User talk:Delldot/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Delldot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Hello, Delldot. You have new messages at Nk.sheridan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK

On 29 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article pulmonary contusion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royal broil 03:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleveland

Several editors have accused Cutler J. Cleveland of spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch delldot talk 09:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

queen e

hey u asshole whats ur problem u keep deleting my post just leave it alone whats it to u eh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safaabas (talk • contribs)

My reply delldot talk 03:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm trolling but...

...you kill me. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Swik, it's always so nice to get a note from you. I love userpage vandalism, don't you? I guess I just like attention. I see each one as a little affirmation that I'm doing something right. :P I collect them (in the page history!). You would think the big-ass rainbow would be more of a draw for them, but actually the 'ur gey' vandalism has gone down since I put that up. Now why would that be? It's not exactly like they're not into going for the obvious joke. delldot talk 13:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yo!

First of all, I 100% agree about our new conversation-thread-keeping-together test. I like it, I think it works well and I'm gonna make it my official means of replying to messages left on my talk page from now on.

Second, don't make fun of the vandals for not going in for the obvious joke because Yours Truly here, who's seen your user page maybe 100 times, did not even notice that the colour scheme is a rainbow. I just thought you liked colours!!!! I'm not always the brightest lamp on the street so I completely missed the rainbow and the significance of its intent. Ha!

Anyways, I may need a second cup of cofee.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can be forgiven for overlooking it because presumably you're not that fascinated by my sexuality; but what's the vandals' excuse, for whom it's apparently the biggest issue facing our world today? :P You'd think that for such a pressing matter they'd be paying a little more attention to the clues. delldot does like colors! 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Improving neurotransmitter

Hey delldot; I thought I might pass on a few ideas to expand upon and include in the neurotransmitter article. Consider it a sub-stub for improvement :P cheers user:mattycoze (May 5, 12:35pm)

Classes of neurotransmitter

Neurotransmitters may be classified into two broad categories; Excitatory and inhibitory.

Excitory neurotransmitters are released from the presynaptic vesicles and lead to an increase in intracellular sodium concentration on the post-synaptic cleft. Extracellular sodium ions diffuse into the cell and intracellular potassium ions diffuse out of the cell via the post-synaptic cell through open channes in the post synaptic membrane. The simultaneous flow of sodium and potassium leads to an 'depolarisation' of the post synaptic cell. The initial depolarisation is propagated further along cell membrane by an action potential.

- how does it do that?

Inhibitory neurotrasmitter encourages the hyperpolarisation of the post-synaptic membrane, making the post-synaptic neuron less likely to generate an action potential.

- how does it do that?

Degradation of neurotransmitter

Neurotransmitter must be broken down once it reaches the post-synaptic cell to prevent further excitatory or inhibitory signal transduction. For example, acetylcholine (an excitatory neurotransmitter), is broken down by acetylcholinesterase (AchE). Choline is taken up and recycled by the pre-synaptic neuron to synthesise more ACH.

- half lives of neurotransmitters, (include a list - explain how each differs).
- elimination of neurotransmitters

Synthesis pathways of neurotransmitters

- probably include a list of neurotransmitters, a brief description and then a link to individual pathways

Effects - change heading to "Actions of neurotransmitters in the body"

- The enteric nervous system;
- Cardiac muscle
- The sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems

You are so rad mattycoze! I'll start on these, definitely be bold and jump in yourself. I think we should leave some of the detail, e.g. about how the action potential works, to those more specific pages (in this case, action potential), otherwise we'll end up with a 2000 page tome. :P What do you think of the bit I just added? delldot on a public computer talk 05:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah nice work. Mattycoze (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Diorama (album)

Huggles! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Will work for huggles. delldot on a public computer talk 04:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rashied Ali Biography edited by Greg Murphy

I recently edited and updated Rashied's bio on his myspace page. Basically i combined several bios and updated it, contributing the last 2 paragraphs.

This (the new bio)is what we're going to use for press and festival info. I've been performing with him for over 20 years (pianist), and over the past several years have been helping him with promotion, publicity, tour facilitation, etc.

The one you have is incomplete and contains a lot of irrelevant info, in my opinion.

How can we get the current bio on your site?

I'll reprint below.

