User talk:Arcadian/Archive 4

Archives

1

Image errors etc

Hi Arcadian! First I want to thank you for uploading images from Grey's. I'm a first year student (my final gross anatomy exam is on friday) and they've been a tremendous help in learning the material. I have a few things I wanted to ask you about:

1. Please, please, archive this talk page. It's 124kb and my browser slowed to a crawl when I tried to type this into the page directly (I had to use my sandbox to write it)
2. I'm trying to find ways to make my contributions to the wiki anatomy and embryology articles more efficient. I know about WP:Anatomy, but do you have any other ideas or specific areas you think are deficient on wikipedia?
3. I've been finding errors in the seer.cancer.gov images you uploaded, one trivial and one serious. I don't know what to do about them... I don't know anything about deleting images and wanted to ask you about it.
   1. The trivial one is this image of the thigh extensors, where the rectus femoris muscle is drawn lying deep to the vastus lateralis and vastus medius. It actually lies anterior to these muscles... the vastus intermedius would appear to run between the V-shaped arch formed by the fibers of the lateralis and medius, but only once the rectus femoris has been removed.
   2. The serious error is at brachioradialis, where the seer image shows the brachioradialis attaching to the medial epicondyle of the humerus and inserting on the ulna. Wrong! This appears to be an image of the flexor carpi ulnaris, though I haven't checked to make sure the insertion is right. There is an alternate image of the muscle from Grey's, but I don't like that it doesn't show the relative position of the thumb and doesn't have a medial-lateral label.

Thanks! Robotsintrouble 02:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

0. Thanks for stopping by. Your contributions have been high-quality, and I'm pleased to be collaborating with you.

1. Done.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by "more efficient", but I'd recommend that you keep on doing what you appear to be doing, and focus on the subjects related to whatever you are currently studying in class.

3. Unfortunately, we have a real shortage of anatomical diagrams available to us at the moment, so I'd recommend against deleting the images. Instead, I'd recommend that you add a description to the captions indicating inaccuracies in the diagrams. (If you're not sure how to do this, let me know and I'll be happy to assist.) I've added some additional links and images (including your suggestion) to Brachioradialis, which may be of some assistance for your exam on Friday. Good luck. --Arcadian 06:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the image on omohyoid again. The muscle is labeled on both sides, although on the anatomical right it's omo - - hyoidus. I don't want to revert your edits since you did other things. Robotsintrouble 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I have fixed the caption. --Arcadian 01:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I really like the image gallery you put into brachioradialis. Is there any way to write a wikitool that lists anatomy stubs lacking images? I've been trying to figure out ways to integrate more of the grey's plates into articles. Maybe a list of all the labels in each image would help? If I were to start typing those out, where should they go? The wikicommons page of each image perhaps? Robotsintrouble 04:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any totally automated tool that would do what you want, but if you're handy with regular expressions, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. By the way, have you seen List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy? It could be useful if you're trying to put that list together. --Arcadian 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a good enough programmer to do all that, but using the subject list is a great idea. I'd seen it but hadn't thought of using it for some reason.

In other news (is this annoying yet?) I found another seer image that's wrong, this time at Pharynx. From the article text: Oropharynx, which lies behind the oral cavity. The anterior wall consists of the base of the tongue and the vallecula; ...does that arrow look like it's behind the base of the tongue to you? Robotsintrouble 05:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As with the Brachioradialis image, I'd recommend not deleting the image, but adding a caption annotation addressing inaccuracies in the image. Or, if you're feeling ambitious, you might be able to fix the picture. Since it sounds like your main objection is the position of the arrow, you could just adjust a few dots on the picture (even Microsoft Paint should be sufficent) and adjust it to address your concerns. --Arcadian 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind me joining the conversation.) Do you mean "delete" as in deleting the image from WP entirely, or as in simply removing it from the article? I agree these images shouldn't be outright deleted, but I think removing them from the article is a step in the right direction. IMO it's better than annotating the error. I tend to agree with Netter that if the image isn't conveying a useful idea (and an erroneous image most certainly isn't), then it's not worth sharing. --David Iberri (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Images. --Arcadian 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Words of Praise!

Hi Arcadian, I've noticed you doing a lot of useful edits to various anatomy pages. They vastly imrove the article, so I'd just like to congratulate you and ask that you keep up the great work! Please accept this cookie for your latest submission ;) -- Serephine ♠ talk - 14:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I, Serephine, give Arcadian this cookie for excellent work on the Seminal vesicle article. 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Squamous cell

Hi Arcadian, reckon the squamous cell article is superfluous? They exist only in squamous epithelia and this article covers all there is to know about them. Both are stubs so why not combine them? I'll get onto it with your suggestion. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to a merge. --Arcadian 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vesicle arteries

Is the different spelling of "vesicle" in the title and "vesical" in the actual dab entries correct? I have no idea, as I'm not a specialist, but if so, it seems odd that there's no entry at vesical arteries. Loganberry (Talk) 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Arcadian 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why split up the colon?

