also if Stephen Barrett has become little more than a lobbyist. "Truth" and "science" are much more ambiguous than I once believed, even as an engineer. After my experience with silicone implants, reading the studies in PS journals, and hearing the level of curiosity from some MDs (mostly here, I admit), I now wonder about those who so predictably complain about "junkscience". Of course, if I go back to my younger days, I always did think that "truth" or "hard science" was not nearly as "pure" as engineers liked to claim. One example, and then I have to prepare for court tomorrow. Many scientists and engineers claim that mathematics just describes the physics - that tangible hard stuff we see around us. But if you look at the history of mathematics research (reducing a system to its least necessary components) you may conclude something else. Einstein's general theory of relativity was what - 1905? (Something like that). He used math concepts developed over a century before his birth. Specifically non-Euclidean geometry (and Euclid's 5th postulate). Chew on that one.Jance 22:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misqueue

I think I was thinking of someone else when I wrote the statements above about case holdings. If it seemed like it was coming out of left field, that was why. Sorry about that. What kind of engineer were you before med? Jance 23:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Ruben RfA

Nephron, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

G'day Nephron and thank you for your note. My expertise in the medical field is mainly limited to technology -- started out as an electronic engineer then commenced specialising in medical applications, including clinical & research in the late 50's thus I have a lot of historical knowledge which I try to use to improve articles. Graeme (QRS) is an old friend, now 76. He was keen to try and straighten things out re the article Telectronics but was pretty upset by an abusive late night phone call. Not sure whther he wants to continue to contribute to other articles. I hpe so as he was one of the pioneers of open heart surgery. A'll the best for Christmas & 2007. Geoffrey Wickham 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seraphimblade's RfA

Thank you for your advice in my recent RfA, which failed. If you have any further advice it would be appreciated! Seraphimblade 14:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated comment on your comment

You wrote, "Medical practise is based on what physicians know with some certainty and historical precedent-- not on unlucky patients that may have gotten horribly sick regardless of the intervention and improved regardless of a second intervention. Also, I'll point-out that foreign bodies are, generally, not proven to be health risks."

Actually, a foreign body in one's system is indeed 'generally' proven to be a health risk. Joint replacement surgery carries the risk of any surgery, and joint replacements do fail and have to be replaced. The issue is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. More importantly, do you see the illogic in comparing ruptured breast implants to a solid joint replacement? To my knowledge, pieces of a joint replacement do not migrate and end up in other places in the body. http://www.thedoctorsdoctor.com/bodysites/lymph_node.htmOn what is medical "certainty and historical precedent" based on when there are no studies on the long-term effects of rupture, and only one or two that even look at the silicone migration? The (US) FDA points out - notwithstanding recent approval - that there is insufficient data on the new implants to determine a rate of rupture. That is one reason it recommended follow-up to detect rupture.

1. "Precedent" is also used in a legal context, and is valued in English and US law. Sometimes "precedent" is abhorrent and flat out wrong, too. It was precedent for a long time to consider black people and women as property. In medicine, I presume the use of leeches for 'bleeding' was precedent. Also, did you assume that I suggested medical practice be based on the unlucky patients? Why is it that you would assume such a thing? I have never said or implied this. (Although, I daresay that it might be worth a physician taking off his blinders long enough to consider the unlucky patients).
2. There is nothing anything close to certainty --eg studies of the long term effects of rupture - note that some silicone migration can occur from older style implants in just "bleeding" or leakage, and from the new implants as well since the material is incompletely cross-linked. But the medical practice is to use silicone implants (heck, it is the bread and butter for a whole group of medical doctors). Okay. So the FDA at least has suggested - precisely because of this uncertainty -- that women be followed up with an MRI at 3 years after implantation and every 2 years thereafter.

There are still plastic surgeons who will not remove ruptured implants (arguing that surgery carries greater risk) or will not remove them without replacement. Is this responsible? These surgeons are not basing their risk/benefit decisions on any certainty, although arguably it is precedent - notwithstanding the recommendation of at least the US FDA. And is it responsible to argue against inclusion in the article of the recommendation for follow-up?

