User talk:Tom (LT)/Archive 1

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, LT910001! Thank you for your contributions. I am Way2veers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Way2veers 02:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	About Wernicke. I appreciate your corrections. I hope it ends with the agreement of all us. Luis cerni (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine barnstar

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Great work cleaning up a number of medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

Wernicke encephalopathy.

Hi, following the criteria established in most of the literature, diagnosis reaches only about 10% of the cases, clinically and humanly unacceptable. The case on which I base my research over 10 years, initially only showed hyperhidrosis, hypothermia, and asthenia, and later was on his way to death. He now have an almost normal life. In Wernicke's encephalopathy, "exceptional symptoms are the majority. " Fortunately, my blog has provoked the interest of Prof. Sechi (a reference in WE), of the British Medical Journals (who has asked to review other neurological work in 2013), and of several other prof. When young, I had to study French, English, Italian and Latin, in addition to Spanish, so I do not master any. Thank you for your corrections of language. I have gathered much information, and own conclusions about WE, that it's hard to select and sort on a single page. It is surprising that a widespread disease known so little and so badly. The vocation of service conflicts with the rules of disclosure systems. But I'm retired and do not want formal complications. I appreciate the corrections, ordering, and the help of doctors like you. Remains much to do about WE, as clarify the brawl with beriberi (eg WE = cerebral beriberi, PMID 17639753). Thanks, cheers. Luis ……………………………………………………………………………………….. In Wikipedia there are 3 pages on the same subject, Korsakoff's psychosis, I think it is just another serious presentation of WE. The 3 pages are: Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, and Korsakoff's syndrome.

Luis cerni (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hello and thanks for your kind reply. Be sure to monitor that page and correct my bad English. Best regards. Luis Luis cerni (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	SORRY. The 3 pages are: Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome, and Korsakoff's syndrome. (CAPITAL LETTER) Luis cerni (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Hello doctor, I think the boys have erased much valuable information initially wrote. Could you check it? Thank you. Luis cerni (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better and better

Hello doctor, Thanks for your advice and corrections. It had erased about using anti-inflammatories, a very important issue. Also the frequent presence of cardiovascular changes, and other symptoms. Does not seem right to separate heart affectations inside wet beriberi, when in fact often coexist en WEK. In this disease so poorly studied, the existing classifications can only repeat the confusion. I don´t know of a work that lists the different symptoms between alcholicos and alcoholics. Korsakoff even may occur in both groups. The phrase I deleted it seems with little content. I appreciate your cooperation and patience. This simple page is going to save a lot of suffering, lives and budget. Cheers, Luis. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis cerni (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lao Ai

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lao Ai requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dusti^*poke* 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section ordering

We have a guideline here WP:MEDMOS that has the recommended ordering of sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally we do not typically link the words in the section headings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sensory processing

Hi, thanks for helping with sensory processing. However, while I get the main idea behind your edit, there are several points to consider to bring clarity to people completely unfamiliar with the term, neurology or occupational therapy. Not sure your edits work to help in that direction. I am opening a talk option in the page tomorrow to discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibs007 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rating gadget

Hi LT, I saw you enabled the Kephir rating gadget. A quick tip: to make the most out of it, if you go to preferences -> gadgets; and enable 'Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article.', you can see the article's rating and change it directly without visiting the talk page. --WS (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lichen planus & OLP

Apologies for not working much on Oral lichen planus and lichen planus in the last few days, I have some formal research to finish that has been lying around for ages. I have been thinking that if we have merged licheenoid reactions into the main page, then arguably there is less cause to have a separate oral lichen planus page. It would take some thought to properly integrate things, but it would be possible. My concern is that the content might break the flow of the parent article. Lesion (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that takes precedence! It's been quite nice to edit concurrently with someone else, and to have a to-and-fro. I'd support merging the articles, as the presentation and prognosis seem to be the only things that are different. On another note, I've proposed the creation of a taskforce in WikiMed, I'd love it I could get your feedback. LT90001 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citation

FYI, the vast majority of inline citation follows the following format:

The sky is blue,[1] not pink.[2]

Note lack of space between the punctuation and the brackets of the reference. Not sure if this is supported by any policy, and I can't be bothered to find out. Vast majority of referencing on wikipedia is like this, and where there are spaces I've seen this get changed.