Thanks,

Greg Murphy67.81.144.225 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Greg, welcome, and thanks for the note. Sorry I jumped to conclusions, we get a ton of people posting info from other people's sites without permission, so I assumed the addition was just another copyright violation like that. Unfortunately, since the info was first published on another site, it makes it a bit more tricky to have that exact material here, because anything added to Wikipedia must be compatible with the GFDL, basically meaning anyone can use and modify it. So we'd need an email from the site or a note on the site itself releasing the content under a free license. I can help you with that if you want to go that route.

Personally, though, I think it'd be way easier to just rewrite the material so it's original. That way, it would also be easier to make it comply with other requirements for material on Wikipedia. For example, every fact requires a citation from a published source to meet the verifiability policy.

About your question, I would suggest dealing with each part you want changed individually. If you see a statement in the article that you think is inaccurate or problematic, I'd mention on the article's talk page (In this case talk:Rashied Ali) what the problem is with it (part of editing policy is to keep material unless there's a problem with it). That way no one will think you're just vandalizing when you remove it. You can also leave a edit summary explaining what you're doing and why. I think dealing with each piece individually like that will be much more successful than removing large chunks wholesale. That way you can avoid offending the person or people who worked on the article.

As for adding stuff that's in your own words to the article, go ahead! Just make sure it's got references and it's neutral in tone. Sorry for the loads of info, let me know if you need any help or anything. Peace, delldot talk 05:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

rashied's bio

Hi Delldot,

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Thanks for your suggestions, they make a lot of sense.

Editing the page "as is," explaining edits and citing references is a bit much for me at the moment.

I'm a slow typist! Your suggestion for rewriting the entire bio makes the most sense in order to submit to Wikipedia.

Perhaps I'll do so in the future.

Here's a link to his page, which is his "official site" at the moment

http://www.myspace.com/rashiedali

So can i put a note on his site releasing the info? -which is basically a synthesis of several bios...

Thanks

Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.144.225 (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

True, that way is a little labor-intensive. :( Yes, if you can show that you're the author of the material and you release it under a free license compatible with the GFDL on the site it's originally published on, that should be enough for us to be able to use it (however, we'd have to integrate it with the material already in the article, which I could help with). Thanks for your willingness to add to the project, sorry to make it harder for you! Peace, delldot talk 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

General Q about Wikipedia

Hey Delldot; I wanted to know what the (+n), e.g. (+323) number means in items enlisted on a user "watchlist"? Mattycoze (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's how many bytes of info (how many characters) were added (or, if it's red, taken away). So, for example, if it's +4, odds are someone added an interwiki link ([[this thing]]).

In other news, have you seen neurotransmission? Talk about a page that really needs work. Do you think neurotransmitter and neurotransmission should be different pages, or should they be merged? Usually I work on pages with a much, much narrower scope, so I'm kind of like 'huuuuh?' here. On the plus side, there's very little we could do to bugger it up. :P

I'm so excited that you're getting involved in the project! delldot talk 19:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I've had a look at the Neurotransmission page, it seems a few statements are a little ambiguous; Without nerve impulses an organism is clinically dead, so they are essential for the organism's existence... I would probably put in place of that the following; "Nerve impulses are essential for the propagation of signals. These signals are sent to and from the central nervous system via efferent and afferent neurons in order to coordinate smooth, skeletal and cardiac muscles, bodily secretions and organ functions critical for the long-term survival of multicellular vertebrate organisms such as mammals."

In other articles, check out Maternal effect... I've contributed a fair bit so far, but I feel think that Paternal effect should be moved to a separate article and made into a stub for the meantime. It still needs a lot of work, perhaps - if you're interested, you could take a look :P Mattycoze (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Great suggestion, especially with the whole not all organisms have nerve impulses thing. So implemented, with minor tweaks.

Very nice work on Maternal effect. I'm very impressed with your Wikipedian progress, you're brand new and already a pro! A couple suggestions would be to cite more sources, preferably from scientific review articles or textbooks, and to try to dumb down the language some for the lay reader, explaining non-basic concepts.

