User talk:Ikkyu2/Archive 2

Ikkyu2 Your Edits and Comments display Arrogance not Expertise!

Regarding your recent edits to my page====The Institutes for The Achievement of Human Potential==== I realize I should re-write the article to be more neutral --and so I shall.

It’s true that there are a lot of qualified contributors to various pages, including Neurologists and others. However, as a parent who has gone through the maze of mainstream medicine to find an effective treatment for my child with neurological challenges, I can say that in some ways I am uniquely qualified to be a contributor. In my experience, even the best child Neurologists are overly –dependent on using medications to treat neurology patients. Moreover, for our child, none of these powerful medications worked. After a year and a half of no improvement in our daughter, we became despondent. Thank God we found the Institutes! They worked out a diet (not Ketogenic) and health program that stopped our little daughter’s seizures and accelerated her physical and intellectual development so that now she is on track to joining her peers when she reaches school age. Our success is not unique: IAHP has published its results and we have seen with our own eyes children with ADHD, Epilepsy, Autism, and Down Syndrome progressing beautifully on the IAHP program.

Moreover ‘The Institutes’ is not just another non-profit. They have developed unique treatments and they offer accredited lectures for health professionals which have been attended by many neurologists and neurophysiologists. But the main reason we need to post a mention of The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential, is that it offers readers, many of them parents looking for answers, an alternative treatment that they can explore if they should find that traditional medicine and pharmacological treatments aren’t helping their child to their satisfaction.

The overall grand purpose of Wipedia is to provide information that will help others...that should be our purpose--not trying to guard status-quo medical establishments , as seems to be your bent.

Im going to rewrite the IAHP article. After that I advise you not to deface articles, nor to delete contributions because they don't fit within the narrow scope of your experience and training.

Moreover Ikkyu2, you doubt IAHPs claim that no other entity has published results of their treatment--So I CHALLENGE YOU TO PRODUCE PUBLISHED RESULTS OF ANY INSTITUTION CONCERNING THEIR ACHIEVED RESULTS FOR TREATMENT OF EPILEPSY, AUTISM or AHDH! You tout your vast expertise on these topics so no doubt it will be easy for you to bring such data to our attention. -- The previous unsigned comment was added by User:Jollygood (talk)

Your experiences, and mine, are not relevant to Wikipedia articles. This is clearly stated in the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. If you want to cite published sources, be my guest.

By the way, accusing me of arrogance on my talk page violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks, another long-established policy here. I suggest that you would do well to review relevant Wikipedia policies, including these two, before you continue on your ill-considered crusade. Ikkyu2 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkyu2--we all look forward to seeing you put up data concerning treatment results--if you can't do that then don't edit my contributions! Its as simple as that. You edits are far from neutral--they are attacks! Talk about ill-considered crusades muncher 01:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out here that I've removed no part of your contributions. I have been extremely careful only to add to the article you started, without taking even the least iota of text away from it. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly (3 times now) deleted my contributions to the article in question. You're a newcomer to this site, so here's a quick tip: that kind of behavior isn't how Wikipedia works. Ikkyu2 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkyu2, I think you are somewhat guilty of pouring petrol on this fire. I suggest you lay off the IAHP article for a day or two and peruse the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article yourself, particularly the pseudoscience section. In addtion, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. We must all strive towards agreement for this to work out, rather than just shouting till someone backs down or calls their big brother to step in (RfC).

User:Jollygood's edit 01:03 (UTC), 13 February 2006 was a good example of taking a step towards agreement. You just reverted it wholesale. Whilst I disagree with some of the changes made, I think the edit to the Controversy section was excellent. Jollygood should be congratulated on writing stuff that he/she disagrees with in an effort to be balanced.

The NPOV is more than just allowing two opposing sides to add their views to the page. The whole article must be written in neutral language, giving the reader no clue as to where the author's personal feelings lie. The facts will guide the reader to make their own mind up. The two paragraphs that Jollygood wrote/edited in the Controversy section are a model example of this:

The IAHP is known for many unorthodox practices. An example is its claim that epilepsy can be cured by enhanced oxygen intake, respiration, and diet, which has yet to be studied and confirmed using scientific research methods. IAHP continues to be bitterly criticized by those in the medical establishment, some of who discount them as a “quack” organization. An example of this criticism can be seen in this article on psychomotor patterning. [[1]].