A while ago I consolidated all the articles on colon subsections and redirected to colon. The intent was to put all the colon articles in one place. Why did you recreate the colon subsection sections? I am concerned that having all the sections separate will lead to the sections getting various editorial treatments and add to the work it takes to keep all the sections up to date. Steve Kd4ttc 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Colon (anatomy). --Arcadian 23:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hospital upgrade

I've have some proposals to upgrade functionality and wider (less US-centric) scope of the Template:Infobox Hospital (with then a merge in of the UK-centric Template:Infobox NHS hospital). I think the additional optional parameter names are as generic and succint as I am likely to get - but I would be grateful if you could have a quick glance at the list of parameters and let me know if there are any obvious problems in the proposal. Thanks, yours David Ruben ^Talk 00:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. My only question is -- with all the additional fields, is "Location" supposed to refer to a street address? If so (or even if not), it might make sense to use a field name that was more self-documenting. But you've done a great job with the template, and I appreciate your diligence and precision. --Arcadian 01:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Short answer is yes 'Location' is meant to apply to streat name or district within a city. Long answer is that it is not so simple. The parameter needs be kept for 2 reasons - firstly because that is what articles current use and secondly I need to provide a freetext parameter that may take complex address details. In essence Location acts either as plain street information or complex wikilinked street & city details - hence the reason why I have not renamed this parameter as "Street".

Parameters can't include the pipe character '|' unless part of an overall wikilink. The problem comes from the fact that Country, State & Region are all (deliberately) automatically wikilinked by the template (to try and force encourage editors to give as much information as possible that can be wikilinked). This fails to be simple as some regions/cities have disambiguation (unhelpfully for this task) bracketed within their wikipedia article name:

• Hence see Scarborough Hospital, which is in "Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada"
• The Toronto, Ontario, Canada all wikilink fine, but the article for the town is Scarborough, Ontario.
• I agree I could put "Scarborough, Ontario" as the Region or the State parameter and let the template wikilink it, hence "Scarborough, Ontario, Canada" is possible. However there is then no way to allow the insertion of "Toronto" into the middle of this ("Scarborough, Toronto" would have been an easier wiki pagename to work with).

So the Location information may be used for street and in addition region (city) information as it is freetext that can be manually wikilinked.David Ruben ^Talk 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On a separate issue, can you advise me on how US hospitals are classified in terms of health care system provision. Have a look at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've set the HealthCare parameter to "Medicare" in as much as it takes Medicare patients. I suspect though that this shows my lack of understanding. For Canadian hospitals they are either Private or part of the "Public Medicare (Canada)" system. Likewise hospitals are (or at least until the Labour giovernment started its love-affair with private hospitals) either purely Private or Public NHS (which may have a few private beds to help support the hospital). However for US I suspect that most hospitals would be considered Private with it then up to the individual patient to arrange to pay themselves, claim on their health insurance policy, or be eligible under Medicare (United States) - or are there quite distinct hospitals which only deal with Medicare cases ? I shall hold off updating further US Hospital articles until I can gain a better understanding of this (e.g. does HealthCare=Medicare need to show up as "Private, accepts Medicare") David Ruben ^Talk 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As further example, see Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center (Seattle) - where the markup is a little convoluted, yet holding the "Washington" detail out of the Location & Region parameters allows it to be used in the State parameter with the desired result that the 'See also' section automatically comes up with the link to List of hospitals in Washington with the neater displayed-text of "Hospitals in Washington". This contrast with say St Thomas' Hospital where the markup is much more straight forward. David Ruben ^Talk 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough yet about funding to answer your question. --Arcadian 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Satellite cell

I noticed you changed the Satellite cell page to a disambiguation page. Personally I think that it should have been left as referring to muscle satellite cells. Perhaps you could have just added a disambiguation link at the top of the page to Satellite cell (glial).

The muscle cell usage is by far the most common - do a PubMed search for "satellite cell" and you'll see what I mean. Also, the intro to the new Satellite cell (muscle) page is less technically correct than the old version. Dr Aaron 02:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to rearrange the pages in that manner, I would have no objection. If you need assistance in doing so, let me know. --Arcadian 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes and templates

Hi again. I like the work you're doing on the embryology infobox and what appears to be a new lymphatic system template... I was wondering if there's anyplace listing the infoboxes, templates, blue boxes and so on that are relevant to the various medicine wikiprojects. I couldn't find any details about them on WP:Anatomy or WP:PCM, an expanded list of relevant templates on one of those wikiprojects would be useful but I don't know how to make such a list. Robotsintrouble 20:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just now written a first cut at Template:Infobox Anatomy but if you have any more questions, feel free to ask, either here or there. Also, if you haven't seen Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), it may help address many formatting issues. (Unfortunately, there are several different competing standards for the navigation bars used at the bottom of articles, with different projects favoring different standards, so I can't help you too much there.) --Arcadian 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:EmbryologyTemple

