The ref desk is not a soapbox; that's made very clear atop the page. You're welcome to restructure your comments to be factual rather than some opinionated political rant. Otherwise, expect removal; I find that far more honest than restructuring it all myself. — Lomn | Talk / RfC12:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You answered with a parallel couched in the strongest possible POV terms. As above, I felt soft removal was more appropriate than chopping your comments into something else, and I attempted to leave no POV (not "my own POV") as a result. RD guidelines are quite clear that "If you wish to argue a particular viewpoint, please do so on an appropriate talk page". Points 7, perhaps 8, and 11 are fine. The rest are in clear violation. — Lomn | Talk / RfC04:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unfamiliar characterization, but I will assume it was offered without irony, as my compliment on your additions was sincere as well. Thanks. alteripse01:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my tone was misintepreted -- rather than just say 'thank you for your kind words', I meant what I wrote above as playful kidding, by recycling icut4u's compliment to you. So, more straightforwardly this time, I thank you for your kind words. --Arcadian01:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I assumed that was what it was. I appreciate kind words, it was just that my sweet disposition is not regularly recognized so there was a small moment of uncertainty as I said, "who, me?". alteripse01:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello alteripse, i think we've got off on the wrong foot. I usually ramble on when i post, so i'm sorry for that already, hehe. Well, what i was referring to, is that there is a basis to all healthy diets, which is balance in micronutrients, and lessened intakes of salt, fat, sugar, and so on. In other countries, they have different food that makes up this balance.
As for the perspective, sure! I welcome new perspectives! and sure, i will write information relating to healthy eating with children, but the majority of the article relates to dietary advice that is to be given to children, and that is different from the healthy diet of sedentary adults, but the basis of balance is the same.
The problem is, that in the United Kingdom, particularly, children don't eat healthy foods at school, which is supposed to be the institution which provides them a figure which is supposed to be helping them, when in actual fact, they're receiving cheap procvessed burgers and chips from huge food companies! Now, weening children off these foods is difficult, because they're not likely to eat vegetables and healthier alternatives, because if they have the choice, they'll choose burgers (Jamies Kitchen also dealt with this issue).
However, as you can see, such a topic is very expansive, and would be ill-placed within tyhe healthy diet article. I will be adding the section relating to children, but it will be a small section, with a link to the fuller article which will contain a much more in-depth look at the issue.
Sorry for all the misunderstanding, i do apologise profusely! If you wish to help, your help is more than welcome on Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Nutrition.
Off the top of my head there is nothing obviously bogus. The x-rays are so similar that I had to look closely to make sure the same films hadn't been simply flipped. I probably would not have loaded two of each but it is a small matter. alteripse08:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a couple of responses. I would like to let this stay as the responses help me understand what the community thinks of the worth of various articles. -Nv8200ptalk17:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought it was a stub for a valid article, I would not have nominated it in the first place. Right now it is no more then a dictionary definition that has not significantly expanded in almost two years. Relax and let the community decide what to do. That is why we have deletion processes -Nv8200ptalk17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for giving me three specific points to work on in my article, Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy. I have eliminated the red links, given full names to all individuals, and I have added a section examining the relationship between CBT and ISTDP. I think your suggestions were spot-on.
Hello, some time ago you added a fair bit of content to Virilization. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to created them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other places you learnt the information that you added to Virilization? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP17:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's the basic knowledge of my profession. We could reference any pediatric endocrinology textbook. The basic research was many decades ago and not available online. alteripse22:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question for SimonP. I just looked at the virilization article. It is really basic stuff, mainly definitions and terminology. I wrote virtually the whole thing as part of preparation for a go at redoing our atrocious intersex article which I haven't mustered the courage to attempt yet-- I am trying to make sure that there are plenty of available uncontroversial background articles on basics before I try. Do you think there is anything in it that needs citation because of being potentially controversial or not agreeing with other reliable sources on this topic, or are you just asking me to provide more references in general? Thanks alteripse00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have found it fascinating to trace back certain key concepts to their first mention in the literature, even if the classical material is not available online. Personally I try to do both - a classical resource and a recent review/textbook chapter (I favour reviews). JFW | T@lk22:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the more I make it like work, the more I ask myself "why am I doing it here"? Actually, that is only a partial answer. The articles I expected to be controversial I have referenced in detail back to the 1950s: see History of intersex surgery and intersex surgery for much documentation.alteripse23:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The great thing about being a volunteer is that no one can make you do anything. I specifically created the system of talk page warnings to eliminated the bullying tactic of slapping {{unreferenced}} on articles. References are useful, but they are certainly not so important that we would want to sacrifice good contributors for them. - SimonP00:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally it would be great to see a list of some of the basic reasearch papers, even if they are not online. As Jfdwolff mentioned, such information is of interest beyond simply as a source. - SimonP00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is "complicated" or "unsettled". I haven't found one dictionary that even suggests any doubt about the etymology. Please reply on that talk page, not my user talk page. --BRIAN091818:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite clear about gold stars of truth beyond their sounding good, and I don't know what it refers to, but my experience of your contributions here has been so positive I'm positively itching to know. Can you point me in the right direction?
Now to the instant issue. There has been a disassembly of the diabetes article (see the history, of course) and creation of some new ones (to wit Type 1 and Type 2 and perhaps others, there are now pointers in the main diabetes article). I've left comments at all three mentioned out of irritation at exactly what I (and I'm pretty sure you) foresaw would likely happen. But leaving aside my pique, WP's coverage of DM has decreased in quality (however low it was before) in respect to overview and perspective, especially for layfolk (ie, victims). Not a Good Thing. You have many things on your plate, but you also have professional qualifications and knowledge and, more to my point, an ability to write clearly, hence this note. Your probable observation about punishement for the virtuous is apposite, but history suggests inevitable.
Perhaps you could look into these and at least leave a guiding comment or two (as from an MD) to encourage (and even, may the gods approve!!, direct) further refactorings/revisions/aultiy reductions? My beginnings are, I'm sure, inadequate, and, in any case I'm sure, too pique ridden to have much effect in those directions. Perhaps even candidates for Medical Collaboration of the Week? The underlying conditions are certainly important enough to qualify! ww18:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding to my request on separating Epispadias from Hypospadias. I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia (even though I registered months ago!). So much to write, so little time... Regards. Tony Makhlouf
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. The wiki specifies that they still follow the word of Leviticus.
No, the Seventh-day Advenist Church does not follow a literal interpretation of the Bible. Their views on prophecy are far from it. MyNameIsNotBob06:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The oil suspension is the main one used for treatment of hypogonadism and delayed puberty in the US. A common brand is Delatestryl. I put the url link in the edit comment for you when I removed your edit. Here it is again: [1]alteripse04:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the link. I am aware of course of testosterone enanthate, but was unaware of the fact that it was regarded as a suspension in oil. Since your knowledge of this exceeds mine, thank you for the clarification. Cavell02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Cavell[reply]
You are welcome. Sesame oil to be precise. You can use your lack of detailed knowledge of this as evidence of lack of personal use of this stuff if you need to (joke) since if you had used it, you would have known that the oil suspension makes it difficult to draw with any needle thinner than 18 gauge, quite different from aqueous solutions of injectable hormones. alteripse02:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that all test. enanthates possess this characteristic, because I can easily use every enthanate I have ever had with as small as a 25 gauge. Also, are all injectable, oil based steroids (enthanates, propanates, decanotes, undelclaotes, etc) regarded as "suspensions"?Cavell05:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Cavell[reply]
OK, then I will confess I haven't actually had it in my hands for a very long time. I have done a few testosterone shots in past years when a nurse was not available, but it has been many years since then, and it has been decades since I looked at the prescribing info for Delatestryl closely. I just checked the PDR and found
It is still sesame oil, which is what I remembered, but it is currently described as a solution in oil rather than a suspension. There is a basic chemistry difference between a solution and a suspension, especially when in water. I think the practical difference between most solutions and suspensions is whether the active ingredient settles or not while standing. So if your original point was that it was an oil solution rather than an oil suspension it appears that you are correct with regard to the current formulation of Delatestryl. I thought the issue was whether it was in oil or water-- it is and AFAIK has always been oil since steroids are not easily water soluble. I think it was once described as a suspension but I may be wrong and have nothing at hand to prove or disprove it.