I agree that the paternal effect could be its own article, I say go for it. Looking at the page history, not many people have edited it recently, so no one's likely to jump on you for being bold. However, if you want to be cautious and suggest it on the talk page to make sure no one has objections, that is good practice. Inevitably, no one will object, and you can go ahead in a couple days (that's kind of the blessing and the curse of working on medical and neurobio articles: not much input from others, you're kind of on your own. Which is part of why I'm so psyched that you've joined up!). So if you'd like to start the article, I'd be glad to look at it and tweak it to conform to the manual of style and whatnot. Peace, delldot talk 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Q

Good day to all of your bright colours!!!

Question. Do you notify someone if you're requesting a checkuser on them? I'm not sure what the policy or even just Wiki-ettiquette is on this so that's why I ask. I just submitted my first RFCU and I couldn't find any notification templates on the WP:CHECKUSER page so I thought I'd come to my one-stop-shop for all things Wikipedia. That's you, in case you're wondering.

As usual, thanks, friend!

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Any time, friend! Always glad to hear from you. I would notify them, just out of courtesy, but it seems like it would be general practice too (but you have submitted one more RFCU than I have, so...). For example, you notify someone that you've mentioned them on ANI, so I imagine it'd be the same. Personally, I'd just leave them a note saying 'hey, I submitted an RFCU on you and here's why', but I'm sure there are probably templates for it too. Did you look at the talk pages of some other people that got listed? Peace, delldot talk 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried looking at other people's talk pages but I coudn't find anything. I think the reason why there is no general rule about placing formal notices to the accused parties regarding the RFCU is that, unlike ANI reports, the accused doesn't really get an opportunity to defend himself even if I do notify him. There's no debate other than "here's my reason for the request" and "request denied", "checkuser confirmed", that sort of thing. But it still seems like a common courtesy kind of deal that they should be advised. Maybe I'll just advise the concerned party in plain old English "You is being checkusered!" or something slightly warmer.

Thanks for trying!

Peace!

Oh, good points. Yeah, the plain English (or, you know, lolspeak or whatever :P) is what I'd go for too. delldot talk 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Diorama (album)

Hi, since you helped review this article, I'm informing you that it's now at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diorama (album). Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ping! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor Reviews

Hello! I would like to appreciate your reviewing efforts at Editor review, but after you went to wiki break a lot of review requests have been gathered at the page, that might need you to look at. Other thing why don't you try to make it a project with some members who can review other editors work. Hope you will consider this suggestion. --SMS ^Talk 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey SMS, thanks the note and for noticing my previous efforts at ER. I've been working more on article writing lately. I like doing editor reviews, but each one takes so much time, and I'm not that interested in getting back involved in that project at the moment, though I'm sure I'll get back to it at some point. I guess if someone comes to me and specifically requests a review I could be convinced to do one. It's great that you're recruiting for it though, how about focusing recruitment efforts on people who are requesting reviews? One idea I toyed with was letting it be known that I would only review people who had themselves already reviewed someone, and then going into as much depth as they had in their review. I never implemented it though, maybe you should try it. Thanks for helping out with that project, it definitely needs it. Peace, delldot talk 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: change of screen name

I had forgotten to mention: yes, I most definitely am dead certain that I want the online truth of me to be Artist Walser. Happy editing,--Padawan Animator (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, in that case follow the directions at WP:CHU. Let me know if you need any help or anything. Peace, delldot talk 04:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea. Maybe I would like to just start a new account under that screen name and use just that one from now on. Happy editing,--Padawan Animator (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that idea as much as changing your username through WP:CHU. You would lose all your contributions, and it would present problems in terms of openness and honesty, because it wouldn't necessarily be clear that it was you. Everything on Wikipedia runs on trust and reputation. Plus you don't want to get accusations of sock puppetry, and if you create a new account people might think you had something sketchy you were trying to cover up, kind of a shame since you don't.

Changing your name through chu is really easy; I did it when, like a dumbass, I registerred this account as "delldot on a public comptuer". You basically put your request, sign it, and wait for a bureaucrat to change your name.