On the other side of this controversy are some of the many parents who have had their children treated by IAHP. These parents claim they have seen remarkable progress in their children while on the program. Medical professionals counter that this is mostly wishful thinking on the parent’s part and that any gain would have occurred without the IAHP’s program.

Elsewhere some of Jollygood's text ("treats" and "simple yet effective") is not neutral enough or makes claims that need proper scientific backup and references. Therefore I support modifying that text with, for example, "claims to treat".

I agree with User:Jfdwolff that the use of non-inflammatory language will help. I will try to make some neutral edits later today. I encourage the use of the article's talk page for further discussion, that hopefully can be made without getting personal.

I will be writing some strong words in User:Jollygood's talk page too, so don't feel that I'm picking on you. I hope you take this the right way. I'm as guilty of getting hot-headed as the next person. Cheers, --Colin 15:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikkyu2!

I really appreciate your effort to mend fences. I too appologize to you for becoming defensive. Thankfully Colin kept a cool head and he helped us to regain perspective! I read Colin'ss rewrite of the article and I think he did a nice, balanced job of it--I think we've managed to arrive at a place where we can all live with the article. Hopefully it will help readers to understand the situation. Ultimately, we are trying to achieve the same goal which is to help people who must deal with these terrible illnesses. Thanks again!! muncher 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: I feel I owe you an apology for jumping down your throat and being hot-headed. Often times in the heat of the moment feelings and concerns become over-polarized and I am quite guilty of this.... Ikkyu2 23:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Says who? The capitalization of species' names has been debated for a long time, and no one has really agreed on anything yet. The Polar Bear, Brown Bear, and American Black Bear articles are capitalized. Also see my comment at Talk:Kerala#Flora_and_fauna:_Capitalize_names_or_not.3F. --Khoikhoi 20:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How very wonderful, there isn't even any consensus. -Ikkyu2 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which means that you can go either way. --Khoikhoi 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I prefer the other way, but I guess I wouldn't make a Federal case out of it. Ikkyu2 03:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to be Very Clear about My Meaning, I Mean to Say that I' will Not Revert a User's Good-Faith Edits to This Effect, Simply in the Name of Going, The Other Way.

Lord Almighty, but that looks stupid. Ikkyu2 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me adding here -- I was just looking around. True species names follow very strict rules about capitalization. However, "Polar Bear," "Brown Bear," etc. are not species names. They are common names and subject to whim. Miscapitalize a species name and feel the full brunt of the awesome power of taxonomists ... or not. Ted 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amplification

Thank you. I didn't really create that article in anything more than the wikisense; it's the work of this guy, who is an English professor who's got his class working on building Portal:Rhetoric. He and I got to exchanging messages after he asked why I'd moved one of their root articles, Glossary of rhetorical terms. After I helped him out with the deletion vote (I think it'll be kept), I added some entries to the list myself. I was checking up on it tonight when I discovered the newest entry "Amplification." I checked out the direct link and found the article that should have been had instead been added to the disambiguation page. So I moved it ... in the morning the guy had moved the page back to his original title without fixing the AfD link, so I had done that too. He thanked me.

I'm going to go back to his page and explain to him how to avoid making that mistake in the future. Daniel Case 03:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawmaking procedure in India

I saw that you added a merge notice to this article requesting that it be merged into Government of India, but the fact is that I plan to greatly expand this article, so that it contains info specific to lawmaking procedure. I will, therefore be removing that message. Thanks.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheer curiosity

Just purely curious, when did you finish (or are you still in) your residency at the Neurological Institute of New York? That's all. Which decade is good enough. Or ignore this question if you want to keep that info private. :)--Muchosucko 22:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003. If you knew me, I'm probably just the guy you think I am. Ikkyu2 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One and a half syndrome