Delatestryl seems to be reformulated and marketed by a different company than in the 1980s. I note that the newer formulation comes in syringes with 20 gauge needles. It used to come in vials and the nurses complained that it was hard to draw so we usually prescribed it with 18 gauge needles. I am not sure whether it has been reformulated and is thinner than it used to be or whether you have different standards for "drawing easily".
Testosterone cypionate no longer has a PDR entry. I haven't had a pharmacy ask if they could substitute it for enanthate for a couple of years and maybe it is no longer available in the US.
Bottom line: the major current US brand formulation of testosterone for parenteral injection seems to be Delatestryl, which is properly described as an oil solution for IM injection. Does that cover it? alteripse11:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, alteripse. I was wondering if I'd misunderstood your post to HW on WP:ANI. You seem to be inviting her to go ahead and create yet another sock account, but I can't believe that's how you meant it. Were you aware that she's still blocked? I've blocked her new account. There seems to be consensus, apart from your message, that sitting out this block is the least we should ask of her. (Actually behaving herself for the last two days of her block would be the first gesture of good faith she's ever made.) And yet you haven't unblocked her either, so I'm not sure what you think of the situation. Could you please take a look at my reply? (I probably won't post again tonight, as it's 3 AM in my timezone.) Bishonen | talk02:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made the suggestion on the assumption that she seemed to have access to more IPs and that the block was not working. I agree that sitting out the block would have been the wisest choice if she wanted to continue to use the HW account. I don't particularly care, but was sick of the whining and my response was an attempt to get her to see that she has created so much ill will that a fresh start might be the wisest course. I probably just should have ignored her as her interests seems far away from mine. I don't intend to get further involved, certainly not a dispute over how to handle her. alteripse04:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the block's not working, since her IPs are nimble and her range too big to block. I do think, though, that the least we have to ask ask is that she honor the block for two days (out of two weeks of block evasion). It's too absurd that the community would make all the concessions, and the user with the richly-deserved block none. I do appreciate the things you said to her about all the (quite unreasonable) bitching and moaning. You may even have gotten through to her — I hope so. Bishonen | talk05:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I actually finished high school in the US (in Indiana). I've kept in touch with lots of people, including a couple of my former teachers, so I remember Martin Luther King Day. :) My pleasure re the reversion. Sarah Ewart14:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to meet a Wiki-Hoosier! I went to South Knox High School in Vincennes. I was on a student exchange program, but I also spent a bit of time in Bloomington as one of my cousins was at IU and also up in Lafayette as my aunt and uncle live there (my uncle teaches at Purdue). Sarah Ewart14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on the user's talk page. Maybe after sleeping on it he'll see his mistake. That's some very insightful commentary at the Reference Desk, by the way. Tom HarrisonTalk14:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think LADA is a topic worth a page. Unfortunately a large amount of the page content is vague and indistinguishable from general diabetes info. I would be inclined to emphasize what is distinctive about LADA, and make the other general teatment recommendations very concise and mainly pointing to the major diabetes treatment articles.
This same user inserted an interesting link in the MODY article. If you looked at the link, she/he has copied exactly the text you and I wrote for our MODY article without acknowledging wikipedia as the source. Conversely, the content of the new LADA page is identical to the Islets of Hope content.
I am inclined to insist that the Islets of Hope site acknowledge our work if they want to include it.
I wonder whether the LADA material was borrowed from another copyrighted source since they did not bother to attribute the MODY material to ours.
I haven't looked at their other contributions or compared other parts of their website to see if more recombination has occurred.
I don't want to discourage a new contributor with some diabetes knowledge and good intentions but we need to clarify the relationships of the this site and hers. alteripse11:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A comment: I had added the information on hyperosmolar coma to the Glucose meter article. Although today's glucose meters do not provide specific values beyond their high — which as you indicate is <=600 — the ability to monitor very high blood sugars is important, allowing a patient to take action before they reach the point of of hyperosmolar coma (e.g. prevent the complication). Compare to the pre-glucometer days ... I've not added the information back, but would appreciate a conversation on the point. —ERcheck @ 11:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
exscuse me but also Muriel has done this trying to get people to delete this article important for a monarchic branch. This is a democratic encyclopedia and so this page has right to stay here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)
What is your area of specialty? Can you tell me anything about heart sounds and other heart-related (specifically CHDs) topics? If not, do you know of any doctor wikipedians who do specialize in cardiology? Thanks bcatt22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, definitely not my area. Go check out the doctor's lounge page at the wikiproject:Clinical medicine where most people have their specialties listed. We have a couple of internists who are probably your best bet. alteripse00:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see a real reason to go through and delete those specfic versions, I also don't see where it could cause any problems if that did happen. If (hypothetically) it had the persons real name address and slanderous info then I think it would be cause to delete. It may be gross vandalism, but it is still simple and sadly very common. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk02:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read lots and lots of articles of this type. When I worked as a RN my specialty was high risk pregnancy and maternal and infant death. More recently, I've went back to school studying medical sociology/cultural anthropology/behavioral medicine with an emphasis on reproduction. Unfortunately, many of these studies are terribly biased and of no real value. Only looked at the abstract, so I can not say for sure about this one. I need to set this laptop up to proxy the university library so I can read at home. --FloNight04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jimbo Wheels: "Arriving in this community with that user name is like showing up at a synagogue social hour with a nametag that reads Jesus Hitler."
alteripse, I'm sorry you thought my comments were an attack on the article. As you point out, the article isn't finished yet. You asked for comments! I pointed out the flaws in the research. I have no agenda to push and I will write an equally strong defense of the research, if needed. Often, lack of visual cues when reading comments is the cause of such miscommunication.
This topic is shared by OB/GYN, population studies, medical sociology, behavioral medicine and others. Mistakes made in OB/GYN treatment from forced sterilization, pushing hormone therapy [2] lactation suppression drugs, multiple gestation from IVF [3], and ineffective tocolytic agents [4]
raises some concern about the introduction of medical diagnosis leading to health policy based on weak research.
I worked as a mainstream OB/GYN nurse for 2 decades. I have a good understanding of mainstream medical standards. Obstetric nursing has always looked at the family. So, I have been exposed to these topics for over two decades. In the United States family centered OB care has been the rule for decades. I worked with OB families with special needs and always attempted to met a father's needs. Since he wasn't the patient, this was unbillable. We do it because it is morally right.