I hope I'm not overstating my case here; creating a new account under these circumstances wouldn't be against the rules, provided you didn't still edit with this account and especially if you were open about what you're doing. It just seems like it's not the best way to go about it, especially since there's an easy way to change your name available. Let me know if you need any help or anything. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me. As you know, I just happen to think that Artist Walser is a much better screen name, especially since I decided to leave the term Padawan in the Star Wars universe and not to try and bring it into the world of animation. Happy editing,--Padawan Animator (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, let me know if you need any help with CHU. delldot talk 02:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK: pulmonary laceration

On 11 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article pulmonary laceration, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

You've got the picture slot, too. Cough! --PFHLai (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article, enjoyed it very much. Well done. JC Petit 18:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 05:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

new hypotheses

I made an unreferenced 'edit' relating to cell differentiation and also to 'lamella' (and maybe even another one but I am not sure). Those edits where made during my very first 'association' with wikipedia and done mainly to 'attract the attention' of someone who may be able to help me. You have already assisted by explaining that 'new theories' are 'discouraged' because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a chat-room. I hope YOU understand that I barely know how to use the internet and at this stage I am trying to find the right forum to 'propagate' the results of my 35 year research findings. I have been retired for some time and have a terminal illness. I know now what causes stem cell 'cell-type differentiation' (the holy grail) and how to achieve this in cultures. I have reams and reams of detailed and referenced data of supportive evidence and can explain dozens of previously 'unknown phenomena' and sub-cellular processes.

I was SpaceLabs Medical Products inaugural Tech. Rep. in Australia and have an on-going association with Dr Liisa Laakso, currently at Griffith Uni., G.C. Campus, in case you want 'bona fides'.

I am NOT interested in any reward whatever, but I know how desperately this info needs to be integrated into our futile and costly research efforts, and general knowledge bases. It is controversial and strongly opposed by drug-manufacturers ( I hope I hear back from you now). Liisa Laakso will support my 'rationality' but being still 'in the system' cannot support an hypothesis that will detract from the availability of her own research grants. Please contact me. My e-mail address is <removed> and even if you just re-direct me, I will be grateful. Bratko4223 (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. That's great that you're interested in spreading your knowledge for free. But I'm sorry, I don't really know how to help you. Have you tried searching Google to find forums to sites that discuss cell differentiation? Maybe try combinations search terms like 'cell differentiation forum' or 'cell differentiation wiki' and then look at each result for leads. Also, sometimes pubmed will list the author's email address in the abstract of an article, so you can do a pubmed search for relevant topics and email the authors of relevant articles. Even if they can't help you themselves because of the funding problem you mentioned, they may be able to point you in the right direction. Good luck! delldot talk 05:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Archive_bot_for_Wikipedia:Editor_review

Could you please comment on how to program an archival bot for Wikipedia:Editor review that is both feasible and advisable? My inclination is to keep the current system, i.e. alphabetical order, with the date of the first edit to the page noted. I am willing to sacrifice either of these points if it makes the bot operator's job easier. In other words, we could forget about alphabetical order and archive by month, or we could simply not bother to note the date of each individual request. I am posting this message to several users active at Editor Review to solicit opinions. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Zygomycosis

Hi there!

Me and another user have recently been editing Zygomycosis, the result of a few merges. As such, it's quite messy and i'd like to know how it reads to someone with a NPOV? If you could do this, it'd be smashing! Thanks a lot, feel free to reply here since i'm now watching your page. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll get to it in a day or two, since I have to leave pretty soon. delldot talk 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look, anyway :) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Familial hypercholesterolemia

I have implemented your next round of recommendations on familial hypercholesterolemia. Thanks for all your advice so far! JFW | T@lk 09:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We're GA! Thanks again for your help. I'm still hoping to sort out the treatment section of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Are you talking to any brain surgeons in the near future? JFW | T@lk 14:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm sorry I dropped the ball on that after the wikibreak. Unfortunately, I'm not talking to any brain surgeons in the near future (you do not know how much I wish I were!). Maybe we need to remove info that's so advanced even you aren't sure about it. I'll have a look in the next few days. delldot talk 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah...I see

No problem. With respect, Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 16:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

