User talk:Nmg20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Anatomy 2 preclinical medicine project? 3 Merging of myoclonic seizure into Myoclonus 4 Connecting tubule 5 Good spot! 6 Clinical Depression? Category 7 Mr. Williams' "depression" (again) 8 It's me - again. 9 Lung cancer 10 Medical genetics 11 Electroconvulsive therapy 12 News Update: Medical Genetics Wikiproject article assesment 13 Note 14 Railway problems again 15 Filter and the toxicity of sidestream smoke 16 Re: Editing talk pages 17 C/EBP 18 Stupid? 19 69.141.30.12 attack on passive smoking 20 Check user procedure 21 AcetylcholineAgonist = BlowingSmoke 22 Your recent checkuser request

[edit] Anatomy

Hey Nmg20, good anatomy work being done there! Thanks. How about putting something about yourself on your userpage. No need to be serious. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 6 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Hey - I've added something. Afraid that with exams next week I find it hard to be anything *but* serious - but hey. Thanks for the compliment, too!

Nick.

I work accross the road from you. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)

[edit] preclinical medicine project?

hi, I am PhatRita, a medical student. I have been given your name by user: JFW as someone who would be interested in a preclinical medicine project. If you check out the the Clinical Medicine talk page, I have stated my proposal. In essence, I think we can create a project which has a centralised organisation in which can override some of the problems which human anatomy and other sciences faces. I have seen your name in many anatomy edits and think that your input here is vital. Please mail me with ideas etc, I would be very happy to hear from you.

PhatRita 12:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of myoclonic seizure into Myoclonus

You never gave a reason on the talk page of either article. I find odd that an entire disease article be merged into an article about a symptom of more than one disease.--Rmky87 20:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What I actually suggested was the opposite of what you say, i.e. that the article about the seizures be merged into the article about myoclonus.

Did I not say, "merging of myoclonic seizure into Myoclonus"? Or do you mean that the mergeto and mergefrom tags are in the wrong places? You're confusing me.

My rationale was that there was (and still is) very little information on the seizure page, and that it would make more sense alongside the 'normal' (non-pathological) variant of the condition. I'm happy to leave them separate, however.

The myoclonus article lead says, "Most often myoclonus is one of several symptoms in a wide variety of nervous system disorders such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease."

As an aside, I don't agree that myoclonic seizure is a disease per se - the disease is epilepsy, surely, and it's a symptom of that disease?

In that case, I'd suggest moving to the vacant myoclonic epilepsy page. The "disease" thing was me not knowing what exact word to use.

With Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and the others listed above, the myoclonus is only a small part of it. With myoclonic epilepsy, it is not. That about covers the things I can think of to say.--Rmky87 21:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Connecting tubule

Hello. I noticed that you are a participant in the WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. The article Connecting tubule has been nominated for deletion. As this is an anatomical subject I was hoping to get somebody within the project to adopt the article for expansion. I could find no way to add the article to this project. I hope you or your fellow particpants would consider adopting this article to love. James084 22:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good spot!

We should have beaten them, though :( HornetMike 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical Depression? Category

Hello,

• Williams's frequent bouts with depression, especially the fear that like his sister, Rose, he would go insane. The death of his lover drove Williams into a deep, decade-long episode of depression

This does not constitute a clinical diagnosis!

• Because of a lifelong battle with her weight as well as depression due to the long illness and subsequent death of her husband, Rice's weight rose to 254 pounds.

This does not constitute a clinical diagnosis!

Unless there is documented evidence with an appropriate reference to the fact, a person should not be categorized as having been diagnosed with anything.

I have deleted many from this Category, and will continue to do the same with others that I find have no clinical basis.

Stating that a person had a ‘heavy feeling in their chest’ does not qualify them to be categorized as having been diagnosed with cardiovascular disease.

Will you delete the Categories from the Williams’ & Rice Articles, or shall I?

Be healthy,

Michael David 23:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,

Show me the evidence of a formal diagnosis of clinical depression having been made by a clinician in either the Williams' or Rice cases. As a clinician myself, I will accept no less.

If you wish to take this discussion to other clinicians, I'm all for it. But to discuss clinical diagnoses with the general population is absurd.

You should know better than that!

Be healthy,

Michael David

Hello,

"probably had major depressive episodes" IS NOT A CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS!!

End of issue!

I will continue to delete any Article that claims Clinical diagnosis by citing such speculation.

Be healthy,

Michael David 01:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Williams' "depression" (again)

Hello - again,

Re: The Tennessee Williams citation. Let’s present to some common sense here. You are providing one source to support a statement. However, for the reader to access this source they must pay a fee! So if the reader doesn’t have the price of the fee, they must take your word for it. Would you do this in a paper you submitted to a journal?