I'm interested in reproductive issues. The abortion debate in the US has polluted the topic. Many mainstream researcher avoid it because it always leads back to the abortion and abstinence debate. This means much of the research is done by the those with an extreme pov. IMO, Ellis is pushing a pov. Easy to do with weak study design. Today, issue groups are using it to push their agenda. That is not alright because it wastes research money and condones weak research methods. We need solid research that links bio-medical and sociology/anthropology. I hope this help you understand my comments. --FloNight16:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Looking again at your comment, I think I misinterpreted the antecedent of your last pronoun.alteripse 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Take a look at the puberty social influences section. Have I done your concerns justice? I am thinking of moving it to the menarche article and shortening the version in puberty. What do you think? alteripse19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The the whole article looks very nice : ) Only one suggestion re: social infuences section. When you re-write it, include some where that it may not fully address the variety and complexity of family units. I like what you've done with puberty, but would work in menarche too. --FloNight23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alteripse - in spite of your ad hominem attacks on me, you will now have noticed that your article on HGH - which I think is necessary, contained lots of good information, and was well intended - has degenerated into an edit war. It is very important to write even initial drafts of articles as neutrally as possible, or at least provide a structure that lends itself to constructive editing, or else people with different points of view go nuts on it. I want to encourage you to work on the article, because you obviously have a lot of knowledge on and interest in the matter; but you will get nowhere if you want to make it a soapbox. --Leifern02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No edit war. I removed the text I had added because I don't have the time and energy for fighting over it at the moment. Your input on this and the anti-vaccine pages has been a combination of useful suggestions and a couple of really blind misrepresentations of wikipedia policy to support a pro-quackery POV. It is simply not honest and not encyclopedic to present fraudulent and misleading pseudoscience as "another point of view" like a theological debate. Whether you can understand that I am not sure. alteripse02:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only links I got rid of were irrelvant ones to external sites. I don't think it's good (though maybe I'm wrong), for example, to show the external link for Amtrak (http://www.amtrak.com/) each time Amtrak appears in an article. The rest of the link changes were to the subdivisions of the airlines which have their own article, such as Delta Connection. Also, it's spelled Delta Air Lines, not Delta Airlines. That was my primary fix, and then I noticed all the other things. Hope that helps explain why I changed the links accordingly. Let me know what you think. All the best. --Allstar8621:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello alteripse: ) Saw that you worked on Contact immunity. Pretty high quality article for a new user. I helped Rlax cite sources on the article. Could be a high quality editor! Did you every hear back from our concerned father? I need to follow up, I suppose. Last time I looked you were still working on moving the info around between menarche and puberty. That's been awhile ago, so your probably finished. I'm sure it's great work as usual. : )
FloNighttalk12:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a 34 year old Norwegian female with Turner syndrome (mosaic 45,x/46,XX). I became spontanousely pregnant and I have a perfectly normal six year old son. I know a little genetics from my university studies. I am still a bit confused and anxious. If I tried to get another ichild, would the possibility of a chromosome disorder be greater than normal? I guess the big question is: Will one of my abnormal cells divide and produce egg cells or is it just my normal cells who produce egg cells? Would an eggcell without a sex chromosome be able to mature and produce a follicle at all?
If anyone have any information on the matter, or any information about any other female with Turner syndrone who spontanousely became pregnant, I would greatly appreciate it. Please Email me: lenef@sensewave.com
You mentioned a way to make chloral hydrate at home. I have prescriptions for it and pay through the nose for it. If I had a way to make it that would be dandy. It really helps sleep. I was sad to hear in can cause liver damage though..
I am sorry, but I am the person who removed the recipe because I thought it was reckless of us to be posting a recipe for "knock out" drops. I always thought chloral hydrate was cheap but I am either misinformed or simply comparing it to so many newer drugs. alteripse02:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Jim-
I understand. It's expensive now because not too many companys will carry it. Currently I think Somnote is the only one.
Thanks
From Jim again- Might I also mention it is a good drug as a sleep aid for headache sufferers because it doesn't have rebound effects that some drugs have such as acetaminophen. Most doctors are unaware of the rebound effects from pain killers and sleep aids. Other headache sufferers should keep this in mind or mention it to their prescription writers. Chloral hydrate is an old drug but is free of rebound effects and grogginess in the morning.
Here's a copy of the message I just left on the talk page of Phimosis, in case you haven't seen it:
Then why was the page listed for reference cleanup? As it was, I hadn't even finished converting the links. It is entirely possible to adapt the previous format, including authors, what content is in the article, the publisher, using the {{cite web}} format.
Hello. I am contacting you over concer about your block of ip 207.229.174.14. Looking at his talk page and contributions, this seems like a content dispute, not vandalism. Can you explain as to why a block of his IP was warrented?
Please note, I am -not- an admin, just a concerned user. --OrbitOnetalk06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I tried to replace my user page (User:Lcarsdata) with a version I had been creating at User:Lcarsdata/v3 unfourtunatley when I moved my current one to a new page (so I had an archive) it created a redirect and now I can't move v3 to the main one so I am stuck. Please could you delete my user page so i can replace it with v3. Thanks in advanced. LcarsdataTalk | E-mail | My Contribs07:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hi, I saw in the subject Text box that you left a question asking "where can we find the code for making a text box in wikipedia?" located Talk:Text_box. Did you every get a response or find how to do it? Any information would be appreciated. lcoviedo 19.April.2006
There was no response but I have figured out how to do it. See some examples in an article I am working on User:Alteripse/diabetes workshop. Basically, I would suggest finding an example of a box style you like and examining the code in edit mode. alteripse07:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alteripse. Thanks for the welcome. I am who my tag suggests. I figure that it would be strange for me to edit intersex content with a pseudonym, and might seem shady if people learned that I had done so. No? You offered some suggestions for how to make edits to controversial pages. May I ask you to be more specific? I'm trying to be respectful of the wikipedia community and content. Do you think that the edits I have made should have been posted to talk pages first? Can you direct me to a controversial article where edits have been negotiated at talk pages, so I can learn the style? Are some of my edits too large? Also, since you know my identity, and say that we have met, would you like to tell me your identity? Cherylchase01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking it up! Would you add it to the article? I'll probably do some research on alternate explanations. My gut tells me there's not much consensus on it. It this fun? 8-) --CTSWyneken22:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly new to wikiedia, and I couldn't find the answer to this. Is a reference valid when it is a link to a forum that is closed to viewing, where you have to register, with email verification, to even view the forum? Just wondering about the reference here:
[5]
just below:
The serological data is lost, but something may yet come as a result of the original study:
"On a case-control basis there is some pretty good data, which I should tease out and do something with."
(then the reference to the closed forum)
But then again.. I guess anything goes in discussion?
Thanks.
Stmrlbs00:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically anything civil and relevant goes on talk pages. Most editors would remove closed forum links unless they offered information both vital to the article and unavailable elsewhere, but would describe the link. alteripse00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did not think cites were even required for discussion until apers0n asked me for one. Then I was wondering what exactly the guidelines were for discussion, what was required/not required when you made a reference to an outside source.