Also, I have almost completed the merge of oral lichen planus to lichen planus. The page still has many problems, but it is slowly getting better. Agree with your tag that a dermatologist expert is badly needed there. At least we have all the mess in one place, now can start to work on making it less messy. Lesion (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wowee. Yes, I know. I think readability is enhanced by having not them hug the phrase, but it's really quite an ephemeral discussion when it comes down to it. I agree that now it has many, many problems but at least it's all in one place. I'll take my hand and editor's scythe to it this evening. Let's aim for a B-class article by the end of this process (GA/FA would be best but I'll settle for B). LT90001 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment threading

I know you're new at this, but please, please, please take a look at WP:THREAD. On more than one occasion you have inserted your comment in the middle of someone else's, or in a break where there is a blockquote, and it makes it very hard to determine where the other user's comments end and yours begin. If you have additional questions please ask, whether that's me, another editor, WP:HELPDESK, WP:TEAHOUSE or any of the other various help forums. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄

Whoops, I finally noticed what you are talking about (Genital Warts review suggestion). Yes, sometimes I am clumsy, and when inserting my comment I did not see that last line of yours. Hopefully I didn't cause you too much agony. LT90001 (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was one on WT:MED too. once was fine, not a big deal, but twice and there starts to be a pattern, so i just wanted to call your attention to it as all. thanks for listening to my criticism (which i know sometimes can come off as harsh) with such a good nature. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 00:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fordyce spots and angiokeratomata

FYI, I merged Fordyce's spot with Oral Fordyce Granules (which was not tagged with WPMED or DENT so I see why you missed it). Honestly not sure angiokeratomata should be merged with these, since they are vascular rather than sebaceous... more than anything else they are different colors. Fox-Fordyce disease is a potential candidate to get merged into Fordyce's spot too, but I am not 100% sure of this yet. Lesion (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I look forward to the move to Fordyce spots, which is a much easier to read name. On my very cursory look-over, Fox-Fordyce disease (multiple spots; putative causes) and Fordyce's spot (benign; single spot) appear to be different, but I don't know enough about this topic to make an informed comment. LT90001 (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs

Hello,

I am declining many of your prods because they do not have a reason, and they appear at least somewhat notable.

Fbryce (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. Any chance you could hold off until tomorrow? I'm a little busy at the moment but I'll put reasons up for the majority tonight. LT90001 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well I have substantiated some of my requests for deletion, with any luck we can discuss and move to delete soon. LT90001 (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPACA

Hi! I wasn't sure if you were notified automatically or if I needed to something, but just thought I'd let you know I've left an update on the talk page for the review. =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(By the by - I know it's taking me longer to deal with the issues highlighted so far than I'd like, but I wanted to mention that I appreciate the manner in which you have conducted the review so far: more pleasant and constructive than some of the interactions I've been having with other editors recently) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 20:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thanks for your constructive and friendly conduct Sb101 (talk\|contribs) 20:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol

Hi LogX. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Of all the voluntary work editors do, NPP is among the most important because not only is it the the first firewall against unwanted pages in mainspace, but equally important, it is the earliest opportunity to provide a welcome to users who are not sure about, or who are not even aware of our policies at this stage. I think it would be a good idea for you to stop patrolling pages for a while, at least until you have read and fully understood WP:NPP and WP:DELETION, especially WP:PROD. I know it's a lot to read, but if you do, you would be on the way to being a great patroller. If ever you need any help, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental topographical disorientation

Hi LT910001,

I see you merged "Developmental topographical disorientation" into Topographical disorientation hopefully you will change the introduction and the paragraph about the new "Developmental topographical disorientation" subsection to introduce Developmental topographical disorientation as part of the wider topic and how it relates to the other variations. dolfrog (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work on merging / organizing Wikipedia's medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Thanks for taking over the review. The other reviewer has gotten busy with real life and I am sure appreciates this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. Thanks for the thanks! LT90001 (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Globally awsome medicine-related content work. Good to have you on board. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! LT90001 (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not completed the merge...