Is it appropriate medical practice for doctors to ignore women as soon as they say the have implants, and not even check to see if there might be a medical basis for their complaints (eg look at the woman, run tests, and the like). Is it responsible for a doctor to immediately assume she is hypochondriac, or malingering, or worse? I did not have that experience, thankfully, because I never mentioned to any doctor that I had implants as I did not see it as relevant to any medical problem. With what I know now, I would discourage any woman from telling their doctors they have implants - that is, not if they want to be treated. This attitude of too many doctors did not come out of nowhere. It is an arrogance and dislike for anything hinting of "lawsuit", at least in the US. My own internist, whom I absolutely adore, was convinced that US juries award huge non-economic damages (pain and suffering) without even a finding of negligence by the doctor. I could not convince her otherwise. Legally, that is not possible and would never happen. But God knows who is telling doctors that it is. Jance 18:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You argue against the use of anecdotal evidence in making generalizations (a good policy, I agree). However, you use a single anecdote on a blog by a complaining doctor to assert that jury verdicts are not based on scientific evidence. And, you use an equally questionable anecdote to declare that Edwards made millions by using junk science. How many cases did he try? In how many is the validity of the science questioned? In fact, Edwards probably made the most on the Valerie Lakey case.[1]
2. You cited The Washington Times, owned by Sun Yung Moon, as your source re Edwards. It is a notoriously right-wing rag in every sense of the term. It has no credibility, by any journalistic standards. When I see a reference to that, I know it is not worth reading. CBS might be somewhat different. And, it is possible that the science did not warrant that award. It is also possible that it was warranted - the doctor in the article said in his opinion there is a possiblity of the injury occurring for the reason determined (so it is not impossible), and that doctor did not see the evidence at trial. Also, this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if patient understood risks of a particular procedure. Is that a bad thing?
3. You think that non-economic damages can be awarded without a finding of negligence. That is not true. Whether you agree with the finding of negligence may be another story.
4. If you think that a jury is not capable of determining negligence, then perhaps you would be more comfortable with something else? Like what? What would be more independent or fairer? At the end, it is up to the rules of evidence as to what comes in and what doesn't (as far as expert testimony) and up to juries. Perhaps a jury made up only of medical doctors would be preferable (I'm sure they would be fair in assessing the actions of one of their own)?
5. " Now, cost isn't only driven by lawsuits, big pharma[2] and private for-profit care also have a hand in it, -- but lawsuits is a factor." Okay. How much a factor or do you know, are lawsuits a part of the cost of travel insurance?
6. You also don't like contingent fees. How do you propose to give those who can't afford lawyers a fair access to the courts, to remedy injury? Or do you? I happen to think doctors (at least specialists in the US) make far too much, and I don't know many doctors who are willing to accept Medicare, or Medicaid.
7. You think lawyers should work for free, or assume all the risk of litigation without compensation for that risk? And, the US is not the only country that allows contingent fees. In the US, anyway, there is a maxim that for every right there is a remedy. There is a philosophy in the US about fairness, and access to the courts, regardless of ability to pay. (And no, it isn't perfect). It's a pity there is not such a maxim about health care.
8. You quote GP Maxwell who likens the concern over BI with cell phones. First, I have no respect for GP Maxwell. I have read about his background. Second, I actually know something about cell phones since I am an electrical engineer that designed cell phone systems for 15 years. The parallel is absurd. (Yes, the FDA has regulatory power, but it is not the same, I don't believe, but I am not an expert in FDA regulation). The health effects of RF radiation are pretty well known, unlike rupture with BI. There is no suggestion that rupture of a cell phone might create a special problem. One is not testing a person with implants to determine illness. One would be testing to determine rupture.
9. You state, "A large statistical sample would be enough to determine the rupture rate-- you don't have to screen everyone." I agree. But there is no such study and insufficient data to determine rupture rate. There is a reason I keep coming back to that. The FDA has acknowledged the lack of data sufficient to determine rupture rate. So in lieu of approval for use and recommending follow-up with MRIs, perhaps approval for widespread use should have been delayed until there is such a large study.
10. If ultrasound is as effective at detecting rupture, then that would be a great (and cheaper) alternative. Your agreement that the recommendation to follow-up after implantation is 'political' is interesting. What would you do? Not tell women considering plastic surgery about this recommendation? Not tell them what the long-term expense and care would be? Or do you just think follow-up is not necessary?
11. You ask what the relationship is between rupture and pathology. Well, that is a good question. The answer is that we don't know. And evidently, a lot of doctors don't care.

Finally, you ask this question:

If you encourage dishonestly about this-- how are doctors supposed to figure-out that BIs may actually be the cause of the problem?