Regards,

Michael David 22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You said: Yes, of course I would cite journals which you have to pay for in articles for submission. Otherwise I would not be able to cite articles from the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, the BMJ, etc, etc. More to the point, Wikipedia's policy does not require that citations are from free journals, although it's certainly preferable.

I agree. If we were presenting to an audience of medical professionals we would expect them to have access to the particular journals you cited. But, in Wikipedia, I believe it would be accurate to say we are not.

I have tried to reason with you. Now it is time to see what the Wikipedia community thinks about your wanting a Wikipedia user to pay for information in a free encyclopedia.

As for the present Wikipedia policy; perhaps it never occurred to the persons responsible for creating the policies that it would even be an issue. Perhaps it it is time to revisit them.

Regards,

Dr. Michael David 10:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving the article as it stands for now and taking it to mediation and then dispute if needs be

Good. The issue needs to be discussed.

Dr. Michael David 12:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hello,

I concede the argument regarding fee-required sources within Wikipedia. I opened the topic for discussion on the Wikipedia Village Pump, and the vast majority of participants apparently see no problem with it. So be it.

I have had misgivings about the Clinical Depression Category from the time I first came upon it. I have voiced my concerns in several places, including the “Categories for Deletion/Renaming” section.

In light of the decisions I have decided to ignore the Category and move on to other areas. I am going to do the following, however: We have an E-mail network where I can send messages to thousands of practitioners, rehabilitation centers, and other professionals at one time. We use this to disseminate new information that’s come along in the work. I intend to use this network to alert the profession of the Wikipedia Category.

Regards,

Dr. Michael David 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's me - again.

Hello, again,

Thank you for your further work on the Tennessee Williams Article. I’m afraid it struck quite a nerve for me. 1) Because I wrote a major psych. profile paper on Williams in post-grad school, which makes me particularly protective of the man as regards any writing done about him; and 2) My work for the past 40+ years has been primarily in the field of Clinical Psychology. A great many of the persons I have worked with over these years have been artists of various disciplines; the majority of which have been stage and screen performers, writers and directors. Yes, many suffered from depression; some simply mood transient, some seriously clinically depressed. All were in fear of being stigmatized as being seen as sick and/or weak, and that this would somehow diminish them in the eyes of ‘their public’ (which is an entirely separate issue). Our culture doesn’t handle what they see as ‘mental’ or ‘emotional’ problems in others very well. All this to say the Category as it is named greatly bothers me, and my reaction to the Williams Article reflected that ‘bother’.

I hope we have a chance in the future to work together on something in Wikipedia.

Be healthy,

Michael David 00:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lung cancer

Hi! I started work on it (see it's talk page). I have plenty of jobs on other projects but I want this article to become at least WP:GA. Hope to work together. :) NCurse _work 15:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical genetics

I've established Template:MedGen to classify articles in the project. Please help if you have time. Thanks. NCurse _work 16:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electroconvulsive therapy

Hello. I saw your reversion of the ECT article. While I do agree that the material you deleted was blatantly biased, I disagree with your statement that the material was unreferenced. All of the quotations were cited with sources. While Loper may not be considered a reliable source, Breeding is a doctorate in School Psychology. I may not have included his reference, but I did include his name, the name of his book containing the quotation, the year, the publisher, and/or the Web page. His opinions of reality may be inaccurate, but his opinions are still real, and they deserve mention. Perhaps the complete quotation was inappropriate, but some citation of Breeding's views are appropriate, I think.

On the talk page, I saw that other users have commented about the lack of references to Leonard Roy Frank, a famous ECT survivor and commentator on the practice. I am displeased that certain opinions are being promoted in the guise of "science" and relative "objectivity," while other opinions are not allowed a forum. To be human is to have cultural and other biases. In his book 'Wonderful Life,' Stephen Jay Gould uncovered how biases that would be more obvious in other fields are often more subtle in the sciences. For years, many scientists believed that humans were the apex of evolution, with all other species leading up to our superior design. Gould questioned the scientificness of that supposedly "scientific" maxim. So I don't think an opinion can be rightfully criticized by being called "unscientific," when "scientific" isn't always what it purports to be.

Chris Dubey 01:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nick, thank you for your reply on my talk page. Also, thank you for you reconsideration of the editions. An abridged version of Breeding's opinions would be fine with me, as I do realize how vehement his quotation was. I will take a look at your revision, but it sounds like it will be fine.