Template:EmbryologyTemple has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In search of free license histology images

I'd appreciate your thoughts over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Getting_Image_Permissions_from_a_Med_School Robotsintrouble 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

		The Original Barnstar
		For no less than 120 edits in the past 24 hours; and all of your hard work before — and in hope of continued aid to Wikipedia. Surely you deserve it by now. —ScouterSig 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian 18:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!!!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may your wishes be fulfilled in 2007! Fvasconcellos 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thank you for having a look at PAC-1 as well. The true collaborative nature of WP always puts a smile on my face... Fvasconcellos 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hello Arcadian! (maybe may english isnt good-my apologise) Of course i can do that I upload to the "universal commons"". You know a mathematican said the i create good articles about muscles but an average man who know anything about anatomy cant find the muscle etc on the picture. So he said me to create arrows. I use this "technology" in every area of anatomy (muscules nerves arteris bones etc) http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Engusz

Thank you! --Arcadian 19:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of WP:DRUGS and WikiProject Pharmacology

Hi again. I know you are busy with anatomy articles, but a merge between WikiProject Drugs and the newly-created WikiProject Pharmacology has been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs#WikiProject Pharmacology. I would appreciate it if you could weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Nervous system diagram.png

Thanks for catching those embarrassing spelling mistakes. Spent one two many hours working on that diagram :P...I will upload the corrected version at once.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

uploading images

Hello Arcadian! Its me Engusz from huwiki. Ive got some questions. Which images will you have? Only the muscles or all (nerves tubercules of bones etc)? And please create a category for the images (i dont know how to do and i dont want to create wrong categories) You can give a name for it (maybe anatomy help) And when you finish whit it please tell me the category name and i will start to upload the images. http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_vita:Engusz 20:39 Friday

Don't worry about adding categories -- just keep doing exactly what you've been doing, but uploading the images to commons instead of huwiki. Thanks again! --Arcadian 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alveolar process of maxilla

Hey! Considering your involvement with merging the article Alveolar process with Alveolar process of maxilla, I would love to hear your comments about the issues I raised on the talk page. Thanks in advance. - Dozenist talk 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cystic fibrosis

Hi, I noticed that you just added this to the Cystic fibrosis article, {{Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic pathology}}. I just wanted to let you know that the template is redlinked and nothing shows up when you add it. I'm not sure if this is intentional (eg you plan on making it later) or not but I thought I would let you know. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be okay now. --Arcadian 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see it now, just wanted to make sure that it wasn't mislinked or something such as. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

{{BranchesofFoodChemistry}}

Thank you for the edit on the {{BranchesofFoodChemistry}}. As the creator of this template, it looks good! Much appreciated. Chris 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. --Arcadian 23:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rotator Cuff Alterations

You removed the end picture of the side lying abduction on the rotator cuff article. Your cited reason for removing this was that this picture didn't match the description or title of the exercise.

Looking back at the picture now, my arm is raise a little too high (30ish degrees) but this seems like a poor reason to remove the picture. Was there another reason for removing the picture? If not then I'll just reshoot that pic and add it soon.Porco-esphino 07:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review the edit history. The pictures were removed in this edit and this edit, not by me. --Arcadian 10:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your tireless work

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I hereby award you this EMC² Barnstar for your numerous, high-quality contributions to biology and medicine-related articles. How you manage this while in med school baffles and awes me! delldot | talk 20:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Box:Protein

Please add Ensembl Link: It is an important and very good european resource.

as in de:Vorlage:Infobox Protein -> Seite bearbeiten (edit this page)

and

de:Vorlage:Infobox Protein at the bottom for the link

Thank you. TraumB 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Response at Template talk:Protein. --Arcadian 14:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

– ClockworkSoul 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Protein

Hi there Arcadian. Would it be possible for an extra field to be added to {{Protein}} that would account for more than one PDB link, like the CAS_supplemental field in {{Drugbox}}? Clostridium perfringens alpha toxin has several PDB links, and they're presently messing up the syntax. Thanks again, Fvasconcellos 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Arcadian 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Fvasconcellos 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Images

Thought I did. Sorry. --Selket 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates

		The Template Barnstar
		Your many, many navigation templates related to human anatomy and physiology have exponentially increased the usefulness of the subjects on wikipedia. Robotsintrouble 13:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to update and sort the listing of medicine navigation templates to reflect your contributions. Could you look over it? There are one or two duplicates in the mix.