ok.. I think I have the picture. Thanks again. Stmrlbs00:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say, that I thought your answer to the races/breeds question at the RD was very well thought out and impressed me with its attention to nuance. I usually assume the worst when people try to answer genetics and race-related questions in the reference desk (most people don't know a lot about the details of the subject and most accounts of it the news media are horribly misleading), and was pleasantly surprised. --Fastfission22:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read you're an endocrinologist, cool. I'm very interested in metabolic disorders and would like to specialize in endocrinology some day if I get the chance, I have one question though I'm wondering maybe you have an answer to me. A med student friend of mine said that endocrinologists mainly work with diabetics. Is this true? While diabetes is indeed a very interesting disease I get the feeling that working post-residency until retirement with mostly diabetics would become boring in the long run. What's your experience? Regards, Jack Daw17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diabetes represents about half the endocrine disease out there. However, there are lots of ways to do endocrinology, and some avoid diabetes by being in big departments where they can specialize in a narrower range of problems. In general there are two kinds of endocrinologists: (1) those for whom diabetes is the most important and interesting disease of all because it requires knowledge and therapeutic intervention at every level from the molecular to the social and necessitates a personal relationship with a patient, and (2) those who don't like those very characteristics, and would much prefer thinking about lab tests and hormone physiology to why their patient does or doesnt do what you wish he did. You have to decide which description fits you. alteripse18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your working toward simplicity in the lead section of Down syndrome. The first paragraph was the result of compromise among some very strong-willed editors, starting around the first of the year, and concluding with this discussion: Talk:Down_syndrome/Archive_2#What.27s_in_a_name. While one of the editors finally gave up and has not been seen since, I'd hate to go back on a compromise that was worked out. If nothing else, it has withstood several attempts to change it. In the United States and Canada, the accepted term among genetic professionals is Down syndrome. In other parts of the British Commonwealth, it seems that Down's syndrome is the accepted term. If we are after accuracy, then this is needed, and I think the compromise wording does it with minimal fuss. Why use less precise wording? Ted01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The terms are interchangeably recognizable by the entire english-speaking world. The intro sentences of an article should inform the reader as to the topic of the article so he immediately recognizes he is at the right place, and then provide perhaps the 3-6 most important facts about the topic. The largely ignored geographic differences in apostrophe use results from a medical journal style decision in the 1970s which has been adopted only unevenly around the world. I suspect the actual usage does not follow the claimed geography very cleanly but dont care enough to argue that aspect, and have never heard anyone actually argue strenuously for one form over the other. While we can mention the origin of the two terms farther down in the article, perhaps in the history of the terminology, I would not put it in the top 50 facts about Down syndrome that an encyclopedia article should provide. It certainly does not belong in the lead sentence of the article. I just got the new edition of a standard genetics text which has an excellent 3 page article on the topic, and I was planning to add a few missing things to this article but was stopped by the awkward, trivial, and questionably accurate opening sentence. alteripse11:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to contribute or not as you see fit. It is entirely up to you. I'll look again at the introduction in the light of simplicity. As for "questionably accurate," the whole problem is with accuracy. Should we also include "Mongolian Idiocy?" It is still used, and is broadly recognized. However, it doesn't reflect professional usage. I guess I'm stuck on "professional" usage. Thanks again for your comments. Ted19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter of style even more than accuracy. The geographic distribution of estradiol and oestradiol fits the American/British demarcation far more accurately and their equivalence is far less immediately obvious than Down and Down's, but the opening sentence simply informs the reader they are equivalent and leaves the geographic usage distinction far later. If you doubt my claim that the geographic distinction is not entirely accurate, all you have to do is search medline for Down syndrome once and Down's syndrome once and look at the national origins of the first 20 journals using each term. You will find immediate exceptions to the geographic claim: British journals such as Nature and Paediatr Nursing using Down syndrome, while American journals such as Curr Opinion Obstet Gynecol use Down's. And I have no idea what you meant by dragging in Mongolian idiocy-- I was trying to make the opening sentence less encumbered by imprecise terminology explanations, not more. If you are really invested in the geographic claim, leave it in, but I still dont think it is important enough or accurate enough to belong in the opening sentence. alteripse21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relating to the context under History my opinion is that the expression "mongolian idiocy" should not be used and be replaced with it or this: By the 20th century, ‘’this’’ had become the most recognizable form of mental retardation”, as both expressions have been used sufficiently in the sentences above, thus avoiding overusing what has become a negatively charged expression and emphasizing the correct one – even if the dispute and change is described further down (no pun intended). --Profero16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A, you have joined the side of the censors who are attempting to vandalize the article on the Presbyterian Church's anti -Semitism problem. Despite third party reputable sources that report that the PC has been accused of anti-semitism, you have supported those who consistenly delete that information. If you feel the PB church is not anti semitic, you are certainly free to add information to the article and cite sources that say it is not - it is vandalism, however, to delete information that such a controversy even exists. I would guess that you are a man of science from your talk page, since that requires a clarity of thought I would hope that upon reconsideration YOU will edit the PC article to include the anti-semitism information (adding to it if you wish information that would attempt to refute that charge).
Only a rabid and bigoted fanatic assumes that an objection to Israeli policy is the same as antisemitism. You have similar intellectual difficulty with the concept of vandalism, which is not applicable to a content dispute. I don't even consider your nonsense to be vandalism, just unacceptable from a factual and POV standpoint. And note that I did not remove your references or the fact that some jewish extremists equate criticism of israel with antisemitism-- all I did was make sure it was attributed as an opinion rather than presented as an indisputable fact. That you call that censorship and vandalism should tell you how ridiculous your accusations are. alteripse19:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but where did I ever say that objectng to Israli policy constitutes antisemitsm? You have established a straw man, allow me to knock it down - it is very permissible to criticise Israel policy on a specific matter and not only fail to be an anti semite but actually be a pro Israeli Jew - Jews and Israeli Jews constantly criticise Israeli policy, there are several democractically elected parties there that constantly clash on policy. There is a tipping point, however, where valid criticism can cross over to actual anti Judaism (that man, who happens to be a Jew, is a crook v. all Jews are crooks); legitimate sources are quoted as saying that the Presbyterian Church is antisemitic (you can read the cites for their reasoning) - that the PC is accused of anti semitism is a legitimate, valid point to raise in an article about the PC - I did not state in the article that I thought the PC is antisemetic, I edited to indicate that valid sources have taken that position (I have made my own beliefs clear in the talk section, where the standards for what is permissible are different). To take out that information is censorship, and an attempt to withhold from the article information that should be known to the reader. I would therefor suggest you once again read the Wiki rules, and make the appropriate edits yourself.Incorrect00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your cites say no such thing. None of them mention the terms antisemitism or blood libel. As I responded on the talk page, you are only person to use those terms, referenced with articles that simply complain about their anti-israeli- policy policy. Your arguments here are simply dishonest. alteripse00:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the article talk page for my apology for claiming that none of the references supported your characterization. One of the 3 did. alteripse02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:::BIRMINGHAM, June 16 — Presbyterian James Woolsey ran the Central Intelligence Agency during part of President Bill Clinton's administration, so his take on world events carries a certain weight among General Assembly commissioners. He minced few words when he spoke during an unofficial General Assembly gathering Friday. Woolsey criticized the General Assembly's 2004 decision to consider divesting in companies that refuse to reform such practices as selling bulldozers to raze the homes of Palestinians living on land disputed with Israel.