I'm not a very experienced user, but I know Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and my additions came close to that. I don't want to turn the article into a platform; I just want all opinions and evidence to be represented, with civility. I suppose you're right that the sciences tend to be objective, but I just want everyone to beware of those times when it isn't, like when social Darwinism was used to claim and explain how negroes evolved into caucasians.

As for ECT, I know it can be helpful to some, especially when it is voluntary. But there are those other instances when ECT becomes an issue of violation of civil liberty and civil right.

Well, thank you again.

Chris Dubey 02:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw your kind reply to my post on Talk:Electroconvulsive therapy. I doubt that anyone will find any huge recent US mortality trials as ECT is a procedure which is probably most often performed on wealthy (or at least well insured) people in private hospitals, the sort of people who don't do clinical trials. These abstracts may be helpful in the search, though I don't know their full contents. 1) Morbidity and mortality in the use of electroconvulsive therapy. J ECT. 2004; 20(4):237-41 (ISSN: 1095-0680) Nuttall GA et al. 2) Electroconvulsive therapy and newer modalities for the treatment of medication-refractory mental illness. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002; 77(6):552-6 (ISSN: 0025-6196)Rasmussen KG et al. 3) The effect of electroconvulsive therapy on suicide risk in patients with mood disorders. Can J Psychiatry. 2001; 46(8):704-9 (ISSN: 0706-7437)Sharma V., 4) The efficacy and safety of ECT in depressed older adults: a literature review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003; 18(10):894-904 (ISSN: 0885-6230) van der Wurff FB et al. 5) [Electroconvulsive therapy as maintenance therapy and for prevention of recurrence in psychiatric disorders and Parkinson disease] Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2003; 115(9):281-90 (ISSN: 0043-5325)Willeit M et al. 6)Patients'perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy: systematic review. BMJ. 2003; 326(7403):1363 (ISSN: 1468-5833)Rose D et al.

I would hope that in the UK there is better access to unpopular forms of medical care than in the US. I like your editing style. Keep up the good work.Trilobitealive 01:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News Update: Medical Genetics Wikiproject article assesment

One of the tasks of the WP:MEDGENP is to assess all unrated articles listed on the article rating page so that the quality of the articles within the scope of the project can be seen at a glance. This was previously updated only manually, but now the ratings are also harvested daily by a bot and the results posted here, with significant changes from the previous rating listed here. If you would like to assess an article relating to genetic disorders you can add the relevant template to the article talk page, which will add the article to the relevant category and will be monitored by the bot.

A new assessment category {{GA-Class}} (Good Article) has been added for articles that have been assessed as a Good Article.

There is also a new category Category:Acquired genetic disorders for genetic disorders that are not inherited. Please add this category to any articles you think may qualify.

If you are registered to use the AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) (requires Windows 2000/XP + .NET framework v.2) there is a Wikipedia Assessments plugin that is designed to make the assessment process faster and easier (about the plugin / user guide). It has an assessments mode, for reviewing articles, and a talk page tagging mode for reviewing articles. Users with more than 500 mainspace edits can register to use the AWB.

[edit] Note

You just posted a message in User:Alec - U.K. instead of User talk:Alec - U.K.. Thanks for working on the problem, there appears to be a lot of cleanup needed. I'm almost inclined to revert every railway station edit. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railway problems again

I just reverted Tulse Hill railway station to your previous changes, along with some other edits of his. I think we have a real problem there, and I'm not sure how to approach it. Perhaps they are in reality very sophisticted vandalism, not just bad judgement. --ArmadilloFromHell 20:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filter and the toxicity of sidestream smoke

The filter is not the reason why secondhand smoke is more toxic and contains higher concentrations of carcinogens than mainstream smoke. The reason was known to the tobacco industry since the early sixties. This difference in toxicity is explained by the lower temperature (by approx. 150°C) at which the cigarette burns when it's left to smolder by itself. When the smoker draws a puff from the cigarette, the temperature at the buring end raises by 150° C and this affects the chemical composition of the smoke. Dessources 13:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be added that the tests which are used to compare the toxicity of sidestream smoke and mainstream smoke are done at equal levels of concentration of smoke particulate matter. The filter reduces the concentration of particulate matter but has no selective effect on carcinogens. It's only the disinformation of the toabcco industry which made people believe that the filter was "stopping cancer", a myth that the sentence about the filter would tend to propagate. Dessources 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Editing talk pages