I've seen other navigation templates that have links to related topics or back to a top level template in the title bar... for example, a small link at the top of "arteries of head and neck" that returns you to the template for "circulatory system". I think something along those lines to make moving around between templates easier would be really helpful... I'll try to find an existing example of what I mean. Robotsintrouble 13:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. I looked over your list, and I think you've got all or most of them. Per your navigation concept -- it can get a little tricky, especially when articles have multiple plausible "parents", but in general, I support your idea. --Arcadian 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to send a Thank You!! your way for all of your hard work in the template department, they look great and are really nice navigational tools. Thanks also for adding so many nice images!--DO11.10 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Oh yeah and for fixing the table on Vitamin D, somehow I totally missed that that was, at some point, a table, it looks much better now. DO11.10 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I just made some additional changes to the page -- nothing major, mostly tweaking the outline. Feel free to edit as needed -- I see that you've done most of the work on that page of late, so feel free to edit as needed. --Arcadian 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy images

Hi! Its me Engusz! I uploaded some images to Gray's anatomy plates with help. I use latin names. But some images dont work. I dont know why? I continue the uploadig. I will upload all of the images what ive got. http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Engusz 2007. 01. 26. 19:03

Köszönöm! --Arcadian 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Manual of style

Hi, thanks for the greeting. I have made a few changes to some articles related to inborn errors of metabolism, my area of expertise. However, I have not yet completely formated them so that they respect the medicine manual of style. What would you like me to change more precisely? Thanks. pcampeau 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiCast.

Hi WikiCast is a free content broadcast aiming to produce a number of 'free-content' programmes.

I was wondering if you would be willing to consider doing something on Anatomy given you recent WP contributions.

If interested please contact me via my talk page ShakespeareFan00 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy articals in enwiki

Hello! Its me Engusz! All of the anatomy articles of the huwiki are from the enwiki which turn into hungarian. After this i put it to the right category. I see in lot of articales in the enwiki that it hasnt got right category. It has got only anatomy stubs. Why? And the enwiki's anatomy navigation temples havent got all the articles which are rate there. muscles of the head in huwiki huwiki 75 > enwiki 63 (I calculated fast so maybe the numbers incorrects)Engusz Thursday 01.02.2006. 23:07 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work. I've updated the English pages with your images from Commons. I agree that the categorization of enwiki's anatomy articles isn't where it should be; hopefully that will improve in the coming year. Thanks again! --Arcadian 07:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Encephalon Cross
For astonishing quantity of handy anatomical images added to many pages, I hearby (enviously) bequeath upon Arcadian the Encephalon Cross! WLU 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Arcadian 07:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cardiac action potential

Hi, I saw you worked on Cardiac action potential, I hope you can help me with someting. An IP removed two sections a while ago with this edit. Was that a good edit or vandalism? If vandalism, should it be restored? It's not my topic at all, so I don't know part of it is already rewritten or not. Garion96 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it was indeed vandalism, but much of the information that was lost on December 5th has since been re-added in a different form. --Arcadian 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, I am glad it's all in order again. Thanks for checking. Garion96 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Chembox new

Hi, I see you are adding the chembox new to articles, thanks for that. I have been working on upgrading the chembox new, it has a new format and new fields now (and more fields to come). In the new version you can just leave the fields that you don't fill in, empty fields will simply not appear in the document. Please have a look at {{chembox new}}. Thanks again, and hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading in between the lines of this message (and some others you've left with other editors), it seems like you want editors to add all 47 fields from Template:Chembox_new#Small_form for each use of the template. I'm not sure if that's the best approach. I know the fields don't display unless they are populated, but it seems disruptive to have to wade through so many blank lines at the top while editing, especially when so many of the fields would never be populated for that class of chemical. But if you strongly disagree, I'd recommend raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox, so we can get a broader perspective on the issue. And thanks again for pushing the infobox forward -- we've needed it for a long time, and I'm glad you're doing it. --Arcadian 22:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, for sure not, all fields don't have to be filled. As you say, some of them are just not available for certain compounds. It is more, that for those fields, which are common, I would suggest to leave an empty field in the table, that makes it much easier for someone else to fill that field later (if you know that field is known, but you don't have it close, can't find it, or just don't feel like looking for it now, whatever reason). If the fields are not in the document there may be a barrier, because the person would have to search for the fieldname.

E.g. for Inositol triphosphate, the chembox new as you used it only contains some fields, while I think that fields like pKa, solubility, some fields from the pharma-box and some related compounds are worth to store in the chembox as well. For some of the fields it is easy to guess how they are named, for others someone would have to look where to put them, and how to name them.