Would appreciate your insight on one and a half syndrome. Had a case when I was a medical resident, which showed a beautiful lesion on DWI -- wish I still had the image! Have enjoyed your contribs BTW. -- Samir Grover 09:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good to me. I have nothing to contribute to it; in a more compulsive mood, I might put descriptive text on the external links, or link to ophthalmoparesis. Yeah, I guess I'll do that. -Ikkyu2 09:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscience

Welcome to our project! I'm glad you've joined us over there. Your work on the paramedian pontine reticular formation is great! You have no idea how pleased it makes me to see clear, well-referenced, non-stub anatomy contributions! Also, thanks for your additions to lateralization of brain function; I still feel like there are some issues with that article so I'm glad you've contibuted. I look forward to your future work. When you create more neuro-related articles could you keep letting us know over on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neuroscience? Cheers! S e miconscious • talk 21:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. See my comment on the article's talk page; you and I are thinking the same thing. ;) S e miconscious • talk 21:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What's wrong with Wikipedia"

Bravo. S e miconscious • talk 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo indeed. The hours I spent in wikipedia trying to build up more in-depth information on the aviation industry in which I have been studying for years on dissapears in a matter of seconds in the hands of a few who insist "standardisation" is more important then the development of material for specific sub-topics first, which may pave the way for similar growth in other topics. I truly symphathize with you.--Huaiwei 07:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dittos here as well. I've been here for only two weeks and I've already come to the conclusion not to spend any time on new articles that are "popular" (for lack of a better word) but require expert knowledge. I'll contribute in the margins, helping where I can, and I have a couple of new articles that are so specialized that I probably won't attract too much attention. But I don't think I'll be doing anything major in my area of vocational expertise. Thatcher131 07:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humor not policy?

Pages that are not policy are generally easily identified by the fact that they don't have a {{policy}} tag at the top. FYI. R adiant _>|< 16:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But that's one stupid page. Ikkyu2 17:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If the outcome of a process is obvious, there's no need to continue the process. Radiant_>|< 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See, even you were fooled. That essay never went through the proposal process. Further, the fact that it's not a policy or a guideline may not be obvious to newbies, or people who aren't familiar with the various uses of the Wikipedia namespace. Most of what newbies are directed to read in that namespace are policies and guidelines. It threw me for a moment, being a relative newbie myself; the tip-off was the category at the bottom, "Wikipedia essays." Ikkyu2 18:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not fooled, I wrote WP:SNOW. Also, I'm one of the main watchers of the "proposal" process. Note that essays are never proposed, they're just written. Note also that there are plenty of pages in Wikispace that have WP:TLA redirects to them that aren't policy or guideline. SNOW is not policy, nor does it have to be; it's simply a good idea at times, and a reminder of people to not be overly bureaucratic. Even if it were a guideline (and I could make a reasonable case for that) it is already worded as a possible suggestion, not an imperative. R adiant _>|< 18:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, wait a minute; you're commenting on the content of WP:SNOW, not whether or not it should have a tag at the top. Well, let me address that instead. The problem with it is that process exists for a reason. One of the major reasons is so that consensus can be built. Aborting process because someone thinks the conclusion is obvious assumes infallibility on the part of the aborting person. However, if we had an infallible person, there wouldn't be any need for process in the first place. Also, consider how the process arose; it was a decision made, by consensus, about what the process should be. When you abort the process prematurely, you're essentially acting without regard for the prior consensus. Why do that? There's no good reason.
- In the larger sense, potential contributors would like to realize that their contributions were entering into a space where some rules and some process did exist. Aborting process is essentially equivalent to WP:Ignore all rules, and while that's an old page here at WP, it's not policy, not a guideline, and its original author has repudiated it. It's also very harmful to the project; it's what eventually sends a lot of good contributors away. Ikkyu2 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good and eloquent response, and far better than the verbose and obtuse essay at WP:PI. I've added part of it as a caveat to WP:SNOW, feel free to copyedit. However, as a counterargument... recently, an article was on AFD, and got about ten people who wanted it gone, and two who wanted it kept. For whatever reason, the debate was closed early, as a delete. This was put on Deletion Review because it was technically wrong. However, on DRV, some people argued that the AFD had to be reopened, then closed two days later with the exact same result. That is, to say the least, pointless (moreso since some of those DRV votes were made after the AFD technically should have been closed). In other words, we shouldn't blindly rely on process either. Nor should we discard it at whim, but that's IAR territory and not SNOW. R adiant _>|< 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your careful consideration of my opinions. I appreciate it. I agree, too, very strongly with the idea that everything works better when folks use common sense. It strikes me that oftentimes process is what happens when common sense has failed. -Ikkyu2 20:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neurological examination