SubQ

This is Antelan; I'm taking a technology-enforced Wikibreak until June, and I won't have any access to my WP account until then, hence my posting from an IP. I glanced at your SubQ article and am in awe - incredible work! Please, feel free to merge over the work I started in any way that works for you. Regarding whether or not bacterial/gangrenous gas counts as SubQ: like you, I found a paucity of sources on that topic. My guess is that we'll have people on both sides of the issue. Why not state it in the article as you prefer (either that it counts or that it doesn't) and let others change it if they find sources? I certainly don't have a preference (or enough expertise to claim that it should or shouldn't count). I implied that it counts in my version of the article because I read that the gas in gangrenous wounds is often a heterogenous mixture of hydrogen, nitrogen, etc, making it "air-like" enough for me. But again, I have no preference. And again - fantastic work! -- Antelan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.45.74 (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much kind Antelan-as-IP! I think you're right that there are two sides, which is why I got so confused reading different things in different sources. I think I'll just say 'air can be trapped in tissues', as you did. It seems like it'd meet the technical definition, what with "emphysema" literally meaning "trapped air", but I get the feeling that not everyone thinks of that as real SCE. Have a good wikibreak, look forward to seeing you when you get back! Peace, delldot talk 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Zygomycosis

Thanks Delldot, that's exactly what I was looking for :)

I don't think I meant to talk about NPOV, more just how it read in general and if it comes across well to a reader not involved in the article itself. Thanks again :) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, glad it was helpful. See you around I hope, keep up the good work. delldot talk 06:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You too, i've no doubt we'll bump into each other again at some point. :) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your professional opinion Van Veldhoven Syndrome

Clearly, I have a high opinion of your opinion :)

Seeing that you do have more than just a solid knowledge of the medical field, what are your thoughts on the above mentioned new article? It was written by a casual editor Bigdog77 (talk · contribs) who, before this article, has mostly written about English football. Could this be a hoax or do you think it's genuine?

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome work as always SWik78, thanks for catching this. It's the worst kind of thing for the project, don't you think? I brought it to WT:MED and someone there brought it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Veldhoven Syndrome where it was G3'd. Glad you were paying careful attention and caught this! delldot on a public computer talk 22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Toodles!!! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Spina bifida

Sorry to be a pain but I was impressed by your willingness to do a review of Zygomycosis and was wondering, perhaps, if you could do a GA review for spina bifida? It's a solid B class, IMO, but i'd love to know how to push it to GA status. Thanks! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're basically asking for a peer review to see what it needs before GAC, right? No problem. If you could do me a favor first, though, it would save me time: Would you look through the review I did for Zygomycosis and implement anything that applies on Spina bifida too? (e.g. n dashes instead of hyphens for number ranges, basic MOS stuff that comes up all the time in reviews) I haven't looked yet, so you may have already done this. Gimme another poke here when it's ready. Thanks! :) delldot on a public computer talk 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a closer look at the article has revealed that it lacks a lot of important citations, so I think it would be futile of me to request a peer review in which that very issue will be raised ;) I'll get back in touch when I think i've cited the necessary items! Thanks anyway :) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 09:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks much for this heads up. Definitely give me another poke when you're ready for it! :) delldot on a public computer talk 09:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tungsten

Well, normally I'd use library books to improve the article, but I'm currently in debt and can't find my books to return. So yeah, just a little longer. Ziggy Saw dust 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, how much longer do you need? Another week? delldot on a public computer talk 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

White-winged Fairy-wren

OK, I have added some more monograph references, but juggling with some real-life stuff off-keyboard. If you can see anywhere else that begs a 2ndary source let me know. I have to go deal with European Robin too, which will teach me to nom two at once..:( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll give it another review as soon as I have the chance. Thanks for following up so quickly, you're on the ball! Wuh-oh, I hope I don't run into that trouble with my two GANs. What with how action-packed it's been so far, though, I kind of doubt I will. ;) delldot on a public computer talk 02:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have the two monographs now so will likely take it to FAC in a bit. I just need a breather once this staging point (GA) is reached. Referencing will be easy now :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Get down with your bad self Calisper! You're an article-writing machine! I'm way jealous. delldot on a public computer talk 02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm......ping? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey?

Hey, I though I should catch up with you after being a bit busy.........

Iv'e fixed my talk page up so now it should be a little more easier for people to navigate around and leave messages.