Having said this, it is certainly worth a discussion. We have to find an 'optimum' which fields we keep as a standard, and which fields we 'hide'. The chembox new can handle many more fields than the fields I show in the chembox in the template; I have already hidden quite a number of them. As an example, I have the field MeltingPt as a standard field in the chembox new (this field just displays it's contents), but chembox new contains 9 other fields, for the three 'standard' temperature scales 3 each, for Celcius these are 'MeltingPtC, MeltingPtCL and MeltingPtCH. When giving a value to MeltingPtC (these have to be supplied without unit), the row will display that temperature in degree Celcius, Fahrenheit and Kelvin, with the correct units. The other two are for melting ranges (between MeltingPtCL and MeltingPtCH). I am still working at expansions/more parameters, but I think I do have the fields there that are common for the normal chemicals (as in the small form).

So, as is stated in the explanation of both the old and in the new chembox new, please don't feel obliged to fill in all fields, just fill in as many as possible, leave the rest blank. It is true that it gives quite a list at the top of the document, but it is always better than the old chembox, which in it's subst-ed form (which was the normal form) is just impossible to read, and will for sure scare away some novice editors. Hope this explains, and I will try and be a bit less pushing in next posts on this subject. Thanks anyway for all the additions of infoboxes. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 01:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there might be some miscommunication between us here, but rather than continue on this page, I've opened up a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox#Template_fields, and I encourage you to offer your perspectives. --Arcadian 01:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Arcadian, could you try to (re)write the text in {{chembox new}} on the subst-ing/transclusion in such a way that it is clear? To me it is completely transparent, but by now I am too deep into templates that I may not be able to explain it clearly anymore. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I remove the "Section1", etc., headers from the "Small/simple form"? That's the part which still seems most counterintuitive to me, and is the hardest to explain to someone using it for the first time. It is an interesting idea (most other templates don't allow the user to alter the display order of the fields), but with the nested templates, it makes it harder to explain, and the template seems to work fine without them. --Arcadian 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't remove the sections, some of the things inside the sections are not available in the main template, and hence will simply not work. The sections sort the parameters by sort, so that all properties get into the properties box, and all hazards in the hazards box.

I am going to clean out the main template, after I have done a cleaning run on the pages that already contain a chembox new (probably using AWB to clean it). The old setup was a bit inconsistent, the main template could contain some properties, and some properties got mixed over.

Hope this explains a bit. I'll have a look later. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, chembox new understands 'MeSHName' in the Identifiers box .. keeps the external links away, which in its turn does not encourage more external links. Keep up the good work, and see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just tried the new parameter at Glycerol 3-phosphate, and I couldn't quite get it to work -- would you mind taking a look? --Arcadian 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, I used an 'urlencode' around the value to get rid of strange characters (mainly the } and the ] break an url), but that also endoded the +, which in this case is not necessary. But it does now the same as the MeSH-template. Thanks for pointing me to that, there are always some things to improve. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Arcadian 22:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Grey matter/gray matter

How did you come to the conclusion the latter was the more common spelling? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Gray matter. --Arcadian 14:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Anatomy

Thank you much! Selket ^Talk 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your friendly neighborhood stub sorter

I've been busy sorting through the anatomy stubs (since there are now three new stub types) and whilst doing so I noticed two things that I'd like to bring to your attention.

1. The text of duodenal bulb cuts off abruptly, but as far as I can tell it's always been that way since you first created it. I was tempted to just remove the cut-off sentence at the end, but I wasn't certain why it cut off, I thought I'd mention it to you.

2. Since you seem to do a fair bit of editing in this field, and I was leaving you the first note, I thought I'd let you know that since some of those nav templates are bit long in the tooth I've been changing some of them to default as collapsed nav boxes.

Let me know if the latter is a problem and I'll stop doing that. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For the point #1 - thank you for identifying my error. I have fixed it. For point #2, that's a complicated issue, and I don't have an fully-formed opinion on it the moment, other than to ask you to make sure you consider the impact on other pages (like Bone -- scroll to the bottom). --Arcadian 00:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

proper redirects

Why redirect strains to strain (injury) when the very title of the latter article suggests the existence of the strain disambiguation page? If someone is looking for one of the many other topics under "strain", you'd prevent them from finding it. (I've altered it so that "strains" redirects to "strain".) Michael Hardy 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I made that redirect in 2005. Feel free to change as needed. --Arcadian 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar Plexus

Dear Arcadian, I read the solar plexus article and I was just wondering if you could please explain to me what the main function of the solar plexus is (what it does in the body). I couldn't figure it out from the article, and I apologize if my question is somehow answered in the article. Thank you. Question101 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And while we are on the subject could you please tell me what nerve nodes are (or even point me to a wiki article)Thank you Question101 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry I don't have time for a longer answer right now -- for your first question, the second answer here is reasonably accurate and non-technical. For your second question, my best guess is that you're referring to the Nodes of Ranvier. I'd also like to let you know about Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science -- it's a great place to ask questions like these, and because there are so many people that watch those pages, it gives you the best chance of getting the information you're looking for. --Arcadian 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Embryo

Hi, I noticed that you recently left a comment at the embryo discussion page. I'm curious. You say that the term "embryology" is usually restricted to apply to early vertebrate development, whereas an embryo is a life cycle stage found in all animals, land plants, and some algae and protists. Do you have any cite for this distinction? I had never heard of such a distinction before.