Ikkyu2, I have written neurological examination from the perspective of a generalist. You may want to include more. I have not provided a reference yet; what is (in your view) the best text on physical examination in neurology? JFW | T@lk 18:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite text specifically devoted to the physical neurological exam is John Patten's Neurological Differential Diagnosis; I have the 2nd edition. Ikkyu2 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Men(Slang)

Could you please revisit and reconsider based on my comment on the AFD discussion page? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't agree. Ikkyu2 07:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal rules

I was not for one moment trying to annoy you or anything. Really. Sorry for offense caused. I shouldn't have let my long-term disaffection with horizontal rules interfere with my WP:CIVIL. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are already quite a few HRs in the CSS that are automatically generated. The categorycruft is in a box in most stylesheets. The stub messages do indeed look like article text, and only the small logos and the italic text makes them stand apart. AFAIK there is no real consensus on HRs. JFW | T@lk 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Voting

I don't appreciate your accusations of impropriety on my nomination. I noticed you have done the same to other users on afd votes. It is quite normal for the nominator to add his or her vote to the tally. In fact, I have seen nominators vote keep or neutral. Wikipedia has a policy called assume good faith. You should look into it. Dbinder 09:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys may be delighted to know, that adminstrators basically do not count votes by nominators, irrespective of whether they do so or not. A simple message to the admins would have cleared this up, just as I have done a long time ago. There is nothing to prevent a nominator from also casting a vote, of course, and as others have done. It is, however, probably seen as an unhealthy and unnecesary practise as far as Ikkyu2 is concerned.--Huaiwei 10:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, although in the future, you may wish to consider your word choice, since it did come off as somewhat aggressive. The vote over the Singapore Airlines fleet article was rather contentious, with attacks going in both directions and some people taking the nomination itself as an attack. I assumed (wrongly) that yet another user was adding commentary on an argument that didn't involve him. Dbinder 16:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benzodiazepine

Hi, I'm concerned about the two edits made by 69.157.245.227 (talk • contribs) to the benzodiazepine article (5th February). He/She has strengthened the language describing addiction and withdrawal issues, which may or may not be justified. They have also removed some text. There may be something of value in what they added. I wonder if you could cast your expert eye over it. Thanks.

PS (re: Margaux Hemingway and Anticonvulsants), I've responded to your two points on my user page. --Colin 10:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored some of the deleted text on the Benzodiazepine article. --Colin 18:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaux Hemingway

I'm a bit puzzled why the coroner's report metions phenobarbital but "Scott Carrier, a spokesman for the coroner" talks about Klonopin, which is clonazepam. Was she taking both? The rather morbid Find a Death web site contains more details from the coroner, including the death certificate. In particular, it states: "acute Phenobarbital intoxication. 10 times the recommended dosage". Googling on either drug + Hemingway shows the Internet is evenly split on Klonopin overdose or phenobarbital overdose. What's the truth?

We'll never know the truth. I think she died of SUDEP (sudden death in epilepsy), and there was no suicide nor recreational drug use involved in any way. Ikkyu2 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake of Oxford

What's your source for the assertion that this is a vanity press? It's not on the warning lists that I refer to (for SFFH genre authors), and Amazon.com reports actually stocking at least one of its titles? Monicasdude 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've still got strong doubts about it being a vanity press; nothing I see there is out of line for small/specialty publishers these days. (I couldn't find any references to "editing services," which could make a big difference). I spot checked several books/authors and found them actively in-stock/shipping directly from Amazon.com, which isn't something I'd expect from a vanity press. Plus the press seems to have a decent reputation in its odd little niche market, and its publisher gives interviews like this [2] where he's not talking at all like a vanity operator. Monicasdude 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

;)

Hehe, I think those two words really sum up what the Grizzly Bear/grizzly bear is all about. ;) Oh, did you see Grizzly Man? --Khoikhoi 02:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wouldn't like it then. He really was a moron. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H. Houston Merritt

Firstly, thanks for the compliment the other day. I really appreciate, it coming from you.