... because you created some mess at Template:Congenital malformations and deformations of integument (4 links to disambiguation pages) and Template:Cell surface receptor deficiencies (1 link to a disambiguation page). As the medical field is far far far far out of my comfort zone, I would like to ask you to fix them too! The Banner talk 16:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention. Are you referring to the overall state of the templates, or specifically my redirects? I have fixed what I think are the ones you are referring to, namely Junctional epidermolysis bullosa. Is this correct? If you're interested in disambiguation, I note that there are a large amount of articles pointing to Junctional epidermolysis bullosa that should point to Junctional epidermolysis bullosa (medicine). Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on it, but it is likely that a lot of them will disappear in the coming days. It can take a few days before an article realizes that a template is changed! (Alternative: open the article and save it without changing anything. This forces the article to check and update the links.) The Banner talk 12:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was only referring to the links to disambiguation pages. The rest of the templates is Chinese to me so I won't comment on that! The Banner talk 12:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well while I have a resident Wikispert (hmm, not the most attractive portmanteau I must admit) here, do redirected pages automatically change their project's class to redirect? I do a fair amount of redirecting and it's quite time-consuming to work on the talk pages as well. LT90001 (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth control GA

Have attempted to address all the concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the last couple. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the excellent review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		for your detailed review of aphthous stomatitis. Lesion (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FGM review

Hey LT910001, Thanks for taking on the Female genital mutilation review, and for all the work you put in there! Normally I wouldn't follow up on a review like this, but I saw that you specifically requested some feedback on how the review went. Reading through it this morning, it seems to me that you made a lot of good suggestions to improve the article. At the same time, you might consider more clearly differentiating what in your review is required for the GA criteria and what are simply suggestions. For example, smaller MOS points like date formats aren't required under the GA criteria (and you shouldn't be shy about just fixing these when you see them yourself; I generally make a number of uncontentious micro-fixes like this during a review to avoid presenting a 100+ bullet points). This allows the nominator to focus on the higher-priority issues.

Another suggestion I'd make is that when you're concerned with issues like bias or "weasel wording"--which I agree is a great thing to look for--it's good to double-check the source if possible before commenting. High-quality publications do make statements like "some physicians feel..." and it's fine to have these in an article if they're in the source per WP:WEASEL.

Lastly, I'd urge you to see it as more of a give-and-take. If you write 60 or 70 action points to any nominator, but especially to an experienced content writer, you should assume that they'll disagree with you on at least 10 or 20 and you're going to have to discuss for a while. I'm a nonexpert on the topic, but for what it's worth, I agree with some of your points at first glance, disagree with a few, but most of them appear to be gray areas or judgement calls; in those cases it's often necessary to talk it out, review sources, and ultimately split the difference. So don't be surprised if such reviews prove to be time-consuming! It's the nature of the beast, unfortunately.

I hope these are the kind of suggestions you're looking for, and if not, obviously feel free to disregard. Again, I appreciate your efforts to review high-profile topics like this one, and thanks for helping to make this article better -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for all your contributions! Let me know if I could help somehow. I've left comments in a couple places where you're working and I hope they've been helpful. I just want this place to be a nice encyclopedia like you, I imagine! =) Best. Biosthmors (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human_diseases is proposed for deletion

Just to let you know this proposal is underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Human_diseases. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FGM

Hi LT, would you mind failing the GA, so that I can renominate? That's the usual way to proceed in a case like this. Apparently someone is waiting to translate the article, but it needs to be GA before that happens, which is why I nominated it. I'd like to move on because it could take a while to get it through the process. The GA instructions do say that a nominator can withdraw, but there's no separate template for it, so a withdrawal defaults to a fail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to add some links for you. The instructions say here for nominators: "To withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, let the reviewer know. They will close the review using the fail process so the outcome is recorded." That's how I'd like to proceed. As for how to add a fail, there is information for reviewers here. Hope this helps.

Thank you for the time you spent on the review. I've continued working on it, and have tried to incorporate your concerns, including about the structure (though it may change some more, especially the later sections as I fill them out). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to this article! I have left a conclusion on the review page. LT90001 (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parapharyngeal space

Re. your removal of the WPMED support from the above page, note that all the fascial spaces of the head and neck are potential spaces, i.e. they don't exist in health, they are not normal anatomy. Rather, they are created by dissecting pathology or can be opened during autopsy. Unsure which project fits these pages best, so I put both tags on them. Lesion (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I recognise that these are a little ambiguous. As you know, I've been working through delisting the majority of WP:Anatomy conjoint articles. It is a little arbitrary (eg I've not delisted higher-order articles, templates, intrinsic muscles of the eye and some others), and I'll refrain from changing these in the future. In fact the majority of obvious removals have been delisted. One of the main reasons I've been doing this is so that the other methods of cleaning up (eg by spam, or using a cleanup list) aren't full of these articles. On another note, If you're interested in merging some articles, there are a heap of articles about the lung that could be merged. Also as a side note, one of the more amusing articles I just removed was moustache, which had in addition to WP:Fashion not only been tagged with WP:MED but also WP:ANAT and WP:Mammals... just in case, I am sure. LT90001 (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a conversation about this on WTMED recently. Not sure what the consensus was. I'm not sure that there is anything terribly wrong with having both WPANAT and WPMED tagged on a page? Agree that any well developed anatomy page will usually have a pathology section, and this should not mean that it gets a WPMED tag. Such sections are mostly link farms to the respective WPMED articles on each pathology I would imagine. However, since these articles in question are not normal anatomy, maybe they should be tagged with WPMED rather than WPANAT? On the other hand, they were written in anatomy article style, and use a lot of anatomical language. IMO, either should be WPMED alone, or both WPANAT and WPMED... Lesion (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. lung pages, I was thinking of taking on gastrointestinal cancer soon, so I will pass for now on that, sorry... Lesion (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed deletion

Considering that you are new, you probably wasn't aware that user Randykitty already promised to help me with Anthony Adams, and I will ask her about Max too. I already put my disagreement for it on the article's talkpage, feel free to comment there. Instead of proposing them for deletion why not helping me with cleaning them up and expanding them, or you already forgot about a fancy Medicine barnstar?--Mishae (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for feedback

These progress bars were Biosthmors' idea, I was just trying to implement them. Next step is to make them self updating ... Lesion (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Biosthmors the new interface is looking great, too! LT90001 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Unité de formation et de recherche médicale Paris Île-de-France Ouest

Hello LT910001. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Unité de formation et de recherche médicale Paris Île-de-France Ouest, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: educational institutions aren't covered by A7. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent proposals for deletion

Hello LT910001: Today I've declined several of your proposals for deletion, adding sources to the articles. Importantly, please keep in mind that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Articles I've declined today thus far include: Abbott AxSYM, The Shyness Clinic, Richard Kunin, Straw (cryogenic storage) and Breast Cancer Haven.

Rather than nominating for deletion, please consider searching for reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the topics, and if you have the time, adding those to pertinent articles.

Also, please review WP:BEFORE in entirety regarding minimum source searches expected prior to nominating articles for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Medicine Barnstar
		To LT910001, for contributions to medical articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, would you consider adding some basic information about yourself on your userpage? Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I just realised that your signature omits the digit "1". Why is this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good question! Me too! LT910001 (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to this barnstar. You are doing great work, thanks! Lesion (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you two! Please feel very welcome to drop by any time and leave more positive feedback =D. LT910001 (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autism omnibus trial

Thanks for your willingness to help me out on AOT. Your assistance and advice is much appreciated on my part. Jinkinson talk to me 13:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, am feeling a bit demoralised after my images were cut out, but such is life. I would like to see this article make it through GAN. LT910001 (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Maria Goeppert-Mayer/GA1

Hi LT91001, our editing paths must have crossed: I just read through the article, compiled comments, and was getting ready to type up my review. Are you invested in the article yet? If not, can I have it? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on your talk page, please feel free, it is nice to have such a courteous note left on my talk page! LT910001 (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for the spirit of cooperation. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy

Thank you for your GA review of Anatomy. The article is the better for the improvements you suggested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope my feedback was suitable and useful. It's great to have Wikipedians like yourself bringing these popular Wikipedia articles up to GA standard. All the best, LT910001 (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extra templates added to TfD for Template:2013 F1 Constructors Standings

Hi LT910001. FYI, I have added some extra templates to the TfD for Template:2013 F1 Constructors Standings, upon which you commented. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cranberry juice and Prevention

I disagree with your undo of my removal. I wish you have contacted me or put something on the talk page before an undo. I know they were secondary sources and don't understand that as a good reason to put them back. The important thing is what they say and what they conclude is it not?

Am I right that you first added the part about cranberry juice? It appears as though it was before there was a prevention section, although the sourcing was different?

I'm still concerned about wiki giving the impression that drinking cranberry juice will prevent UTIs. I don't have access to the Krause book but I found a PowerPoint file giving a detailed summary of the chapter. The only reference I find is in what he calls the "Alkaline-Ash diet" and appears to be advice for people with uric acid stones, not even general prevention advice about kidney disease.

I also disagree that the other two studies cited, meta studies actually, actually say there is conclusive evidence of real benefit. From the JAMA article "substantial heterogeneity across trials." "Most of the trials did not report their randomization processes adequately and suffered from a high proportion of subjects lost to follow-up." "Definitions of UTI differed significantly" Yes, it did also say "seemed to be effective" but "seemed" doesn't inspire particular confidence on the matter. The Clin Infect Dis. abstract clearly states "Further research is required to clarify unanswered questions". These things cast doubt on drawing definitive conclusions about the issue. And I strongly believe when a wiki, in essence, is giving advice on how to prevent a serious potentially lethal, (septic death) infectious disease in a section called "Prevention" we should not be grasping at straws to validate a folk remedy.

This is a valuable wiki page that overflows with sound science, and it appears you have been an important contributor. I contend there is a stark difference between that sound science and the, frankly, wishy washy, maybe, seem, possible slight benefit shown in the referring material on cranberry juice. I would be great if it was that easy, but I seriously doubt that it is.

I don't think I need to quote you statistics on hospitalizations and deaths that start out as simple UTIs. And antidotally, my mother died 3 days after she called me in chills and had me take her to the hospital, and earlier this year very nearly had the same thing happen to her. She was told if she'd have been admitted 8 hours later than she was she would have died, and she was hospitalized again 2 weeks ago with another one that was treated in a timelier manner, but I fear there is a point the doctor and the family have been trying to get through to her about the cause that she's refusing to get. Both my mother and mother in-law are exactly the kind of people that would be susceptible to the rationalization that if they just drank cranberry juice they wouldn't have to worry about that other, much more personal advice they'd been given about hygiene. I think it's imperative to get people away from folk remedies and steer them to where we know the science is.

Unless you convince me otherwise, I'm removing that section again.

Let me ask you. Is there clinical research on the relationship between hygiene and UTIs? If there is, and I'm pretty much assuming there is, which do you think would better serve the prevention page? Point me in the right direction and I'd give a stab at writing it, although I admit someone like you would probably be better at it.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your notice. Your delete, which I later reverted because I feel that there were legitimate sources supporting the deleted content, is here. I feel that my talk page is not a suitable location for this discussion, as this issue may require further consensus, so I would suggest you discuss this on the talk page for UTIs, here: Talk:Urinary tract infection. There are already topics relating to cranberry juice on that page. LT910001 (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first sentence you wrote here and tell me what I'm not getting. What you appear to be saying is "legitimate sources supporting the deleted content," are at the link. It's and incomplete sentence that link takes me to a cochran study about anti-biotics.

If I deleted that link it was an accident, but it has nothing to do with cranberry juice which is what I deleted for the reasons I stated above.

So, I don't see how replacing the link to anti-bionics is the reason for completely undoing what I did. Then after me doing a lot of work in what I wrote here, all you do here is point me to a link that was confusing as it shouldn't have been the reason to undo me, and did nothing to explain why?

I don't feel taken seriously.

If you still want to argue the merits of having the cranberry juice in, you can make your case here, as you have done before, or we can take it to the other talk page.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I could have handled my initial response with a bit more tact. I'm very sorry to hear about your family history with relation to UTIs and understand you must be feeling aggrieved and to some extent motivated to help other people in order to prevent this sort of thing. However, I also feel you may have me confused with other contributors. I haven't contributed in any significant way to the article except to revert your edit, and have no strong views other than that the data on the article should be comprehensive and evidence-based. I'm not in a position to defend the article except to say that I think you may be trying to write from a POV and that as noble as that is, we must use an evidence base. That includes mentioning notable articles and notable controversies, which includes cranberry juice. I may also point out that cranberry juice is used prophylactically as prevention, which has no bearing on the behaviour of people who have UTIs (who should see a doctor!) If you feel that the current evidence contradicts what is written in the article, please feel free to leave a note on the talk page (Talk:Pyelonephritis). Being just a single user I'm in no position to enforce my views on the article and if you do want to suggest a change, a discussion on the talk page, or on the talk page for the Wikiproject Medicine (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine) will allow others to contribute. I'm afraid the only reason I reverted the summary was because the information was represented by the sources, and request that any further discussion be held on either or both of the talk pages above. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent work to reduce the GA backlog--it's much appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am just getting into the hang of doing reviews more smoothly, so it is nice to get this sort of encouragement. LT910001 (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article Indian Space Research Organisation.

Hi, Thank you for reviewing the article Indian Space Research Organisation.GKCH (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you just sent me a thank you, then thanks back

Hello,

Unfortunately I can't tell who sent it, since clicking on it made it disappear and I can't retrieve what happened. But it you did send me a "thanks" for editing hospital gown, then I thank you for that. If it wasn't you, then I'm sorry for bothering you. Best, Soranoch (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it was me. Thanks for your edits. I'm sorry they haven't received much attention from the Wikiproject med bunch, but it seems you've improved the article quite a bit yourself. If you're interested in any particular medical or paramedical topics, it'd be great to have another contributor, even as a lay person. Wikipedia is one if (if not the most) used internet resources for medical topics and paramedical topics, and as a project we tend to neglect medical topics which aren't diseases or treatments. LT910001 (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks! It blew my mind that hospital gown pops up as first in virtually every search engine, and nothing else after except links to sales sites, etc. I stuck images into the article to try to make the point that various people wear hospital gowns for various purposes. But I'm not in the position to go to a medical library for info as the med project ultimately suggested. I'm glad you think I improved it, as I was a little scared to do anything major. So, thanks! Soranoch (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Nuclear Barnstar
		Thanks for your reviews of George T. Reynolds and Hugh Bradner. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It sounds like a very interesting cohort of scientists and engineers that left the Manhattan Project and related labs. Kaboom! LT910001 (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading hieroglyphs

Hello I just saw your question on my talk page. The best book to learn hieroglyphs is "How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs: A Step-by-Step Guide to Teach Yourself" by Colier. The book is cheap (around 20$) and you will surprise yourself by the speed with which you will learn the basics of hieroglyphs. I cannot recommend the book enough for its amazingly clear layout and exposition of the language. By the end of the book you will be able to read most standard dedication formulas and standard offering scenes and will have a strong basis for further study (you will know the signs and will be able to read kings' names etc...). To read extend texts (such as the story of Sinuhe, the Westcar papyrus and more !), I would recommend going to Gardiner's Egyptian grammar after Colier's book. Garnider's book is outdated in its verbal section but written very clearly and will bring you to an expert level if you follow it. Alternatively, the book "Middle Egyptian" by Allen is up to date and very thorough. I found it harder to read than Gardiner's grammar. In any case I can only encourage you to read the Colier and discover for yourself how good it feels to be able to read monuments in museums !! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For your persistence and hard work as a reviewer during the extended Good Article review of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kelly Close

You proposed deletion of Kelly Close. I spotted it while patrolling the PROD categories. I have added a number of sources and some additional information. I do not think it now fails to demonstrate notability. While it is surely not required, I urge at least a cursory search for additional sources before tagging an article for Proposed Deletion on the grounds of notability. The spirit, if not the letter of the essay WP:BEFORE, should in my view apply in such cases. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 18:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		Many thanks for reviewing my GA nomination of Coat of arms of Pichilemu! Küñall (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you had any chance to have a look at this other nomination, I'd really appreciate it too (only if possible! :-) thanks again! Küñall (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. --LT910001 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing

I am glad that Wiki has users like you who review even the smallest of changes happening in numerous articles and find time to appreciate people who contributed to make those articles better. Amit Dash (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice! I enjoy reading the disparate articles up for GA and to help in my minor role as a reviewer improve their quality. --LT910001 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psoriasis

Hi LT, I'm not sure what you mean exactly about assigning you sections. For GA nominations, can there be multiple reviewers? If so, that's perfectly okay with me, I've just never seen it. Let me know here and I'll see. In terms of sections...how about the first four? Lead, signs/symptoms, causes, diagnosis. Let me know if you're game. Also, I never really saw much of a point in archiving my talk page. Not much goes on there anyway. I never bothered to look up how to archive it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you change your mind? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TylerDurden8823! I will indeed make those edits, however I wasn't expecting you to nominate so quickly! I will be making my edits in the week 28th February-7th March. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's waiting for you. I just made some more changes to it after getting a bit of feedback from Jmh649. The only thing that might need a bit of work is the small signs/symptoms section. Regarding your request to review specific sections of it, how about the first four sections of the article? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries LT. I saw what you did on signs/symptoms and think it's great. I'm working on the causes section at the moment. Thank you for helping me! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One quick question/comment-for the medical signs listed in the signs/symptoms section, we wouldn't really consider sleep disturbance to be a medical sign, right? Isn't that really more of a symptom/complaint? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

：：：：：：Yep, sorry TylerDurden8823, I would just remove it. That list is from the old table. --LT910001 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's removed. Can you help me by adding in the bit about climatology that JFW mentioned? Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting to this, I've been busy moving house =P. --LT910001 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally cool, not to worry. I handled it yesterday. You still helped me out a lot and I appreciate it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]