"We have, I'm afraid, moved into a posture…that, unless what we did two years ago is rejected, we are clearly on the side of theocratic, totalitarian, anti-Semitic, genocidal beliefs, and nothing less," Woolsey declared. http://www.pcusa.org/ga217/newsandphotos/ga06031.htm incorrect
You are intellectually and ethically bankrupt if you equate criticism of Israeli policy with genocidal antisemitism. Go bother someone else. alteripse23:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noted your comment in the talk section of Swyer syndrome and have no issue with taking the section out for clarity. I had opened Gonadal dysgenesis basically as a disambig site which, perhaps, may be a way to handle the topic, specifically as the literature is not consistent and the different forms of GD have been now covered. If you want to convert it into a larger article on GD itself, please feel free to do so, but I am not sure that it will not repeat already what has been said. Ekem20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you removed the references to recent studies showing no added benefit of T3. Obviously, one of the reasons people take Armour is because it contains T3 as well. JFW | T@lk20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved them to talk, where I explained that it is a distinct issue and would be better covered in the article on treating hypothyroidism. I am not done revising the end, but I assume you noticed that neither reference used desiccated thyroid, and both used different mixes of T4 and T3, and thus are of little relevance to the efficacy of Armour thyroid. I want to represent both sides fairly and I hope you agree that so far I have done that, but I would also like to be accurate and balanced and the article as of this morning was neither. alteripse20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Was Bliss your source? I have a copy of the Allen diabetes manual from about 1918-- it was the original Atkins diet-- no carbs at all, surprisingly upbeat considering it was a miserable diet that only added months to lifespan for most of these children. alteripse04:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I moved your comment, which is appreciated and deserves serious response, to the Y chromosome article talk page, since it is entirely about the content of the article. alteripse12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to disagree with your diagnosis, but the skin color indicates an age and not a sex difference. For more on this particular homoerotic scroll, please see [6]. You will see that boys are every bit as gaudily dressed as women, and are put to much the same uses. Haiduc03:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even the hair? Ok, clearly this is a topic I should have avoided, but I'll bite. What is the indicator that they are both male? alteripse04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a connaisseur of Eastern tonsures, the identification was made by experts as you can see from the link I indicated above. Also, take a look at this for a more explicit image which also shows the similarity between the man's and the boy's hair styles. Haiduc00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to personally thank you for answering my question on the MD "Mess" page, about andropause. I am well acquainted with menopause (sigh), but was not familiar at all with any serious discussion of 'male menopause'. With all the television advertising, I have sometimes wondered if diseases or disorders ("social anxiety disorder" comes to mind) are invented to sell pharmaceuticals. Alas, it would not surprise me if aging is someday labeled a 'disorder'. I consider aging a normal life process, and have no desire to be 30 again. Anyway, thank you again. I learned something today!jawesq05:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering if maybe you could help me with an endocrinological question of sorts. I thought it might be more convenient to ask you directly rather than ask at the reference desk. Anyway you can just ignore this question if you so choose... The question:
I've recently read up on biochemistry and in the part about gluconeogenesis there's a chart of the "event" showing that alanine is used somehow in synthesis of cytoplasmic pyruvate from lactate. Now, the book explains that "Alanine and glutamine are the major amino acids exported from muscle for gluconeogenesis." My question is, what other amino acids are used? The chart includes Glu/Gln and Asp/Asn in the TCA cycle, but are there any more? I would appreciate it very much if you could give me an answer, or perhaps refer me to some other "e-Doctor" :) Jack Daw17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Muscle protein contains many other amino acids besides ala and gln. However, when it is catabolized, most of the other aa's must be transformed into ala or gln in order to be converted to pyruvate and participate in gluconeogenesis. Does that answer your question? alteripse16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much yes. Follow-up question: If there is ala and gln in the blood in the event of stress (triggering gluconeogenesis) will muscle still be broken down or will the ala/gln in the blood be used first before turning to muscle "stores" of the aa's? Jack Daw15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I understand your question. Perhaps the answer would be found in one of these generalities, which I think to be true:
There is always measurable ala and gln in the blood. The amount there will not support much gluconeogenesis.
If a stress signal induces gluconeogenesis, it will involve both liver and muscle, and result in catabolism of muscle.
I do not think artificially elevated levels of ala and gln could prevent or suppress the metabolic consequences of a stress signal.
Just leaving you a note to explain why I reverted your talk page: the text I removed was a spurious/vexatious request from User:HotHotSoup, the latest sockpuppet of User:PoolGuy, spamming the talk pages of admins (and a few non-admins), and apparently working alphabetically. Contributions of a banned user may be reverted by anyone, but if you would still like the message to be included here, feel free to revert back. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i'm asking you only because you are an administrator. i was editing an article and now all my links ("[[ ]]") are underlined. i was wondering how i could correct that. b_cubed21:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user will not quit. He has vandalized my talkpage numerous times over the past three days
Today he deleted comments of other users with no explanation[7], protecting my talkpage[8] without any justification, deleting my response to his harassment on my talkpage with the bizarre edit summary "Since you are saying goodbye, let's assume you mean it, eh?", and then leaving this threatening message to intimidate me into leaving[9].
Before that he vandalized my talkpage[10]. Then when I reverted another user assumed he was right and reverted to JzG's version, but realized he was wrong and apologized. I was cordially and said it was alright. JzG has left numerous uncivil comments on my talkpage that can be viewed if one goes through the history of the page. He has also repeatedly been warned. I want him blocked immediately. Tchadienne22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit here to the blood type diet article, and after checking my changes, saved it. But it saved it as a "minor" edit. my mistake.. it is not a minor edit. I understand you are monitoring this article? could you turn off the minor edit indicator?
You choose to either check the minor change box or leave it checked or uncheck it when you save each edit. It is mainly an etiquette issue. Most of us who monitor articles of interest may not look at every edit marked minor, as they are usually simply spelling or punctuation corrections or link insertions. The danger of marking a substantive text change as minor is that someone who disagrees with you will accuse you of trying to sneak in a change "under the radar". Don't worry about the last one, but watch the minor change box on your next edit and you will see what I mean. alteripse21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok.. I noticed that my edit here was also marked minor. So I checked my preferences and I see that I had checked the "Mark all edits minor by default".. by mistake. I unchecked it so this won't be the default. sorry.
Tonight I started going through the admin list to see who is and who is not active and got sidetracked by noting who and who is not using edit summaries. Just a bit of constructive criticism: you're extremely low in this regard (at least recently) relative to other admins. I'm kind of leaving this note generically to 1 in 4 people (I very much doubt I'll get to Z :) so hope you take it well. Cheers, Marskell00:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just manually looked at the last two hundred where the first fifty showed a lack. No bot. I don't know if I should bother as I'll just wind up with a bunch of "wtf is this?" messages. There is a logic at work though: I've started regularly voting on RfAs and edit summaries is one criteria I use. I thought if that's the case, it's fair to expect it from established admins. However there is no hard and fast rule in this regard and you're perfectly entitled to different criteria. Thanks for your comments. Marskell08:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, alterprise. No hard feelings, but I want to make sure we're clear. Your suggestion was to accept his apology. Which I'm not going to do, because I don't. I also explained, in my original post on AN/I, why I am not going to ask him not to make any more weird comments. I feel that he is being more and more outrageous in order to goad me into responding to him. Your suggestions are appreciated. Anchoress03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter!
As you've no doubt noticed, there's a new Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject newsletter, which will be sent out about once a month to all WP:MCB members. This newsletter is designed to perform two equally important functions. Firstly (and obviously, perhaps) it will serve to inform the members of the MCB project of such things as important discussions, votes, and article improvement drives. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the periodic correspondance will hopefully encourage a greater level of participation from the MCB community by acting as a gentle reminder of many of the the interesting tasks that are awaiting completion. If you prefer to receive this newsletter in the form of a link, or not receive it at all, you can add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Have any pet MCB subjects that you think need attention? Have you been longing to be part of a team of like-minded editors working toward a common goal? If so, the MCB Article Improvement Drive is for you! On the first of every month a new article is selected by the MCB with the goal of promoting it to good article status. Make your nominations and cast your votes now, because the first article will be chosen on September 1!
In an effort to organize and motivate the MCB activities, it has recently been proposed that a member of the MCB project take the role of "director", who would be responsible for the administrative side of the MCB project, including but not limited to coordinating recruiting efforts, spamming the newsletter, and maintaining the Article Improvement Drive and MCB Portal. A special discussion/vote page has been created for this proposal, and the vote will run until 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC), unless the community decides otherwise.
Odds and ends: what else you got?
In an effort to raise our profile and possibly attract some new blood, a shiny new MCB project banner template has been created at {{Template:Wikiproject MCB}}. Please add it to the talk pages of all MCB-related articles.
If you wish to opt out of having the newsletter posted on your talk page in the future, you may add yourself to the opt out list Newsletter concept and layout blatantly "borrowed" from the Esperanza newsletter.