I had a little look for Mr Merritt and got some success with Google Books. "The Treatment of Epilepsy" (ISBN 0632060468) had a few pages on the topic. I think Google Books is great (that book would be £150 to buy, and I don't live near a university library). What struck me was the synergy of having a lot of bright folk under one roof. They all built on each others research and through dedication (rather than just the usual-story: serendipidy) they got their result. I do find it is best not to read about basic anticonvulsant research after you have just eaten. It is not for the faint hearted! --Colin 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD notice

Ikkyu2, I realize that you and I disagree on the WP:PROD system, but I really thank you for your comments at on the talk page about notifying article creators. You're right: it's not fair to try and hide the fact that the tag can simply be removed. I hadn't thought of it that way. Based on your thoughts, I've created this rough draft of a notification message.

An article you created has been nominated for deletion because (insert reasons here). If you believe that the nomination was in error, you may remove the deletion tag on the article. However, if the issues mentioned aren't addressed, the article may still be nominated for deletion.

As I mentioned on the PROD discussion page, I don't want to give editors the impression that removing the tag is the same as a free pass for the article to remain. Could you give me your thoughts on the message? You're a valuable devil's advocate. Joyous | Talk 23:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for your time in composing a response. Joyous | Talk 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West syndrome

Hi, you asked for a reference for the figures in the article - it's an ongoing translation from the German wikipedia article. There are no direct references in that, but a bibliography of German language publications. Would you like me to add that to the English page? At the bottom of the English page it already says that the article is from the German version, and there's a link to that; perhaps that would be enough? I don't know what the policy is about references for translations. Saint|swithin 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time it's probably worth taking a close look at "West Syndrome" as I don't think either of us translators are particularly well-informed about epilepsy and it does seem to be your speciality. I understand that you charge $600 an hour for consultation, and don't like people wasting your time, but don't forget: translators are normally paid, too :-)

BTW, I think your comment on "types of seizure" vs "types of seizures" on your user page may actually be a British / US English misunderstanding. In BE, for example, we say "I saw several types of dog" when we saw more than one dog, all of different types (not one dog which was a mixture of several types). The (British) Hutchinson Encyclopaedia says "If referring to more than one type, the following noun may be singular or plural: these types of dog (or dogs). The singular noun is preferable." I guess this must be British English, if you understood "types of seizure" as meaning only one seizure. Saint|swithin 22:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I hadn't realized that might be a stylistic difference of British English. My rant about $600 an hour was not aimed at you or folks like you, by the way - we all donate our time to Wikipedia, as we feel it appropriate. I do intend to look more carefully at West Syndrome - should I wait for you guys to get done translating it? ikkyu2 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature test

foo ikkyu2 | (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
bar ikkyu2 | (talk)
baz ikkyu2 | (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone has found the drawer where teacher keeps her fluorescent marker pens ;-) Colin 09:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. JFW | T@lk 13:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BNPA Conference Proceeding

Hi Ikkyu2,

Interesting user page! I have a similar experience with motor neurone disease whilst one of my colleagues has spent the last few years keeping a watchful eye on schizophrenia. That said, some edits are good at cleaning up my spelling, but most people don't add great content sadly. Anyway, the conference proceedings will be in JNNP shortly. When I see them I will remind myself to let you know. I've joined the neuroscience project too, am already on the Psychopathology project too.