My interest is that women find proper treatment. If I thought doctors had any interest in finding out if BIs may actually be a cause of any systemic problem, I would not advise this. However, I do not think the majority of doctors have any interest in finding out. I absolutely believe that the chance that a doctor would refuse to treat a woman (who says she has BI and worries there may be a problem) is greater than the chance a doctor would show any curiosity whatsoever. In fact, I think the mere question about BI engenders a hostile reaction and a bias against further investigation. That is a danger, when there might actually be a health problem. And I think it goes back to doctors' hostility towards lawyers and what they deem to be bogus claims.

Jance 00:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays!

Just thought I would add a "Happy Holiday".

1. I suspect it is ignored by many plastic surgeons -- absolutely. It is meaningless.
2. Generally, I think there should be manditory adverse event reporting[14]--something I think will happen when the medical community gets their act together on information technology. Beyond that, I think there should be post-market launch review/studies. Unfortunately, even the "mandatory" review/studies were ignored in the US ("adjunct studies") so I don't expect it to get any better after launch.
3. To that there is probably some truth.[15] That said, I think is just an indication that there are (1) some serious problems with the system and (2) some people with wildly unrealistic expectations. Yes, and not all on the part of 'plantiffs' or their lawyers.
4. As to Bi issues. My concern is that there will be no research on the long term effects of rupture. You wonder why I keep coming back to this. Pretty amazing that after 40 years and all these studies, there is not enough data on any one implant style to determine rupture rate or the effect of rupture. And since doctors don't seem interested,I suspect there never will be. For the majority of docs (and probably 99.9% of plastic surgeons) it is a 'done deal'. The only interest in research was that which was necessary to obtain FDA approval. And the only interest of PS is in putting implants in, not what happens after they are in. It has been an eye-opener for me!
5. Overlawyered - You have to stop using this as a source. It's about as accurate as the Washington Times, possibly less so. That said, there is a difference between "negligence" and "product liability". Product liability is "strict liability" - the product has a defect, the defect caused an injury & the product was defective at the time it left the defendant's possession. There is not an issue of 'standard of care' in strict liability. Don't know if you were aware of the difference. It is not possible in a negligence case, for damages (any kind of damages) to be awarded without a finding of negligence. End of story. Anything that tells you otherwise is simply untrue. And, a finding of negligence is anything but a 'technicality'. As to strict liability - there is no recovery unless all the elements of the claim are proven. It just drives me crazy when rags like "Overlawyered" butcher reality. And "Overlawyered" is pretty good at it.Jance 06:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more

4. How about judges? That's how it is done here[9] for the most part (in civil proceedings) and I'm happy with that being so. Where I'm from we have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US... and the health system costs less too.

I assume you are Canadian? What do you think is different about judges here? Jance 21:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cell phones do not rupture inside a person's body. The studies about the rate of rupture or effects are not 30 years. More like 3-4 years, and very scant at that. Most of the 'volumes' of research either excludes women who removed ruptured implants and does not study women who have had rupture over time. So the analogy is completely wrong.

As to health insurance - yes, the US is in a sorry mess. No argument from me.Jance 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

[edit] Email

I emailed you. Here is the concluding sentence in the medical journal article:

"High cohesive gel implants may not be as safe as is commonly believed and all implant ruptures, irrespective of the cohesiveness of the silicone gel, should be investigated thoroughly."

I am not speculating on what the long term effect of migration is, so please do not put words in my mouth. The fact is that doctors do not know, because it has not been studied over time. The local effects are obvious, and recent local findings (in studies) suggest that further research is needed to determine whether these can result in systemic problems over time. You know that this will not happen, with the current attitude of doctors regarding this issue.Jance 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of help please

Hi Nephron, As you have much more knowledge of Wikipedia procedures than me you might be able to tidy-up a couple of my recent contributions; particularly Victor Parsonnett where the stub article headline does not spell the name correctly, and the article Cardiac resynchronization therapy where I suggest deletion because of duplication. Both are a long way from nephrology but it's more about Wikipedia procedure than clinical procedures.

Not happy to see the flack you got re breast implants which seems to be more about opinions/emotions/semantics than clinical reality. I could add a relevant comment but maybe best to let it cool. Geoffrey Wickham 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Geoffrey Wickham

[edit] Proposed merge of WP:DRUGS and WikiProject Pharmacology

Hello there. I'd like to bring to your attention that a merge between WikiProject Drugs and the newly-created WikiProject Pharmacology has been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs#WikiProject Pharmacology. As you are a participant, I would appreciate it if you could weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SVG??

Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. Anyway, please resond on my user-talk page. Thanks. --Green-Dragon 06:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bioartificial liver device

Nice one! Enjoyed the read. Consider DYK? -- Samir धर्म 06:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even see liver dialysis -- Samir धर्म 06:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Off topic but I'm very proud of this one: referral as asthma -- x-ray. Even gastroenterologists can make medical diagnoses from time to time -- Samir धर्म 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine nav template list update

I've made an attempt to update and sort the listing of medicine navigation templates. Could you look over it? There are one or two duplicates in the mix.

I've seen other navigation templates that have links to related topics or back to a top level template in the title bar... for example, a small link at the top of "arteries of head and neck" that returns you to the template for "circulatory system". I think something along those lines to make moving around between templates easier would be really helpful... I'll try to find an existing example of what I mean. Robotsintrouble 13:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medecine

Hi Nephron,
I am also a medical student (at UBC); I noticed that you did some work on Elizabeth McMaster's article. Are you a med student at Mac?

cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.161.186 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

You should sign-up. :) There are a whole bunch of med students around and projects devoted to preclinical (Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine aka WP:PCM) and clinical medicine (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine aka WP:CLINMED). The doctor's mess is here... feel free to drop by there. Nephron T|C 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Hi, Nephron. It's about time someone awarded you another barnstar. (Looking through your archive, you have only received two.)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Nephron, for numerous contributions to medical articles. Axl 14:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Welcome, Nephron, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
• Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
• We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

Here are some tasks you can do:

• Requests: Bishop of Fulda, Winfried Hassemer, Balje, Henning Voscherau
• Copyedit: Kleinstaaterei, Die Räuber, Erich von dem Bach
• Unreferenced: Franz Josef Jung, Limburger Dom, High German languages, Christmas pyramid, President of Germany, 1954 FIFA World Cup Final, Erika Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Amelie Beese
• Cleanup: Wedel, Heidelberg, Bremerhaven, Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens, Düsseldorf-Volmerswerth, Frankfurt Book Fair
• Disambiguation: Elector, German
• Stubs: Erich Ribbeck, Kronach, Tegernsee (lake), Römisch-Germanisches Museum, Burg Eltz, Democratic Awakening
• NPOV: Erich von Manstein, Anti-German sentiment, Willy Brandt, German Visa Affair 2005, Germanisation, German-American relations
• Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture
• Other: Help tag Germany-related articles with the project template and assess their quality

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Agathoclea 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Eastern Germany

Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 05:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renal tubular acidosis

Hi Nephron, When you have a moment-would you like to check out renal tubular acidosis? I've been polishing the article for a while now, and would like an expert's outside eye to see what changes need to be made before I think about nominating it as a good article. Cheers, mate.FelixFelix ^talk 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Saw your kidney tubule page. I agree with you, and not Stedman. Dan Levy 18:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

hi, just to let u know that i've copied Image:Wch c1219.jpg over to commons (as Image:Womens College Hospital Toronto.jpg in order to use in this Wikinews article. best,Doldrums 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Your thoughts are much appreciated! Don't feel guilty, you said what you thought, that's exactly what everyone is supposed to do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tooth

Hey, I noticed you were involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy, and I need some feedback! I had asked a question about the Tooth article because I do not know what would be the best way to deal with information on human vs animal teeth. Most of the information is about human teeth. So, should there be a separate "animal teeth" article that the section should show as the main article or should the majority of the content in the tooth article be moved to a "human tooth" (or would this be an exception to have plural: "human teeth") article? What are your thoughts on the matter? My initial instinct was to keep the article as is and make a new article about animal teeth for the section to refer to, but I did not know if most anatomy articles try to keep a certain format when addressing that issue. I have had one suggestion to move most of the information to a "human tooth" or "human teeth" article. I would appreciate any ideas. Thanks! - Dozenist talk 01:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou! - Dozenist talk 10:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

I agree SV x2 deletions against consensus, and has been applying other significant changes without discussion (eg promoting Attribution as if it is yet accepted as the umbrela policy for reliable sources,verify etc). I've reinserted the points and added a fresh discussion thread. David Ruben ^Talk 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)