There seems to be a bit of conflict occuring on the Anabolic Steroid page where newer users are erasing entire artics and then continuing the revert them when I revert them. One specific user called 'tomsintown' also doesn't know how to even use the talk page and continues to erase my posts done on the talk page. You need to talk to him about this.Wikidudeman15:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re: ==STI's== on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, Sept. 3/06
Thank you for your response. No, I have an account on Wikipedia. That's what you type in the search box to get to my talk page, but thanks for your response. How do you know of you have a from your parent (within the context of the above)?68.148.165.21313:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But STI's do not necessarily change genes, nor does it affect the baby prenatally. Can't STI's show up after the baby is born? I.e., affecting a person after the person is out of the womb? Or tube, in the case of invitro babies?24.70.95.20317:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Ok, can you get a get HSV2 during delievery\prenatally but be a carrier, or for a lack of better words, be able to infect other people, without showing any symptoms, even 'till the day you die'? I know that HSV2, you get get anywhere. Ok, I'll explain my situation. My parents never tested themselves for STI's and they still haven't. I am a virgin. But from the wikipedia article Herpes simplex virus, it says you can can it anywhere, & from what I garner from my talk page, InvictaHOG says that you can get HSV2 and NEVER display symptoms even by the time your dead [And come to think of it maybe even after your dead. Am I right?]. From this information, I just want to stay away from people. But that's so inconsiderate. So maybe as much information you guys could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.10011010007:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article
I am dubious for 2 reasons. First, I think you are underestimating the difference between irritation and tasting. Second, this phenomenon seems strange enough that it would probably be widely known if true. But I freely admit I do not consider sensory physiology one of my areas of expertise. alteripse00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've experienced it myself with cerumolytic drops - I swear you can taste them. This was the only reason I could figure out why, seeing as how I knew my eardrums were intact. Mattopaedia09:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article
Actualy, I think I do ok in terms of medicolegal issues (information, not advice!), but further input is good, and it certainly didn't hurt anything to point out what you did. And you're one of the few folk here who I would "grant" carte blanche for comments: anything you think something needs saying, feel free, and I promise not to take umbrage, and you don't have to try to walk on eggshells for my benefit. Well, I promise not to take too much umbrage, depending :) - Nunh-huh03:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Alteripse! You said you would be unable to attend the Philadelphia Wikipedia meetup on 14 October, but suggested a different weekend. Fortunately, it has now been rescheduled for 4 November. If you could again edit Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your coming, that would be excellent. Thanks! --CComMack (t•c) 16:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a user called 'richard perterson' who continues to edit the Anabolic Steroid page and refuses to defend his edits on the talk page. He continues to add the 'expert needed' template and won't defend his addition of the template on the talk page. He just keeps adding it when I remove it. I have started a topic on that talk page for him to defend his actions on but I am not sure he will do so. He might simply re-add the template and ignore any attempts at discourse. So I am asking for your help if this turns out to be the case. Hopefully he will discuss his edits without resorting to an edit war but I can never know. So I thought I would give you a heads up to keep an eye on his edits to that page. Thanks Wikidudeman07:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject
Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – ClockworkSoul17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are a recent arrival with an interest in SBS. While I respect the effort you put into "buffing" the "nutriture" section, please see talk page as to why we only need about 2 sentences to dispose of it. Please dont take my removal personally, and I would be happy to explain more fully if it doesnt make sense to you. alteripse 22:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Please an explanation for the removal and for the current inaccurate information.
When people visit the project, the very first thing that they see tends to be the project's main page, and with this in mind, the main page has been completely overhauled. To enhance readability the various "goals" sections have been merged, and a detailed "how you can help" section has been added. To increase accessibility for more established members, the links to any resources that were in the main body text have been moved onto the navigation bar on the right. Finally, the whole page has been nicely laid out and given a nice attractive look.
I'm proud to announce the addition of out newest feature: peer review! The MCB peer review feature aims serve as a stepping stone to improve articles to featured article status by allowing editors to request the opinions of other members about articles that they might not otherwise see or contribute to.
Project progress
The article worklist
We’ve had quite a bit of progress on the worklist article in the past month. Not only has the list itself nearly doubled in size from 143 to 365 entries, but an amazing three articles have been advanced to FA status, thanks in great part to the efforts of our very own TimVickers! Remember, the state of the worklist is the closest thing we have to quantifying the progress of the project, so if you get the chance, please take a look at the list, pick a favorite article, and improve it!
Collaboration of the Month
Last month's Collaboration of the Month, cell nucleus, was a terrific success! In one month, the article went from a dismal stub to an A-class article. Many thanks to all of the collaborators who contributed, especially ShaiM, who took on the greatest part of the burden. This month's Collaboration of the Month, adenosine triphosphate, isn't getting nearly the attention of its predecessor, so if you can, please lend a hand!
Finally...
The project has a new coordinator, ClockworkSoul! The role - my role - of coordinator will be to harmonize the project's common efforts, in part by organizing the various tasks required to make the project run as smoothly and completely as possible. Many thanks to those who supported me and those participated in the selection process.
If you wish to opt out of having the newsletter posted on your talk page in the future, you may add yourself to the opt out list Newsletter concept and layout blatantly "borrowed" from the Esperanza newsletter.
Hello, I was wondering if perhaps you know anything about a study I participated in while on GH treatment for deficiency during childhood. I started treatment at around age 7 which persisted till I was 18. At first I took injections in the evening, but after some time I was asked if I wanted to participate in a study where you split the dose in half, taking one injection in the morning and one in the evening. I never heard anything about how the study went, if it was more effective or not. Is this anything that you know about? If not, do you know how I could find the results of the study?
While I'm at it I'd like to ask, if I want to find out if I have got any of the side effects stated in Growth_hormone_treatment#Risks_of_GH_treatment, such as decreased insulin sensitivity, could I ask my endocrinologist or should I assume I haven't suffered from any side effects if no disease has manifested three years post-treatment? Thank you. Jack Daw18:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I read your note on the article on hypoglycemia unawareness. I did know that there had been fears with copyright violations of this. These may have been observed after my initial proposal that the article should have been merged with another paper (I am inclined to share your views on the initial short article). The best thing to do would probably be to include this information on this topic in another article. ACEO21:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the eu-FEDS hypothesis, there are now many physicians (primarily reproductive immunologists) out there that are very interested in this model but desire a brief summary for their residents and other interested parties. This article was meant to address this issue. The recent demonstration of an overlap in glycosylation between CA125 and gp120, plus the data indicating that CA125 is actually an immunosupppressive glycoprotein (not just a tumor marker) has induced substantial excitement in gynecological oncology. In addition, our latest data showing that human sperm express immunosuppressive carbohydrate sequences that are also upregulated on virtually all aggressive human tumor cells, is causing many cancer and reproductive biologists to take notice. And now many retrovirologists are also taking a very hard look at this work, as witnessed by grant support for this extremely unconventional approach to AIDS pathogenesis in both humans and monkeys. The eu-FEDS hypothesis was notable before, but now it is about to take wings and fly.
It is purely logical that pathogens and aggressive tumor cells would attack us via the reproductive imperative. The immune system must genuflect before the reproductive system to enable reproduction between histoincompatible individuals. It is now up to all biomedical scientists to target this insidious system thus enabling us to finally eradicate these highly destructive pathogens and tumor cells. In the end, that is all that really counts. I was really beginning to wonder if anyone would see the light here. Now I see that someone has. Thank you very much for your support.--Clarkgf17:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I guess you couldn't find that GH study I mentioned earlier, that's fine, thanks anyway.