All the best --PaulWicks 11:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Quack Watch

Hi, doctor. I saw your commnents in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine regarding your idea for "physiciwikipedian types" to coordinate their efforts against quackery infiltrating Wikipedia. Although it's not practical to fully address every article related to medicine or alternative medicine, I also would like to see some forum for the purpose of drawing attention to certain articles that have either come under attack from quackery and unsupported assertions, or those articles that have yet to be been challenged by the "mainstream" point-of-view. It seems as though it would be very easy to have a "watch out" page where someone could ask for assistance with the above, however, I'm not sure what is the best way to implement the idea. Between Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine, there are a lot of project pages and a lot of discussion pages, so don't know where would be the best place to create such a forum. Any ideas? AED 22:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in; the name Ikkyu attracted me to your page. This might apply to a doctor at Carpel tunnel syndrome. He's added in some "Dr. Brown" advertisements, and they were there for a while, but an admin finally reverted them. They guy is persistant though. If you don't care, then ignore this message. I just thought it might apply to the above. --Shadow Puppet 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman K. Kovalev

I have added material explaining his contributions to the field. I hope you will reconsider your delete vote. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frog redlink

Hi, I have a non-PROD-related question. There's a redlink for convulsant in the frog article, in reference to some of the various toxins that are present in some frogs' skins. What do you think might be a reasonable place to redirect the link? "Convulsion" redirects to Seizure; is that appropriate? Joyous | Talk 02:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, as well as the interesting explanation. Joyous | Talk 03:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comment

I have responded to your comment on my talk page. Michael L. Kaufman 02:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Michael L. Kaufman 03:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British usage vandalism

Ikkyu2,

Given that you wrote this 6 minutes after your edits to List of people believed to have epilepsy, I assume this is (part of) what got you worked up. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National varieties of English notes:

(Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)

The loss of the comma happened at the same time as the spelling error was introduced to "owing". That was when I moved all the citations down to footnotes. I imagine that a cut/paste error meant I ended up retyping that phrase and therefore accidentally introduced the subtle changes.

I'm not aware of a difference between UK and US English as far as using comma to split up a sentence. The sentence on Don Craig Wiley is long, has four parts, and (to my eyes) reads better with the comma. IMO, it would also read better if the sentence wasn't so long.

My understanding of the MoS is that the whole article should be consistent (not just one sentence – life is too short to work out the nationality of each sentence–author). Given the international nature of this article, one variant is no more appropriate than another. Therefore, following Wikipedia guidlines, I am happy for it to default to the language style of the first major contributor: yourself. I've popped this article into MS Word and changed the checker to US spelling. This has shown up two US variants and two genuine spelling errors, which I have fixed. I can't tell if the grammar still offends the US eye.

BTW: I greatly appreciate your detailed edit summary. A far bigger gripe with me is folk who don't write anything in the summary --Colin 10:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babylonian Treatise on Epilepsy

I came across PMID 2187129, the other day. The prognosis was often bleak: "he will die", and the symptom descriptions peculiar: "twitch like a newly-slaughtered sheep". It is, however, a quite remarkable document --Colin 10:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal lobe

Would you mind checking out the last sentence in temporal lobe? Recently a new user added a statement that I have rewritten in a somewhat more encyclopedic style to read "There are some reports by those who suffer from medial temporal lobe seizures that describe spiritual feelings or visions associated with the seizure." I've added a citation needed request for this statement, but I figured I'm come to you personally to see if you've heard of this before. If so, could you dig up a case report or study as a reference for this? S e miconscious • talk 05:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) S e miconscious • talk 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic athletes AfD

I replied to your comments regarding the Islamic athletics AfD. I hope you'll move the comment at the top down to either the Vote or Brief Discussion sections as it's in a too prominent location. Either way, thanks for your input. joturner 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that my notice was in 'too prominent' a location. In my opinion, the Afd is irretrievably spoiled by these irregularities of process. I will be probably taking it to Deletion Review to relist it once it is complete, no matter the outcome.

You might do well to look over other AfDs to see how they are usually conducted. To my mind, constant, repetitious haranguing of other voters with opinions that you have expressed repeatedly is inappropriate. It weakens your case, because it suggests that you do not understand how the process operates and do not care to learn.

In case you were wondering, I have no interest in Islamic athletics or in fact in athleticism of any kind. My goal in commenting on this AfD is only that it proceed in a transparent, proper way in accordance with Wikipedia policies and consensus.