See you around

WS

WikiSandbox1 (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Good hearing from you again. Nice streamlining work there on your talk page. You know if you want that wikibreak template to work you gotta enclose it in double brackets, {{like this}}? See you soon I hope. delldot on a public computer talk 03:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Subcutaneous emphysema

Oh, I assure you it was a joint effort by everyone to raise pneumonia to FA status, I did very little in comparison to some! I'll have a look at SE this weekend and give it a review, although I can assure you it's not a stub class like the tag says ;) Which level are you aiming for with this article? GA or FA? I'll be in touch swiftly! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done a review here. Unfortunately or fortunately (whichever way you look at it!) it consists of only minor improvements mostly in regards to grammar or formatting! If I stumble across any major facts you may have missed, i'll get in touch, but as of yet I think you're spot on. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a ton Cyclone! I read the review and it's great, I'll get to work on it tonight at work if they don't make me work too much. :P

I can conceive of doing a GA for SE, but FA strikes me as kind of impossible: like I said, I don't really know anything about chest medicine (although if I had someone to collaborate with...). Plus, it's a hard thing to write about, because no one's like "here's my paper on subcutaneous emphysema"; they're all like "here's my paper about pneumothorax, with maybe a sentence about SE in there". Unless you count tons of case reports. So it's hard to find good sources. However, that doesn't mean I don't want to make it as good as possible; by all means, hold it to FA standards whether or not it's ever going to go to FAC. Thanks again, I appreciate the help! delldot talk 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're making a large assumption here that I also know anything in particular about chest medicine ;) I'm a 17 year old, hopefully to become a medical student but as of yet i'm simply a layperson with a very keen interest in medicine. My edits are mainly based around reliable sources I find at PubMed or via books I own! That said, my work experience was in respiratory medicine :) However, i'd be happy to work with you on SE if you still want my input!

Incidentally, there are a few good articles at PubMed so you might want to check there, you just have to thoroughly search through for free papers (as most have to be paid for!)

Glad I could be of use, your talk page is now on my watch list so feel free to reply here! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 22:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I would absolutely love to work with you on SE! It's so rare in my neck of WP:MED that anyone wants to work on articles I'm active on, it's a real treat. And I sure appreciate what you've done so far.

Yeah, I'm an amateur with a bit of medical work experience as well. Maybe others in WP:MED can help us out with the gaps. What did you do in your chest medicine job, if I'm not being too nosy by asking?

I'm very lucky in that I have access to a lot of medical journals online (often starting from about the mid-'90's). You know you're jealous! ;) But yeah, if you see any good reviews or whatnot, definitely point me to them, I may be able to get them. That goes for other articles you're working on too, I may be able to add stuff. Thanks again for the work you've put in to SE, I'm very excited about working with you! Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I was only there for a few days and it was essentially just observation and doing errands but I was lucky enough (although sadly) to see several conditions of which most were smoking related (such as emphysema and COPD). Unfortunately, that is the sad reality of chest medicine these days, it's almost entirely composed of smoking related disease. I see on your user page that you're an emergency medical technician and i've always thought that sounds like a really rewarding career. Oh, and I assure you i'm very jealous about your access to journals :P I have to rely entirely on the free ones which are, generally speaking, no where near as useful.

Anyway, i'll get to work on SE and will try and keep in touch on the talk page there and i'm sure we'll have further encounters elsewhere too! Look forward to collaborating with you! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 12:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I hear you about the smoking, that was definitely my experience when I rode the ambulance too (also made me pretty rabidly anti-drunk driving).

Yeah, I would definitely Gnaw off my hands if I didn't have journal access. Far be it from me to suggest that you befriend a college student and get them to give you their library card number for online access, because that would be like stealing, depriving the publishers of their right to sequester that knowledge away and only dole it out to people who can pay their exorbitant prices. Yeah. *Cough.*

Very much looking forward to seeing what you got for SE! :D delldot talk 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't had much chance to add anything yet! I've been looking fairly hard around the internet and there isnt much free content available! Thanks for your (hopefully) ongoing contributions to zygomycosis, it certainly needs the hard work :) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it's a volunteer project, and there's no deadline. Yeah, material on it is not easy to find, but I've been using google books a lot. Awesome work on zygomycosis, it is looking very good! delldot talk 13:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To be entirely honest i'm not sure if it'll pass through FAC but it's looking good so far! If it fails, we'll get a few reviews out of it anyway and that can only be beneficial. As for the GA, I posted it on GAN originally but after viewing the waiting list I got impatient and reviewed it myself (i'm a member of GA anyway and I tried to remain as impartial as possible) and it seemed to fit quite well. This will be brought up at FAC anyway if it's not up to scratch!