Got another question. In the GH deficiency article it says that several agents may be used to evaluate pituitary function, including arginine. Is this something that you in your work has used, or has insulin become the exclusive GH-inducing agent to use? What is the relative efficiency of arginine to insulin in inducing a release of GH? Also, does it work if arginine is taken orally? If it has to be injected, is it IV or...? Thank you for your always very informative and educational answers. Jack Daw16:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arginine has been a standard for many years. Most of us stopped using insulin in the early 90s. Insulin is a stronger stimulus for GH release and has been specificity (fewer false positives) but arginine has better sensitivity (fewer false negatives). An insulin test is a much more unpleasant test to put someone through and requires bedside supervision, though it has the advantage of serving as a test of the pituitary adrenal axis also. I have never seen a study of arginine by mouth and do not know if there are any drawbacks to oral administration. If you are thinking of daily arginine as a way to boost long-term growth hormone production by a non-deficient person, each substantial IV dose produces only a single peak of GH lasting about 40 minutes (a clonidine trial, based on the same idea, did not acclerate growth). The only oral GH stim test, very popular in England in the 60s and 70s was the Bovril test. alteripse01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) PS I sent you an email about my unsuccessful search for the published study.[reply]
As you confirm such stimulations have little if any impact on growth, so I wouldn't use arginine to increase GH secretion, although there are probably several bodybuilders and the like who do so. No, this is merely for my never-ending quest of becoming an amateur endocrinologist, hehe. So about the arginine, how much is injected and by what method? Is it free form? Jack Daw15:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is an iv infusion, run into a vein over half an hour. The dose is 0.5 g/kg to a maximum of 30 g. Draw blood samples for GH level every 15 minutes for an hour. alteripse00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your posts at: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Human_Adaptations, they seemed a bit curt, to me. You may very well be correct in your facts, but should still try to be as polite as possible to keep a war from breaking out. I suggest something like this:
"I disagree, because ... as described in this source: ..."
...rather than saying that the person on the other side of the debate is ignorant. Even if true, this still isn't something that's helpful to say, it only elicits a vicious retort. We especially want to protect newbies on the Ref Desk from such wars, although it would be best to avoid them entirely. StuRat17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, his first response to me started with the word, "Nonsense". I thought my response was a reasonably restrained fuller explanation of why he was wrong, but he has since done his best to convince us all he is uneducable and stubborn, as well as ignorant. A truly appealing combination. But I will say no more. alteripse21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism, (see "Sneaky Vandalism" on this page, which includes adding misinformation). Also, when one deliberately introduces incorrect information into an article, and falsely attributes this information to a published study, this is considered forgery. This is a very severe form of vandalism, and therefore this will be your only warning. The next time you deliberately introduce incorrect information into an article, as you did to puberty, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
In this case, you edited the article puberty and added fabricated data that you falsely attributed to a published study. More precisely, you quoted some genuine data from this particular study regarding age and sexual development in girls, and then intentionally falsified additional data and combined it with the geniune data and presented it together.
Although Wikipedia has a policy requesting that editors assume good faith when evaluating the actions of other editors (WP:AGF), "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." In this case, the evidence is overwhelming to the point that a violation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A substantial portion of the data in these tables matches the data from full text of the above published study the you cited as the source, proving that this is where you got the the data from. You then added additional data to these tables for paramaters that were not even evaluated at all in the study, i.e. you falsified these values.
For the record, this matter involves data you incorporated into the article Puberty as tables 2a and 2b, data which you attributed to the following study: "Secondary sexual characteristics and menses in young girls seen in office practice: a study from the pediatric research in office settings network." Pediatrics, 1997; 99:501-12, (Herman-Giddens ME, et al.).
This data was reflected in article Puberty as indicated on the recent page history: Click here.
You originally incorporated this information on May 1, 2004:
Click here If you scroll down and look at the text with the green background on the right half of the screen, you can see where user Alterprise initially inserted this information. He has since edited this and other sections of the article countless times, while preserving this information and attributing the information to the above study.
Note as to exactly what data was falsified: This study only evaluated sexual maturation in girls aged 3 to 12, and only made observations on mean age of menarche, and Tanner stages 2 and 3 for pubic hair (PH2, PH3) and breast development(B2, B3). No observations were made for Tanner stages 4 and 5 (PH4, PH5, B4, B5). No girls 13 and over were evaluated for this study. However, Alterprise misrepresented the data from this study by fabricating additional data that he included for the values for PH4, PH5, B4, & B5. He also apparently fabricated the data for some of the 3rd percentile and 97th percentile columns.
Please note that under Wikipedia policy that warnings on users' talk pages for confirmed vandalism (including sneaky vandalism) are allowed and encouraged. The integrity of the Wikipedia depends on a very strict policy of no vandalism. Danrz11:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Alterprise: You were a primary and/or substantial contributor to the following articles (and more) and apparently did not properly cite most of your sources as mandated by Wikipedia policy.WP:CITEWP:V
Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia did not provide specific references or sources. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Editors may choose to remove material you have contributed if it is not verifiable. Please provide specific references in your contributions to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content. You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article.
Your admonishments would be a little more convincing if you had yourself ever referenced an article, let alone written one. But thanks for the reminder. Is there anything else about my contributions that offends you? alteripse16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought since you've done so much work on Puberty that you might be able to help me out with this. Do you have a source for a precise definition of "peripubescent"? Thanks. DanB†DanD03:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a descriptive term in general use, not a medical term. It implies "around the beginning of puberty" and could probably be used casually to refer to ages 10-11 y in girls, or 11-12 y in boys, but it would be more technically correct to denote a child approaching or just having achieved the earliest physical changes. alteripse03:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very uncommon word. Pubescent means about the same thing, and the prefix "peri-" simply means "around the time of...". Anyone with a good vocabulary should grasp the intended meaning. I suppose interpreted broadly, peripubescent children could range from 8 to 14. It might not be a graceful word choice, but I guess it is not incorrect: perhaps the choice is intended to convey a labored academic style in the context? alteripse04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll tell you what it is. I keep an eye on Pedophilia and related articles. We cite a couple of different definitions of pedophilia: Psychopathia Sexualis, which says the attraction is "toward children, either prepubescent or at the beginning of puberty," the ICD, which says "usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age," and the DSM, which in the short version of diagnostic criteria available online, says "prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)."
You see the problem. Not only does one source not quite fit with the others, but it seems to set the age of puberty at thirteen -- which doesn't fit at all with the way you lay out the Tanner stages in Puberty.
Further, I have read a lengthier version of the DSM's diagnostic criteria which differs from the brief bullet-point version we quote in a number of ways. It seems as if the DSM may be inconsistent with its own reduced summary.
Add to this the fact that many of the editors of Pedophilia strongly prefer a definition which includes only prepubescent children. (This allows the use of the less-stigmatized term "ephebophilia" for attraction to any child who has entered the first stages of puberty -- a usage I find dishonest and absurd, particularly given the wide variance in the age of menarche.)
A couple of months ago, another editor and I sort of sidestepped this problem by changing the definition in the lead from "prepubescent" to "prepubescent or peripubescent." The embarrassing truth: I inserted the word peripubescent without having an exact idea of what it means. And now it appears that the word has no precise meaning.