There are quite a few books and articles about "vertebrate embryology", but there are also plenty of books and articles about "invertebrate embryology".Ferrylodge 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for DAB1 infobox

Thank you for furnishing the infobox on the DAB1 page. --CopperKettle 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lung volumes

you replaced the free Image:Lung.png with the fairly clearnly not free Image:Lung volume.JPG. Please don't do this it makes the baby wikipe-tan cry.Geni 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller edit controversy

Hello, there. As you may or may not know, the Miami Herald recently revealed that professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller has filed a lawsuit against Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. for adding false statements to his Wikipedia biography.

For data gathering purposes, an SRS of 20 administrators has been created, you being one of them. I would like you to comment on this situation and its possible implications to Wikipedia, the accused company, and the general welfare of the community in general. (To what extent will this impact Wikipedia? To what extent will this impact those who use Wikipedia often? To what extent is the company guilty? Who do you believe is at fault?) Feel free to comment however you wish. I ask that you email me your responses via my emailuser page so as to reduce bias in your responses. (Again, don't post your responses on my talk page.)

The following are articles from various news agencies that you may use to inform yourself about the situation: Miami Herald, Herald Tribune, Web Pro News, The Smoking Gun.

I thank you for taking your time to express your opinion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at any time. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

TP53

Hi Arcadia. Thank you for putting this nice p53 wiki. I have several questions and comments

Comments 1

As I never use any pseudo, you can see what is my name. I am professor of molecular biology ad work on p53 since 1985. I have published more than 200 papers on p53. As a matter of fact, I was a graduate student in the laboratory of P. May when he discovered p53 in the same time that Lane, Levine and Loyd. As a matter of fact, the four papers were published the same year. Although Levine, Lane and May knew that they were working on the same protein (named p53 by Lionel Crawford in 1985), it took several years to understand that the protein discovered by Old was also p53 as he had used a totally different strategy for its identification.

Perhaps it will be nice (and more accurate) to add P. May in the list of those who discovered p53.

Comments 2

Some information in the article are either too simplistic or quite outdated and could be improved:

« In unstressed cells, p53 levels are kept low through a continuous degradation of p53. A protein called Mdm2 binds to p53 and thereby transports it from the nucleus to the cytosol where it becomes degraded by the proteasome » It is now well known that at least 5 proteins regulates p53 stability

« Human p53 is 393 amino acids long and has three domains: » The current model is that p53 contains 5 domains

« increasing the amount of p53, which may initially seem a good way to treat tumors or prevent them from spreading, is in actuality not a useable method of treatment, since it can cause premature aging » This is based on one observation in an animal model. A large-scale gene therapy program has been launched in China in Head and Neck cancer. Results are very promising.

Comments 3 A picture of the p53 pathway could be included

Question 1 Last week, I made a small change to your wiki page (I add a link to the p53 web site). This web site is the most visited site on p53. I did not understand why you delete this entry?

Question 2

Do you allow commercial links in wiki pages? The last link in the p53 wiki page is exactantigen, a web page sponsored by multiple privates companies with links to their web site

Question 3 To what degree, would you allow modifications of the p53 wiki page?

Thank you again for you nice work

Thierry

Response at User talk:Thierry Soussi. --Arcadian 15:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Melanotan 1 and Melanotan II submitted for deletion

Greetings, as a courtesy I'm writing to inform you of my submission for deletion these two uncessary breakout articles from the stubbish Melanotan article. (→Netscott) 10:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PotentialVanity

Template:PotentialVanity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --– Tivedshambo (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you translate for me?

I noticed that your userboxes say that you speak some Spanish. I had cleaned up the article about the Seville Fair a few months ago, recently User:Saeta added several long paragraphs of raw Babelfish translation. I moved the additions to the talk page and notified the user, who subsequently asked me to translate my comments into Spanish. I don't speak enough Spanish to do this, could you translate my comments User talk:Saeta? Or just get the gist across? And let her(?) know that I did keep the map in the article, and will attempt to translate the raw Babelfish. Thanks a bunch!!!--DO11.10 17:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hola Arcadian, en primer lugar disculpa mi inglés, que no es muy bueno. Soy Saeta en la wikipedia en inglés, en la wiki española soy Lobillo, he visto que DO11.10 inició el artículo sobre la Seville Fair (Feria de Abril) de Sevilla, veo que se ha puesto en contacto contigo para ver si puedes traducir lo que hice con el traductor "Babelfish" (parece que he liberado al diablo) al intentar añadir información sobre la misma pero en inglés (en español ya lo hice yo solito prácticamente con ese artículo y muchos sobre Sevilla. También le "intenté" preguntar si el plano de la Feria (Image:FeriaDeAbrilSevilla.jpg) no era válido (estoy seguro que es muy válido) y también si conocía la Feria en Sevilla, pero parece ser que no me entendió. Ahora te preguto directamente a ti, que sé que sabes un poco de español, ¿podrías traducir lo que puso en la talk page sobre la Feria en inglés?, muchas gracias por tu respuesta. Un saludo. --Saeta 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I speak spanish well enough to be of service here. --Arcadian 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogebrity

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Blogebrity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oral pathology

I was wondering if I could have your assistance on something, being that you're both a med student and an admin.