-ikkyu2 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to carry on long conversations in AfDs. I realize that my recent AfDs have tended to be a little longer than preferred. But that is only because User:Striver has responded with several comments which attempt to disparage legitimate requests for deletion...

Bro, queit it will ya? Why are you so gang ho on deleting? Stop making me answer to all of this, please!

So what are we doing now that the afd is all of the sudden about 4 articles? Must i spend 4 houres RIGHT NOW to show that there is potential in the articles? Bro, please end this! Go and make yourself usefull, go and google some information and help me CREAT article about Islam, rather than wasting everyones energy one afds!

Instead of deleting his statements (which in my opinion would be immoral), I simply balanced out the opinions by clarifying my opinion. Yes, the addition of the related articles was probably not a good thing to do, but it seems like that part of the issue has been cleared up. Suggesting that I would add additional comments to sway votes in my direction would be absurd considering at the time of those postings, the votes were already in favor of deleting the article. Even now, the votes are in favor of deleting the article. My recent actions do not indicate that I "do not understand how the process operates and do not care to learn." They simply indicate that I am making an attempt to prevent User:Striver from poisoning the water by adding comments that don't actually relate to the article, but instead to me personally. In my opinion, if I saw someone attacking the requestor (especially if the requestor didn't respond), I would be weary of agreeing with him even if the request is legitimate. That quite possibly may have been Striver's intention.

However, feel free to call the AfD to the attention of the deletion committee. At worst, the AfD will have to be resubmitted and the result will be the same. joturner 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AFD

Care to have another looks at the AFD for Stella Nova (which was incorrectly at "Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand")? Grutness...wha? 02:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : AFD/Longest streets in London

Hi Ikkyu2,

I've taken a look at the debate again - it's a discussion among established Wikipedians, so it's something that I can't just simply dismiss. Even if I throw out votes that you've suggested, at 22 to 12 is still no clear consensus. (I see it to be around 70% or more.) In any case, you may want to consider it for deletion in future again if you really feel strongly that it should go.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV

I respect your views on the matter but I see no real need to leave the debate open when the outcome is obvious. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I apologize for leaving such a disproportionally short response, but I really couldn't think of anything else to say in response...--Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I managed to unravel the tortured history of that category. My intention had been to close the debate and conduct the deletion myself, only to discover it deleted already. Not an uncommon occurrence, but it can be a trifle perplexing at first. Best wishes, Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Lennox

Have you seen my comments on Talk:William G. Lennox? I think you would be well placed to fill in the missing info and balance things a bit – especially since you have his book and know the field. I think the book is now out-of-print. Perhaps the article doesn't indicate how significant this book is? It would be great to have at least a paragraph on the signifcant aspects of his research, with citations of the key papers.

Do you have access to the journals/articles listed on the talk page? I would be interested if they gloss over the eugenics aspect of his life. Is this something that is commonly known? The long block–quote I included reads (to my eyes) as a bit cold. Do you think he cared passionately for his patients, or just saw them as an intellectual challenge? (Do you?!)

I've also added an article for Stanley Cobb. I would really appreciate it if you could double-check the details in both biographies where they mention Harvard Medical School, Boston City Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. I'm not familiar with these institutions and the references I had weren't always crystal clear --Colin 15:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators and WP:PROD

Just want to let you know that I haven't forgotten you; I was out of town for a week and a half after my original revert, and have been playing catch-up both at work and on my watchlist since I've been back. I haven't fixed the page yet since some of it needs to be merged into Wikipedia:Deletion process, and it needs more stuff in general written so that the WP:PROD mention doesn't stick out like a sore thumb - in particular, the page right now only concerns itself with deletions made through an afd-like process (afd, cfd, and such); there's no mention of the copyright problems process or of speedy deletion (a big oversight, since speedy deletions outnumber afd-like deletions by at least ten to one).