All this has been on my conscience! I started this account largely to counteract POV editing on this subject, but I find I'm a bit out of my depth. Sorry for the rant on your talk page! Any advice you can give is appreciated. DanB†DanD04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I wondered what your context was. That is not a topic in which I have any particular expertise or interest, but I will tell you what those words mean to me and you can decide what fits your intended meaning best. Pubertal means having some of the physical changes of puberty but not yet having achieved full adult growth and body shape. Prepubertal means showing no physical signs of puberty. Pubertal and prepubertal have precise medical meanings. Pubescent implies "beginning puberty" because the root "-escent" often implies "in the process of attaining" (cf adulescens meant "becoming an adult"), and I would consider the terms pubescent and "early pubertal" to be synonymous. On the other hand, I think many people use pubescent less precisely as a synonym for pubertal, but as you can see from the article, puberty for an endocrinologist may have a longer duration and include more advanced stages than in the popular concept. Peripubescent is a vaguer word that would include children about to show signs of puberty along with those who do show such signs. A typical 5 year old would be described as prepubertal rather than pubescent (unless he actually showed signs of precocious puberty, in which case pubescent might be applicable). The best use of the word peripubescent might be to describe the group of children around the age of beginning puberty, some of whom will be pubescent (early pubertal) and some of whom will be still prepubertal. Peripubescent is probably a fair word to apply to a group of 8-14 yr olds. Is that too complicated? I think part of your problem is that there is not an exact congruence between the medical categories and the social categories, nor between the words. In fact, to distinguish between prepubertal and very early pubertal, you have to examine a child undressed, and thus this distinction cannot be readily made about an individual child in most social contexts. In my opinion ephebophilia is simply a subset of pedophilia, as it refers to the type of children that an individual adult does or would like to engage in relationships with. The legal and social concept of pedophilia is based on the highly unequal power, knowledge, harm, and benefit involved in a sexual relationship between an adult and a child and these are not erased with the onset of puberty. That imbalance changes gradually, but there must be a precise age boundary for social purposes and I do not admire those who want to weasel it down on the basis of semantics. alteripse12:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, this is helpful. I wasn't aware of the pubescent/pubertal distinction, and I don't think other editors are either. DanB†DanD18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alteripse. Being one of the few MDs regularly contributing to the reference desks (at least I know of no others), you might take a glance and throw in a comment at the whole discussion on medical advice which keeps being re-raised at the talk page. (Then again, you might not). ---Sluzzelin18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did comment early on in the discussion, in response to the disturbing legal review that was posted. Nothing novel or worth responding to has been said in the last few days. Basically, the legal article suggested only medical professionals are at personal risk for answering questions at the RD, and while the risk is low, the personal satisfaction of correcting the medical misinformation provided by high school students is not exactly rewarding enough to continue there. But thanks for thinking of me. alteripse04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand - what a shame that those people who have the professional expertise, experience and good judgement when it comes to qualifying their answers are the exact ones who may not answer according to that article. But you definitely shouldn't take any legal risks. Take care. ---Sluzzelin14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there is no article gonadectomy, it redirects to castration. On the intersex surgery page I corrected the wikilink for gonadectomy so that it went straight to castration, rather than through a redirect. I fail to see the point of your reverting this change. Are you planning on writing a gonadectomy article separate from castration? Ciotog07:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the trouble to track me down. I should have left an explanation. In most cases in intersex surgery, the gonads that are removed are non-functional; in rare cases they are producing hormones that are ineffective or unwanted for the person's gender. Castration is used almost exclusively in other contexts for removal of functional gonads, producing a loss of appropriate hormones. The connotations and results and contexts are so different that I thought a redirect that seemed to equate the two circumstances was misleading to the reader. Obviously this is my opinion rather than unarguable fact. I guess if you want to include enough of a description in the castration article so that the differences are clear, I would not object to restoring the link. Either way, I will not fight over it. alteripse11:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really all that interested in the intersex surgery itself, I was just simplifying a link to avoid an unnecessary redirect. I just read over WP:R and I see that this practice is not recommended, so I apologize for taking up your time. Ciotog17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for setting me straight on Life history...busy trying to find an appropriate article name to deal with Rushton's theory, and he called it "life-history theory". Looks like it should be Rushton's life-history theory, since the usage in non-racial context was around long before he was. Apologies for the mistaken edits! --JereKrischel03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think by the mid-1990s, life history theory was a widely recognized concept among anthropologists. Rushton's usage appears fairly standard, but his specific formulations applied to race differences obviously not so. alteripse04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rushton began publishing his theory before the 1990s. Saturdayseven
While reading various articles on human biology to see what article needs to be worked on, I have read your experience on the talk page of the Desiccated thyroid extract. And could not resist answering. It is indeed true that various studies did not show significant differences between T4 + T3 vs T4, but this doesn't mean that everything is placebo.
The studies in question were not specific and not designed for particular subjects.
Here is the situation, it is true that most patients after being treated with T4 alone do feal well. This is what the studies have been mostly designed to measure. What those studies were not designed for, is if the subset of patients who do not feel well, how much a difference would it make for them. Studies sensibility (which measures the numbers of subjects needed to get the sensibility wanted) won't measure still a statistically significant differences which it would have measured if the study concentrated on a subset (in this cases, it would be those who still get symptoms after being treated with T4). Regards. Fad(ix)01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just realised that the testimonial wasn't by you, you simply answered to that person(who left an email address) who didn't sign his/her edit on the talkpage. So just ignore my answer. Fad(ix)00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stopping by and commenting. I did not know if to put the response here or on my talk page. If the response here is redundant, I will delete.
I see patients from around the world here in Richmond Virginia. I have been working on public education about Plastic Surgery problems now for more than 30 years. If what I have been doing yesterday is OK with Wikipedia admin, will continue for other Plastic Surgery and Cosmetic Surgery sections. I have found the need to change major components so far in a few sections such as otoplasty, umbilicoplasty and tummy tuck. I hope I am using the right format for additions so that my time here is maximized.
Someone deleted a great video resource about the emotion of living with gynecomastia:
It has been hard getting such source material, patients really do have a hard time expressing themselves about this problem and that tape is the product of hundreds of hours of trying to get that emotion on record. I have been told by wives, family, and friends of gynecomastia patients that it helped them understand the patients' concerns and issues. Should it be added back in a different way?
Let's put it back. The article needs work. Are you more successful than our local surgeons at getting insurance coverage? alteripse11:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We work with our patients and their insurance companies to get coverage. Insurance coverage for gynecomastia can be difficult to obtain.
I.e. I can see them, and while you and he may both talk about how rude I am here, you are still doing so publicly.
I suggest that for taste's sake, you may wish to suggest that the rest of your conversation be carried out in some private discourse, perhaps by e-mail.
P.S. Additionally, my initial point stands. DrBermant was using his self-published site as a citation source, in contravention of official Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Attribution). Please see the linked section of Wikipedia:Attribution, specifically item 2.
Relevant text is:
Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking.
and
If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one. --MalcolmGin00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no quarrel with either point. I was trying to avoid non-public exchanges. If you recall, my first response was to tell him your initial questions were well within accepted bounds here, and that links that promote one's own websites have a much higher quality to meet. We aren't far apart on that, but I actually was sincere in my opinion that collections of pictures of actual people have reassuring value for readers. I told him he was overreacting to your criticisms, but as I just posted, his credentials are arguably superior to yours-- and neither one of you should be arguing credentials anyway (look at your claim again-- it sounds as if you believe expertise is either inherited or sexually transmitted). Let's drop the credential trumping and work on the wording of the article, ok? alteripse00:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already dropped credential thumping altogether (as of 2 or 3 exchanges ago). If you examine the Klinefelter's syndrome talk page, you'll see that I withdrew my comments completely about DrBermant's mental health-related opinion qualifications, and I don't think I've mentioned anything else except for the literal truth of his documented board certifications/licenses since.
As for my own narrative of what I feel makes me qualified to do medical research, I think you know what I was driving at vis a vis the environments I live in and the company I keep, so I'll let you do with that as you will.
Professional qualifications-wise, it does sound like DrBermant has plenty of qualifications to have an opinion on the therapies he publicizes on his business web site. The fact remains, and yes, I think you and I agree, that citing that site is still against Wikipedia Attribution policy (as long as a substantively similar site exists that is not his own site).
Also, as long as I cite my sources, follow Wikipedia policy and style guidelines and strive to present a balanced view, I shouldn't need even a high school diploma to contribute to the topic or any other on Wikipedia. --MalcolmGin01:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.
Scheduled for Sunday, October 4, 2009, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.
Based on a referral from Jfdwolff, I was hoping you might have an interest in the above article. The sources seems quite clear, but there are long-standing disputes over it. Would you be interested in getting involved? I also asked Ekem, again based on the recommendation from Wolff. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex21:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Acharya S. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alteripse. You have new messages at WP:VPP. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This is totally unacceptable; what were you thinking? I agree with your argument, but the personal attack on the end is as gratuitous as it is vicious. Please avoid such comments. Happy‑melon13:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