I feel that the template navigation box for oral pathology is, objectively, a little skewed in terms of its content. It seems to focus on things that lay people would tend to focus on, and veers from actually including anything that would be taught in any real depth in an oral path course. Yes, User:Dozenist peppered in some technical terms that are anomoly highlights of a dental anatomy course, but in reality, it seems a little silly that the nav box categorizes and lists things in such an unsually unencyclopedic fashion. I mean the staples of dental pathology, like odontogenic keratocysts, eosinophilic ulcer, candidiasis, fibrous dysplasia and Kaposi sarcoma are either absent or put in a day or so ago by myself. However, these entities are focused on in oral path because of their extreme, diagnostic or even pathognomonic oral symptoms. At the same time, many can occur anywhere in the body. What are your thoughts about this? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded at Template talk:Oral pathology. --Arcadian 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

GABA receptor

Thanks for the help. I didn't even have time to ask at WikiProject Neuroscience... :) Fvasconcellos 21:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. --Arcadian 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

Hi again. I have an issue regarding verifiability. I would like to enter some information about the relationship of a pentagram and a magic square, but the people who watch and constantly edit pentagram are being, what I feel as, too strict. So, I would instead like to place this information in the Lionel Ziprin article. However, because my information is only verified by a private personal tutorial that occurred in 1962, and I could no find anything similar on the web, I was told that this was not enough. However, I feel that this information is objectively related, whether or not the reasoning behind the relationship is to be believed; the steps to completing the magic square do in fact follow the pentagram. As I am the editor of the Ziprin page for this information, I feel that this information is not controversial enough, such that I can support it with perhaps a less than entirely adequate verifiability requirement, as most pages and bits of information fall under as well. Please let me know what you think after checking out the part about the Jewish/magic square relationship to the pentagram at the bottom of the Talk:pentagram page. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can help you -- I'm a strong supporter of the Wikipedia:Attribution policy, and in my googling, the best I could find was this, which is a very reliable source, but which seems to refer to Magic star, which I don't think relates to what you wanted to add. So the best I can suggest is this: I'm sure you've already tried a google search on websites, but try Google book search (or the equivalent feature on Amazon). If you can't come up with anything, then perhaps the information would be more appropriate at a wiki with different inclusion policies. Here's one: http://kabbalah.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page . I'm sure there are others. --Arcadian 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

==ERM transcription factor==

A tag has been placed on ERM transcription factor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ^SyBer_WoLff 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is your picture at Holliday junction correct? It's like this:

    v^
    v^
    v^
   /  \
<<<    <<<
>>>    >>>
   \  /
    v^
    v^
    v^

How do the 2 strands of each double helix move against each other?

Perhaps it should be like this:

    vv
    vv
    vv
   /  \
<<<    >>>
<<<    >>>
   \  /
    ^^
    ^^
    ^^

--Occultations 10:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the image ("Image:Holliday Junction.png") is a reasonable approximation of something that is hard to represent in two dimensions, but I agree that it could be better, and more images/animations would be useful. I've added some links to external sites containing animations of the process. If you feel the existing image is misleading, and think it would be better off deleted, or if you feel it would be better with an explanatory note added to the caption, feel free to make the needed changes. --Arcadian 15:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Brain

Thanks for adding it. I was going to, but my spouse woke up right after I left the message on the talk page, so I had to tear myself away from Wikipedia for a bit. Cheers. --Selket ^Talk 03:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

my templates reverted

so my glycoside template I was adding to the glycoside articles in the glycoside category have been reverted.

I believe you could have discussed the possible irrelevance of the glycoside template I made on some talk page before reverting them.

ok I should have pasted just the template name in the parentheses but I have seen other articles where the entire code of a template has been pasted so I don't think that that would be a reason for reverting them either. Okyea 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dopamine receptor

Hey, thanks for picking up some of my slack on Dopamine receptor. I'm slowly chipping away at the article; hopefully I can get it up to the comprehensive, useful level such a topic deserves... -- Scientizzle 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, and thank you for being so meticulous about referencing the published literature in your edits on that page. --Arcadian 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Asimov's short stories

I love you for starting that page. I'm a big asimov fan and had a list similar to this on my old computer. This list can now be found in a local dumpster. so thanks again.