I'll have a look at that ref for you, see what I can add. Thanks! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hear that about GAN! I've had two sitting there for a week or two. You don't think people will object to the person who listed it being the reviewer? I guess you're right, it'll come up at FAC if so.

Yeah, it's nice for it to get reviews, but I hate to abuse the FAC process by nominating something without the expectation that it will be able to succeed; it's already so backlogged. Colin's suggestions are helpful, but they're kind of fundamental; if we can't find more good sources we're kind of sunk. I'll work on it but I have to move next week, so I don't know if I'll have enough time to keep this FAC afloat :( delldot talk 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that the sources we're using are bad. Some of them are a little unreliable, but the vast majority are peer-reviewed articles which are for the most part very reliable. Don't worry, i'm not nominating this for FAC just because I want reviews ;) I'm doing because I think it has potential to pass but most likely won't, if that makes sense. If it fails, it fails and we move on and try again at a later stage! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Cool, yeah, either way, it's very exciting. I've never done it before so it'll be interesting at the very least! I'm very happy to be working with you on this, it's definitely going to push the article way further than it would have gone otherwise. Peace, delldot talk 22:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Same to you! I might try and get a few more experienced WP:MED editors involved, if I can. I may even put it up for WP:MCOTW to see if we can get more done that way! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be rad. Yeah, I get the impression that if you want help, you gotta ask for it. But I really hate asking people to do stuff for me for some reason. I hope more people do help out, that would be so cool! delldot talk 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure how to withdraw though so maybe one of us should post a message saying we want to withdraw and let someone else handle the logging? Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks much. I bet if you just put a note below the nom saying you'd like to withdraw, it will be taken care of. I can look more into the procedure if you like, though. Peace, delldot talk 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done :D Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 20:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, good work. I can give SG a poke if it doesn't get taken care of soon. :) delldot talk 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing :) thanks. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

Hi. I just wondered if you'd be willing to give me another editor review some time. There's no rush, and please say no if you haven't got time, but your last one was extremely useful. Many thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, it'll be good to see how you've been doing anyway. Coming up in the next few days. delldot talk 12:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do the review. Great advice as always. Epbr123 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the work you've done at Editor Review. Epbr123 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thank you so much Epbr! Too bad you didn't get to see the version I had before the power went out last night. :P delldot talk 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi!/Subcutaneous emphysema

Erm, to be honest, I don't really know all that much about Subcutaneous emphysema, apart from the dictionary definition. (Certainly not off the top of my head anyway - am busily revising for psych, health care of the elderly, eye, ENT and ophthalmology exams at the moment, so that kinda thing isn't really on my radar this week!) I didn't read the Subcutaneous emphysema article all that stringently either, only enough to work out that it didn't mention surgical emphysema. Regarding gas gangrene, I'm not really sure what the specific term is for the gas in the subcut tissues. According to my medical dictionary, subcutaneous emphysema means "Air in the tissues", so it'd make sense for me for the gas produced by gas-gangrene to be a type of subcut emphysema. Having said that, i don't really know whether it'd be all that relevant from a clinical point of view - gas gangrene and subcut emphysema are pretty different, so unless they both presented the same way, would one really need to make the connection? As far as the pulmonary contusion article goes - generally speaking, "**** toilet" means "the act of cleaning ****" - so surgical toilet of a dog bite would mean cleaning the bite, and removing any dead tissue from the wound. Auditory toilet means cleaning out the ear canal. I'd guess that pulmonary hygiene is to do with habits the patient has (e.g. smoking, exposure to particulate matter in the air, etc), but it's not a term I've come across before.

Hope that helps!Ged3000 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking too: Technically, it is SE, but nobody calls it that or thinks of it as that. And they do present really differently, because while a little SE proper is usually painless, if your limb is rotting off, it turns out that's accompanied by some other signs. :P

Thanks for the toilet/hygeine explanation. Yeah, I see 'toilet' in almost every review, but I've only seen 'hygeine' in one.

Good luck on exams! You know where to come if you need a study break. :P Thanks for the help! delldot on a public computer talk 00:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Again

Hey deldot

Thanks for the message or returning my call

Oh, I did the Wikibreak template like that on purpose so that when i need to use it i just fix the brackets up and then Howzat! its there, though thanks for picking it up

See you round

WikiSandbox1 (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense! Good to hear from you again, keep me posted. delldot on a public computer talk 05:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)