I'm sorry. I thought it was an honest mistake and meant well by changing it. I didn't know that the spelling was correct in your region. I'll try to remember not to correct your spelling anymore and thanks for coming out and telling me (otherwise I'd continue indefinitely). No problem about the flamer. I was getting bored with all the uncreative attempts to shift the page towards smoking; it was more interesting to actually discuss the idea than just undoing a change of something like smoke, it's good for you. --Smokeresearcher 19:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. To be honest, I doubt he'll find anythinng credible, but as much as I hate smoking, it may be interesting if he does. It is always good to know the other side of an argument. I know a significant amont about why not to smoke nor allow it in public, but little contrary evidence outside a few myths about dangers. As it appeared (to me), he was just offended at my request for a better tone of voice, and thus distracted from whatever he originally intended. Maybe that will eventually change. Most flamers give up if they can't provoke a desired (but generally undesired) response and otherwise he might give up in is search for scientific pro-smoking evidence. Oh well... In either case, he seemed more mature than most of the recent pro-smoking editors; after all, he did post a complaint in the discussion page first. Even if it was to get a rise out of everyone, perhaps it was better than vandalism. Peace out. --Smokeresearcher 06:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C/EBP

Hi. I'm a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify, and in reviewing articles to wikify, I ran across C/EBP. I believe this article's subject may be a duplicate of Ccaat-enhancer-binding proteins which redirects to CCAAT box. I looked up your name as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine who might be more knowledgeable or have subject matter expertise and be able to assist in determining what to do with the C/EBP article and its contents. Thanks. -- Whpq 03:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid?

I'd be careful calling people "stupid" [1]. Could be percieved as a personal attack. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 69.141.30.12 attack on passive smoking

I think we should put a stop at the repeated attempts of 69.141.30.12 (probably also BlowingSmoke and Moderation) to remove the reference to causality from the summary of the Passive smoking article. As you certainly know, the notion of causality is central to the issue of passive smoking - this is the very point on which the denial policy of the tobacco industry has concentrated over the last 30 years. Removing it from the summary of the article is to amputate it of a key concept. 69.141.30.12 edits are not backed by any reference, they do not reflect the consensus of the editors. But he/she keeps coming back with his change, always the same, in spite of the fact that he/she was reverted by several different editors. If you want to start a conflict resolution procedure, I will follow you. Dessources 13:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up to my message above, I'd like to draw your attention to the request I have submitted concerning a suspected sock puppeteer activity by BlowingSmoke and the violation of the 3RR rule. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke. --Dessources 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check user procedure

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

[edit] AcetylcholineAgonist = BlowingSmoke

I agree with you that AcetylcholineAgonist is clearly another manifestation of old BlowingSmoke. I did not expect BlowingSmoke to easily give up his attempts to disrupt the Passive smoking article. However, as his main name is now fairly discredited by his proven abuse of sock puppetry, it is no surprise that he would come back under a new name. Interestingly, AcetylcholineAgonist, alias BlowingSmoke, has now opted for a highly dynamic IP address (196.25.255.246), with probably the hope that this will make it more difficult for the Wikipedia administrators to detect his eventual future use of sock puppetry, and thus will avoid him being caught as he was the first time. Indeed, AcetylcholineAgonist has indicated, shortly before registering, that his IP "is one of the most dynamic I've seen". It is also interesting to note that an identical edit (insertion of NPOV) as done by AcetylcholineAgonist, with IP 196.25.255.246, was done by user 41.243.210.79 (See [2]). It appears that both 196.25.255.246 and 41.243.210.79 are IP addresses belonging to TelKom South Africa, showing indeed the highly dynamic character of the IP addresses obtained via this ISP.

The method used by this user seems to keep coming back with the same highly biased remarks and edits, to flood the discussion with the same blatantly bad faith contributions, which are totally unsensitive and unresponsive to the remarks of the other editors, and to stage what appears to be a war of attrition. Predictably, he will pursue this war in the hope that the other editors of this article will get so fed up in the end that they will throw the towel and give up. However, although BlowingSmoke's, alias AcetylcholineAgonist's, attempts may temporarily succeed in at least one aspect, i.e. in wasting everybody's time (including his own time) and distracting the editors' energy away from improving the article, I am confident that this type of brute force stratagem will flatly fail. On Wikipedia, it seems that, no matter what, good faith always manages to prevail in the long run.

--Dessources 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent checkuser request

You recently submitted a request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke. A clerk has moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant temporarily; this does not mean the request has necessarily been accepted or rejected, as clerks are generally concerned with maintenance and upkeep, not making decisions on the merit of any given request. Please select and provide one code letter from the top of WP:RFCU, and then follow the instructions in the box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant. Thank you for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk