Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 10

message: I've made a little speech on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. To have an NPOV article on this politically sensitive condition would be a triumph for Wikipedia's collaborative editing (perhaps somewhat of a holy grail). Anyone interested in some heavy-duty collaboration? JFW | T@lk 12:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronic fatigue syndrome 

message: There has been a lengthy discussion about the proper fate of material related to criticism of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. We are trying to reach consensus on the page Criticism of the FDA as to whether this content merits a separate page. All are welcome to join the discussion. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 00:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food and Drug Administration Criticism page 

message: Just to let project members know, MastCell is nominated for adminship (process concludes 00:00 12th May). To participate, go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MastCell. David Ruben  Talk  16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project member up for RfA

message: Hello:  I created a Userbox for the nephrology project.  If there is strong feeling about changing the appearance, we can discuss that on the project talk page.  The template is at: Template:User WikiProject Nephrology.  To post it on your user page, paste  .  —Gaff ταλκ 23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox  

message: We should be more possessive of our own category. Presently, it populated with articles that often have little or no relevance to medicine, or are better categorised in subcategories. I've just spent a good few hours depopulating it. Anyone willing to help? JFW | T@lk 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Medicine]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in medicine 2 - please vote JFW | T@lk 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: A new user User:Romanbond has added links to several fungal medication articles to http://www.fungalguide.ca - see Contributions/Romanbond. The website has an impressive list of dermatologists on its board, has advertising/promotion editorial policies (stating adhere to international medical journal guidelines), and the pages on use of various agents seem comprehensive. Seeing these links, I had a number of thoughts - what do others think?
* Wikipedia articles should be comprehensive on their own, acting as an indexing to jumping out to external sites is not wikipedia's role (likewise we do not permit external links on each article to Encyclopaedia Brittanica). Are these links appropriate under our WP:External links guidelines ? 
* Does the information differ from just product licensing information (for which there are standard parameters in the Drugbox template to link to the FDA's own pages), i.e. is the information any different from the product information on any number of pharmacy websites that generally get removed as being spam ?
* Is it spamming to systematically link multiple anti-fungal articles to this external site ? Would a single link, in say, antifungals be more appropriate ?
* If appropriate links, should at least the formating be a little more formalised under cite web template ? David Ruben  Talk  22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No opinion on the remaining links themselves, just wanted to say, commendable action, removing your own links. Femto 14:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FungalGuide links - useful, helpful, or poor external link spam ?

message: There was some concern that Yeast expression platforms is biased towards a production approach used by a specific company, which has been fixed somewhat. In any case, an expert review seems in order. Antonrojo 12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeast expression platforms

message: User:Dr CareBear added akathisia as the first mentioned side effect to majority of phenothiazine articles, stating that it is "agonizing", the cause of low compliance of teh drugs, and that these drugs are "exceptionally toxic" - see [Contributions/Dr_CareBear]. I and User:Casliber have reverted these, but details now been restored. As I try to follow 1 Revert Rule, it seems appropriate to ask other editors for their views to help ensure that good faith is maintained by not allowing this to become a personal edit war. David Ruben  Talk  02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Initial issues raised by Dr CareBear and my reply on my talk page User_talk:Davidruben#You_are_Clearly_Attempting_to_Protect_Corporate_Interests) David Ruben  Talk  02:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted similar edits to fluphenazine and chlorpromazine. My rationale in these summaries. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted chlorpromazine twice now, though have tried leaving a note in the edit summary. Hopefully User:Dr CareBear will reply here.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 03:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Similar commentary has been added to haloperidol.  Furthermore an unusual claim of haloperidol as being potentially excreted as yellow phelgm has also been made in the article .  Finally, this user has been creating forks to  Haloperidol - Adverse Effects.  I'd like to assume good faith, but the content of these edits is quite unusual.  Andrew73 14:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. I've left him a message with regard to referencing and unnecessary addition of POV/editorialization, and recommending that the above article be recreated in userspace. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things are rapidly degenerating, as  (sic), a fairly obvious sockpuppet, has suddenly appeared to take up the edit-war at akathisia for Dr CareBear. MastCell Talk 03:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: checkuser time methinks (?)cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 09:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reported this here - never done this before so keep an eye on things.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 11:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article such as phenothiazine, flupentixol, and akathisia are worth a closer look.  I've been removing some material that seems blog-like or not directly relevant to clinical use.  Andrew73 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're at the point where we could use the intervention of an outside administrator (as Davidruben and I are both involved in the content issue). MastCell Talk 17:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Now I think we probably ought to go through and make sure the damage is fixed. MastCell Talk 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His removal of suspected sockpuppetry note and again of the other warning notices to him is unacceptable. I've added Template:Sockpuppeteerproven to his talk page. The use of sockpuppets to advance a POV that several editors have indicated as breaching wikipedia style or policy was disruptive (WP:3RR is not a licence to revert 3 times and get away with it - even 1 revert can be sufficient disruptive to warrent action). The multiple edits in each case of Haloperidol and Akathisia were such disruptions and I have blocked the user for 24hrs. Having previously held back from further systematically undoing his POV pushing, now having blocked the user it would be inappropriate for me to edit these articles further on these points. Please other wikiproject members, help MastCell with the task of proof-checking the relevant articles. David Ruben  Talk  23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he's still at it - see . I haven't acted since I'm directly involved in the editing dispute. MastCell Talk 23:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked as sockpuppet - same articles, same material and same breaches of WP:AGF in accusing others of vandalism for content dispute. Further disrupton should result in extended block to sockpuppeteer, and might (sadly) require semiprotecting of articles for a while.David Ruben  Talk  02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akathisia as cause low compliance for exceptionally toxic neuroleptics

message: On Talk:Disease mongering I am having a somewhat circular discussion with  as to whether we need a page on this topic and which critics should be quoted in which fashion. I am still not entirely sure what is wrong with the present article, but your opinion would be appreciated. JFW | T@lk 01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno about the conflict, but reading the article, I just realized I'm suffering from motivational deficiency disorder! I wish my doctor had diagnosed it sooner. I think it's become pretty refractory. MastCell Talk 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking for more legit Wiki content that describes the issue in greater detail. I do not want to see a skeletal article used as springboard for Scientology and antipsychiatry bashing of Psychiatric disorders. A BiP section had to be removed for this exact reason. --scuro 11:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is ongoing discussion on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 10:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disease mongering 

message: :Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology.
This has been making minor waves in the popular press, and our recently-created article seems to be in need of serious TLC. Relevant NEJM article if anyone has access. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, apparently it was a copyvio! It has since been recreated and significantly improved by , but since it is now featured right on the top of In the News, a few extra pairs of eyes may want to watch it :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Bartonella rochalimae]]'' 

message: A new article Qumsieh's syndrome self states that "the case study" has yet to be published. This implies (1) there is no WP:RS that one can yet cite and (2) that "the case study" being singular, fails to meet criteria for WP:Notablity. Should this article get deleted? I don't know enough neurology to know if there is more to these conditions and topics, so I invite comment before speedily deleting. David Ruben  Talk  18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has not even been accepted for peer review yet? I'd be very wary of having that here. I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of the creator, and it may well become a recognized, notable entity in time. However, as of now... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this meeting speedy-deletion criteria - however, it clearly needs to go. This is a topic with 0 hits in PubMed, no reliable evidence that it exists, and a fairly clear self-promotional component. I'd prod it, but it seems clear the author will contest, so when I have a moment I'd be inclined to send it to AfD now. MastCell Talk 20:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's on AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qumsieh's syndrome JFW | T@lk 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Qumsieh's syndrome

message: Corneal ulcer was re-written. Needs help with referencing... Thanks.... EyeMD T|C 14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to format references, but not to supply them. They should really be the material used to write the article! Finavon 10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For formatting of references, this page is your friend.  I keep the ones I use most on my user page, so I just have to copy/paste them into the article and adjust accordingly.  Ksheka 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing expert needed  

message: Current Ringworm article covers clinical mycology in general (mycology culturing and treatment) and covers not just fungal ringworm on the skin (a specific appearance/presentation), but also lists as subtypes being fungal nail infection & athletes foot (neither of which form rings), and Tinea versicolor which has entirely different microorganism (a yeast rather than a fungus) etc. Mycology article covers the general biological topic (rather than as relates to infections and human diseases) and dermophyte whilst covering the parasitic fungal, is about the organisms rather than the clinical diseases or the branch of clinical microbiology.
I propose a reorganisation, with Ringworm being about just the specific skin disorder. Tinea then perhaps should be overall descriptor or disambiguation of the various conditions prefixed with "tinea" rather than redirecting to ringworm. Is this sufficient, or should there be a Clinical mycology article for the overall field (we do after all have Cardiology as a specific field of medicine and then disease articles of Coronary heart disease, Ischaemic heart disease, myocardial infarction etc) 
See discussion thread started at Talk:Ringworm#Total rewrite required and restructure of Clinical Mycology, I'm happy to do the edits in the next couple of days, but would appreciate any points or issues being raised for me to bear in mind first (eg is "Clinical mycology" the best of terms etc). David Ruben  Talk  22:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than create a new Clinical mycology article, it may make more sense to expand Mycosis. --Arcadian 08:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ringworm and restructure of Clinical Mycology

message: An AFD is taking place over Starchild Abraham Cherrix here .  Given that this individual has featured prominently in the debate about the rights to seek alternative medical treatments, I figure this article is notable enough to keep.  Andrew73 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented at the WP:DRV; the issue itself seems notable enough, and it seems the objection is focusing on the person rather than the notable event in which he was involved, per the newish interpretation of WP:BLP. If that's the issue, then I don't think anyone would object to retitling the article and focusing it on the case and its impact on legal and ethical issues. I have to admit, I find the speedy deletion of articles which violate an individual admin's conception of "basic human dignity" to be dangerous ground, but that's an issue for another place. MastCell Talk 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Starchild Abraham Cherrix]] subject of AFD 

message: I was aghast at the yield of an "external link hunt" to the nefarious site Wrongdiagnosis.com. This is a database-driven website that randomly regurgitates lists of symptoms and diagnoses. The algorithm and its methodology are not obvious; the content is certainly not the result of medical knowledge being weighed carefully by an experienced practicioner.
This will get you the search results. Could you all help reducing references to this site by replacing them with bona fide sources? JFW | T@lk 10:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know you could do searches like that...a handy resource.  Andrew73 11:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also concerned with the number of ads on their pages. It may be appropriate to delete their links. --Arcadian 13:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Support deleting all links from namespaces--Countincr ( T@lk ) 13:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support deleting all the links as well. I also agree with Andrew, that special page showing the external links is very good. Makes for a easy way of removing spam from wiki articles, from known spam sites i would think?petze 13:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links tool is very handy, though it's utterly disheartening to realize just how many times mercola.com or reviewingaids.org are linked (the last one has been cut down considerably, at least). If wrongdiagnosis.com is an issue, we could also consider proposing it to be added to the spam blacklist. MastCell Talk 01:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrongdiagnosis.com 

message: Autism was a featured article, but was demoted in December 2006. It's been rewritten, largely by Eubulides, and a peer review requested. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Colin°Talk 10:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank Heaven, the era of Ombudsman is finally over. The new article is absolutely brilliant and I have no major criticisms. It sounds authoritative, is meticulously sourced, and utterly NPOV. JFW | T@lk 19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that the era's over quite yet - there's still a huge walled garden of POV forks out there - but getting the parent autism article back into shape is a huge step forward. Strong work and kudos for taking on the topic. I will look at the peer review in the near future. MastCell Talk 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps Eubulides could be prevailed upon to clean up and merge the entire walled garden. MastCell - this has been my assessment of Ombudsman's work since the beginning. You must be aware of the exchanges we had a few months ago. JFW | T@lk 12:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who is willing to cleanse those particular Augean Stables has my admiration. I'm willing to help out - I've hacked away at 2000 Simpsonwood CDC Conference, Mark Geier, and autistic enterocolitis, among others - but it's a big job. The major problem is that the POV is duplicated and forked in so many places. MastCell Talk 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism 

message: Apparently, few project members have  in their watchlists. There are two medicine-related featured list candidates at present:
* Timeline of tuberous sclerosis
* List of polio survivors
The opinion of project members would be most welcome. Cheers, Colin°Talk 22:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured List Candidates 

message: Am I the only one who thinks that benzodiazepine is becoming way too "doom & gloom" with regard to a group of drugs most of us prescribe on a daily basis? JFW | T@lk 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you're right (but then, I think that about 99% of the pharmaceutical articles on Wikipedia, and I'm no drug-company defender). The "Abuse" section should be folded into the "Dependence" section, and the "Crime" section is utterly ludicrous. Benzos "have been used by serial killers"?!!?!?!? How notable. Does the article on knife or rope strongly associate them with serial killers? Anyhoo, those are my thoughts. MastCell Talk 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh—the state of that article has long bothered me (and I mean long bothered me). I was afraid someone would bring it up eventually... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah it certainly does have a gloomy tone!  Andrew73 11:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The use of the drugs bits (indications and perhaps overdose) are swamped in coverage by the cultural/controversy sections. The article is therefore totally unbalanced just on length of sections, let alone tone. However the cultural/controversy sections seem well sourced, albeit too gloomy, but does any source state that another source's "gloom & doom" is wrong - is it possible to cite to regain a NPOV in these sections? Separately should these sections perhaps be pulled out from the clinical/pharmacology sections - ? a subtopic page, eg Cultural and controversy issues of benzodiazepines with Benzodiazepine just being a pharmacology page? Finally should this discussion amongst us clinically-interested editors now be moved over to Talk:Benzodiazepine ? David Ruben  Talk  13:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benzodiazepine 

message: I am tired of using the term diagnostic test and finding it a red link because someone wrote medical test. I realize I could make a redirect page but I find the latter term less informative and less precise, and no more useful for the general lay reader. I plan to rename it Diagnostic test and will set up a redirect from Medical test, unless anyone here has a strong and persuasive objection. I got no responses when i posted this on the Talk:Medical test page last week and perhaps no one cares. In North America both terms are used and few people don't recognize "diagnostic test". Is it any different elsewhere in the Anglosphere? alteripse 19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being in the health profession, I also associate 'diagnostic tests' with medicine. However, I've also heard it used in the context of diagnosing computer problems.  Also, what will you do with :Category:Medical tests? --Uthbrian (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt you have noticed that the icon used for computer diagnostic tests is typically a stethoscope? I would assume that if someone wants to write about computer diagnostic tests the appropriate title would be "Diagnostic tests (computer)". Anyway, I do not intend to change or mess with categories. Some other people seem to want to reorganize everything every year or so, so I don't waste much time worrying about categorization as long as we have appropriate redirects so people looking for an article can find it. alteripse 05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a bit more digging, and it looks like diagnostic program has got my main concern covered. Anyways, after having cleaned out the overpopulated :Category:Drugs a number of times, I was concerned that creating the :Category:Diagnostic tests would probably result in a mess. So, I have no objections to your proposal. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I propose we move medical test to diagnostic test

message: WikiProject Gastroenterology has been nominated for deletion because of inactivity. Feel free to comment here. --WS 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Gastroenterology nominated for deletion 

message: I've never heard this term used before. --Uthbrian (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurs in pneumothorax and pleural effusions, but in the present form and on its own this article is meaningless. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've speedy-deleted it under CSD A3 (short article that does not provide context). If there's some independent literature on heart shift that could be used to expand the article, we could re-create it, but this is at best a self-explanatory finding that could be described briefly in the bigger articles cited by Jfdwolff. MastCell Talk 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Heart shift]] a legitimate article? 

message: Shameless plug: I've created a stub on donor lymphocyte infusion and would like to invite anyone interested to help expand it. I've got a ton of references sitting around, but I tend to get sidetracked easily. MastCell Talk 22:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donor lymphocyte infusion 

message: Autism is getting very little feedback at FAC.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Autism]] at FAC 

message: As authors get better at linking content back to source articles at PubMed, the underlying wiki markup becomes much more tedious to edit. I think the markup is going to get so unmanageable at to drive away prospective authors. In addition, I am starting to see the problem where one article at PubMed is cited twice from one page, but with a different ref tag so the article shows up twice in the bibliography.
There is not reason linking to PubMed as to be so difficult. Consider if WP has a system that is sort-of a  web mashup:
# WikiPedia has a reference server that maintains a database of citations from PMIDs, ISBNs, LCCs, etc that authors have cited.
# The author inserts into a Wiki page the wiki markup  or 
# The reference server looks to see if this citation is already in its database, if not, it goes to PubMed's eutilities to retrieve the citation information that will be displayed in teh WP page.
# The result is a much trimmer markup that is not clutted by citation details. This also reduces duplicate citations.
I think this would be an appropriate project for Wikimedia's participation in Google's Summer of Code.Badgettrg 20:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave Iberri's tool has made this slightly less tedious, but I still warmly support any move that will make it easier to cite indexed papers. The possibilities, once this is implemented, are endless! JFW | T@lk 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we add a feature that will prevent editors from selectively citing 15-year-old papers from Medical Hypotheses out of context to advance a fringe POV? MastCell Talk 05:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already implemented, just set <noquack = yes>....  -- MarcoTolo 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I use Dave Iberri's tool as well, it makes references much easier.  It would be much nicer to create the reference using the PMID, and have the formatting done later.  The format could potentially a setting specific to how each user likes to view references.Dlodge 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's make linking to PubMed easier 

message: I'm up against some single-purpose accounts who want to keep all ataxia-related content in a single article. I can see the arguments on both sides, but the process could really benefit from some experienced editors offering their feedback.  --Arcadian 17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also wish for other editors to take part in the discussion at Talk:Ataxia, but please notice - no single-purpose account involved. I requested the consensus debate at Talk:Ataxia, and the IP edits in ataxia-related pages today are mine (I forgot to sign in earlier today, and since I have dynamic IP, a different IP number appears every time I connect. Sorry about that.)   --Nehwyn 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Ataxia]]

message: Heads up re Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lyrl. Whilst not a signed up participant to this Wikiproject, I'm sure people here will have encountered Lyrl helpful and consistent editing on the controversial medical articles of contraception and abortion. David Ruben  Talk  19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: re a RfA

message: Are any of our resident WikiDocs familiar with this clinical entity? I'm not, and a fire-and-brimstoneish paragraph was recently added to the propofol article concerning it, describing it as "one of the most feared side effects" and "associated with a high mortality". I found several seemingly reputable articles after a quick PubMed search and chose a comprehensive one () to cite, but there is still some rewriting to be done, and I would welcome more competent input on this. I'm probably a bit too jaded and tend to be skeptical of any claims of extraordinarily severe adverse effects when uncited and freshly-added, so please enlighten me as this appears to be that ever so rare legitimate addition :) Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be mentioned, but with the proper amount of weight - there have been ~ 30 case reports, which would make this a fairly rare complication given how widely used propofol is. Nonetheless it would appear to warrant mention. Good find with the source. MastCell Talk 18:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propofol infusion syndrome 

message: Lung cancer needs input at peer review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lung cancer]] 

message: What can be done with this?  It reads as if it's an actual diagnosis.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein syndrome? MastCell Talk 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Einstein syndrome]] 

message: I've sadly just had to remove most of Postherpetic neuralgia article's pathophysiology and epidemiology material for being a direct copyvio undertaken in 2005 from eMedicine. My neuroanatomy ain't quite good enough to understand the eMedicine's pathophysiolopgy, so can anyone help rephrase/rewrite the relevant sections that I had to cut ? (article's discussion thread on this is Talk:Postherpetic neuralgia#Copyvio from eMedicine)David Ruben  Talk  23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, if the eMedicine text is written in a way where even a generalist physician finds it difficult to read, it's probably for the best it's been excised from Wikipedia. "Other patients with PHN may have severe, spontaneous pain without allodynia, possibly secondary to increased spontaneous activity in deafferented central neurons or reorganization of central connections. An imbalance involving loss of large inhibitory fibers and an intact or increased number of small excitatory fibers has been suggested. This input on an abnormal dorsal horn containing deafferented hypersensitive neurons supports the clinical observation that both central and peripheral areas are involved in the production of pain..." Not exactly music for the masses. MastCell Talk 03:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Postherpetic neuralgia

message: I've been trying to do some housecleaning on a number of entries among plastic surgeons (my field) that have been starting to pop up. There are a handful of "bios" of people not particularly notable in a historic sense creeping into wikipedia. The "quality" of some of these physicians' CV varies, but I don't want this to really grow like weeds. I tagged a few for propsed deletions if anyone wants to look
George Bitar, Jon Perlman, Douglas Ousterhout, Wallace Chang, Randal Haworth, & Ziya Saylan
Let me know if I'm being too "elitist", I just don't want to dilute inclusion criteria too much. I've tried twice to get (not particularly notable) transgender surgeon toby meltzer bounced, but there's a pretty militant trannie fan club.
Droliver 03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh. Nearly all of those articles are resumes, without reliable secondary sources to establish notability, so I'd be fine if they all went away. But that's just me. MastCell Talk 03:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed Surgeons' bio deletions

message: I'm interested in some feedback from peers. On biography pages, is it appropriate to contain links to a doctor's personal webpage? In particular, with fee for service areas of medicine like Plastic Surgery, a practice website is mostly an advertising vehicle. In the guideline for external links WP:EL, commercial portals are discouraged. I think it's reasonable to equate such a link to a commercial enterprise, and I've seen it treated as such on other MD's bios on wikipedia. 
I've deleted the practice website of plastic surgeon, Toby Meltzer,  only to run into resistance from some of the transgender folks who are very protective (like most of us) of any articles on doctors related to their pet issues. Dr. Meltzer is kind of a super-teriary specialist in trans-gender operations from patients who travel to him in Arizona. This practice website is how a number of patients are directed to him presumably for his practice.
If anyone has strong feelings on this, please share and chime in that discussion. Rob Droliver 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, links to a physician's private practice would seem to violate WP:EL by being commercial, adding little of encyclopedic value, etc. However, on a biography page, links to websites maintained by the subject of the article are generally accepted, even though they often have a commerical bent to them (again, per WP:EL). So long as Toby Meltzer is notable enough for an article, it's probably OK (IMHO) for that article to link to his practice website. However, the link shouldn't appear on other pages, such as gender reassignment surgery or plastic surgery. MastCell Talk 16:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it appropriate for for an MD's private practice websites to be linked to? 

message: To speak with Saddam Hussein, I have come to regard allergy as the mother of all eyesores. It is presently a hodgepodge of unreferenced POV, bits of random knowledge and some valid points too. I nominated this for MCOTW a while ago, but I suspect not many are looking at that page very often. I would appreciate everyone's votes, and perhaps we can tackle that article in the near future. Hmmm, eyesore, isn't that allergic conjunctivitis?
I'm planning some work on pancreatic cancer with the help of an extremely detailed review from Gut last month.
We have a very positive note on the coeliac disease article in a Gut book review, by the way. See Talk:Coeliac disease for details. JFW | T@lk 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. By the way, drop me a note when you're going to start on the pancreatic cancer article. I've been a little swamped in real life, but would like to work on it, and it's always easier if others are on board at the same time so we can bounce ideas and sources around. Allergy is giving me a headache so I'm not sure how much time I'll spend there. Actually, now that I look again, the layout is not half bad. It just needs a lot of cleanup. MastCell Talk 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother of all eyesores 

message: Can anyone who has access look at the journal study cited in the Table I built in my sandbox, and tell me if I altered it enough/left out enough to get away without this being a copyright issue?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright-wise, I see no difficulties - your table is simply a summary of the Mattila et al version. One question (and pardon my ignorance on the classification of ASDs): the final line of your table is "Exclusion of other disorder", while the Mattila table is "Exclusion of autistic disorder" - would it be more correct to say "Exclusion of other autistic disorders" here? -- MarcoTolo 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help!  Not sure; if you look at the list of exclusions in the footnotes of the table, they aren't all autistic disorders, so in the interest of not completely duplicating their text and violating copyright, I dropped that word.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Asperger syndrome has now been fully rewritten, top to bottom, to reflect reliable sources.  Review and feedback on the current status at Talk:Asperger syndrome#SG multiple responses would be welcomed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journal copyright question 

message: On Talk:Short bowel syndrome I'm having a discussion as to whether the type of total parenteral nutrition should be mentioned, given some recent case reports that different feeds cause less hepatic fibrosis. Comments invited. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short bowel syndrome 

message: The Surgery article seems to be woefully inadequate in describing even the fundamentals of modern surgery.  Is anybody working on expanding this article?  H Padleckas 09:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it could stand to be improved... go for it. MastCell Talk 15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After practically two months, nobody had made any improvements of substance to the Surgery article to address my above-mentioned concern.  So as MastCell suggested, I became bold and "went for it."  I substantially expanded the Surgery article to describe fundamental aspects of modern surgery.  I would like to request a peer review to ensure the Surgery article is technically sound.  If anybody wants to review Surgery and make any [beneficial] edits, please go ahead.  H Padleckas 03:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Surgery]] article 

message: There are substantial issues being introduced at Vaccine controversy and MMR vaccine.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaccine conroversy