I think the root of our disagreement is that there are too many different things that are labelled "consensus". There's "rough consensus", which is used a lot at afd; this is really a supermajority on a straw poll, occasionally tempered by the discretion of the closing administrator. There's broad community consensus, like that which exists for (almost all) of the speedy criteria listed at WP:CSD; while most people don't individually look at speediable articles and agree that, yes, they should be deleted, virtually everyone agrees that articles that are covered by these rules are deletable. WP:PROD is closer to the latter than the former; it doesn't require a specific discussion, but it's not "bypassing" anything: it absolutely requires that everyone who takes an interest in the article to consent to deletion. That's what consensus really means - not necessarily that everyone wants the same thing, or even that a majority does; it's what everyone is willing to abide by. —Cryptic (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbar puncture and more

Thanks for pointing things out to me. WRT caffeine, I will have to do some research (sorry, don't have the literature at hand right now). The standard practice at our institution (academic hospital, tertiary care, 1000+ beds, 20000+ anesthesias/yr) for postpuncture headache is bedrest, analgesics and hydration, which is sufficient for the great majority of cases; if there is no improvement after a day or so we are not reluctant to apply an epidural blood patch. My experience with the latter procedure is very convincing, I can't remember a case where that did not work. WRT terminology, I apologize for my lack of understanding (not a native English speaker and no clinical experience in English speaking countries); I always thought that the term lumbar puncture should be reserved for spinals. I don't exactly understand why an epidural should not be universally termed an "epidural", or a "lumbar (etc.) epidural" to avoid confusion, but will be happy to leave that matter to somebody with a better knowledge of medical English. Please feel free to rewrite my contributions if you like. Kosebamse 06:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read a few more of your contributions as well as your user page, I think I should add a few points. It is highly desirable to have experts edit Wikipedia articles in their field of expertise, but it can be a most unpleasant experience for many. It is deeply annoying having to justify your reverts of what uninformed, lazy, uninterested or rude users drop into finely tuned articles where you have invested hours after hours of your spare time. I often see that with some of my pet articles, like Golf. Golf is in some respects like medicine: everybody has heard this or that about it and the Internet is full of advice about it (often less-than-expertly written, easily misunderstood or plain wrong). However, that's how Wikipedia is, and I have grown to accept it. Wikipedia does respect experts, but in a different way than academia does. It's not enough to have done the best research or education in your field, because people usually don't know what that means. They often judge you by the plausibility of your edits from their own point of view, and very often by your way of handling criticism. My experience is that a strictly factual approach to criticism, or edits that you don't agree with, will earn you the respect of the more sensible people here. In other words, staying factual and polite is always the best choice. There is much more to be said about this, and I agree with most of what you write about what's wrong with Wikipedia and also with most of Larry Sanger's comments in his highly insightful essays on the topic. However, given that the currently predominant culture here is highly tolerant of the uninformed user's right to edit your or mine expertly written article, we have to make choices, and it may sometimes be the best choice to take an extended break (which I have done more than once) rather than abandon politeness and tolerance. Not that I would want you to leave, quite the contrary, but when Wikipedia annoys you more than it gives you pleasure, it helps to readjust your perspective. Or in the words of your namesake: "From the world of passions returning to the world of passions: There is a moment's pause. If it rains, let it rain, if the wind blows, let it blow." Happy editing and best regardsKosebamse 10:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possum Game

I came across the article and was preparing to speedy it when it was nominatd for AFD. I went ahead and speedied it indepedndently of the AFD (as I was about to do it anyway). I was looking into the correct way of closing the AFD when Bobby1011 beat me to it. The situation you describe with non-admins failing to see why the article was deleted is always the case when an article is speedy deleted. I notified the editor involved. Please try to be a bit less condensending in your posts to people. --Martyman-(talk) 01:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ikkyu2,

I have closed quite a number of AfD lately, but they were all either speedy deletions where the closure wasn't finalized, or unambibuious keep decisions, or my own withdrawls from AfD nominations. I will refrain from doing so in the future and leave that up to the Admins if that is more appropriate, but I think that what I was doing was more good than harm. Happy editing. Bobby1011 01:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the example of Good Grief, the users who left more than comments pointed out that the precedent has long existed that episiodes are included. I didn't think at the time that further discussion was going to develope. Bobby1011 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Prod graph

Sorry, but I haven't been keeping those figures up to date (and seem to have deleted the stats I had after making that graph!). The average per day fror the last week, though, was 137.3 articles per day, still well below the pre-prod level. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]