Melanotan

Greetings Arcadian, I just wanted to let you know that I've reintegrated your content back into the article and I invite you to verify the reintegration. See you. (→Netscott) 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Immunologic adjuvant, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Biliverdin

I note that you changed the image on Biliverdin from the .jpg to the .png on the grounds that it is a better image. I am afraid I must strongly disagree. Although the .png does indeed better have better composition than the .jpg, it is inferior to the .jpg in at least three respects:

1. the chemical conformation is such that the high degree of symmetry is not apparent,
2. no hydrogens are shown, not even to help distinguish the two oxygen species in the carboxyl groups, and
3. the representation of many of the double bonds is badly skewed.

Even without the first two points, the last is enough to make the .png an image of lesser quality. DS 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but if you want to change it back, I won't stand in your way. --Arcadian 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

dermatlas.med.jhmi.edu

dermatlas.med.jhmi.edu

Spam sock accounts

162.129.70.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
As your aware WP:SPAM is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. Recent WP:SPA anon spam only account has recently inserted multiple links to the same URL, over multiple articles. Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. Edits by 162.129.70.42 have been removed. --Hu12 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You deleted 22 valid links to Johns Hopkins University's DermAtlas. It isn't spam if a user puts in multiple links to reliable sources, such as PubMed or IMDB, and Johns Hopkins University is far more reliable than either of those. --Arcadian 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(Amending my previous comment - DermAtlas is more reliable than IMDB, but not more reliable than PubMed). --Arcadian 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I do agree with the reliability of the link, the manner of which they were added was bad faith and doesn't confer a license to spam Wikipedia even when it's true. see 162.129.70.42 contributions. Note: IP 162.129.70.42 NetRange which added these links originates from The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions Baltimore, Maryland, from NameServer: ENS1.JHMI.EDU. This is Also A WP:COI, and against Wikipedia's External links policy. I have tagged the IP with SharedIPEDU accordingly --Hu12 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• While I'm pretty aggressive in removing commercial links with medical topics, I think this particular one looks fine. There's no advertising. It's not a promotional vehicle for someone's practice. I have no issue with it. I think '42' links to it may be a bit much, but it's a fairly neutral site with good images Droliver 02:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still a conflict of interest. Panfakes 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy and teeth?

Hey, I notice you do quite a few edits concerning anatomy, and so this would be a perfect question to someone who knows a lot about anatomy-related articles. On the tooth article, I have written a substantial amount of information, and I finally have gotten to the "teeth in animals" section and started wondering what I should do. Should there be a separate "teeth in animals" article that the section should show as the main article or should the majority of the content in the tooth article be moved to a "human tooth" article? What do you think? My initial instinct was to keep the article as is and make a new article about animal teeth for the section to refer to, but I did not know if most anatomy articles try to keep a certain format when addressing that issue. Your input would be appreciated. - Dozenist talk 01:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend splitting out most of the content to human tooth or human teeth (singular is usually better, but this might be an exception). I don't think that it is necessary to split out human content on most anatomy articles yet, but for articles with significant non-human content, I think this approach would help provide the best balance -- see lung and human lung. But there isn't strong precedent yet, so you might also want to post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dentistry to get a broader perspective. (If a veterinary medicine project exists, I can't find it.) --Arcadian 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy just in case before I do such a drastic move. - Dozenist talk 03:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving CFS/ME Article

Hi, I've noticed you used to contribute to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I recently nominated it as the Wikipedia:Improvement Drive. I feel that it needs urgent improvement, and if you agree please vote at the Improvement Drive project page. Thanks! Thedreamdied 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

FAS/FASD

I just left a stronger message at Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder about the need to return the article to FAS. Prob is, it will need admin help. The original article was at FAS, and was moved to FASD. I copied most back to FAS about a month ago, but I can't solve the talk page. That is, FAS was awarded Good article *before* the move to FASD, and now FASD is incorrectly listed at Good article. I'm not sure I can get the talk page and those pieces back without admin help ? Maybe I should just manually fix the Good article, and copy the templates, but then there will be no talk page history of the GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I left comments on the talk page; I'm not sure that plan will work. The more I look at the mess, the more I want to cry :-) FAS has had enough work it might be worth keeping, so I'm not sure moving FASD to FAS is the best way to go. But I really can't tell. The entire topic has been merged as if they were one and the same, and since I don't know the topic, I don't know if I can undo all this damage without reading every single reference. How can an article get that far without it coming to our attention (rhetorical sigh) ? I only noticed it because a link was changed in Tourettism, and I saw what was happening.[1] Every time I try to help fix it, I just get discouraged :-( What if we keep FAS, begin to work on it, and also keep FASD, and begin to prune it? It's really hard for me to tell which will be most expedient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you want to have a look at work so far: pause for status check. I'm definitely over my head on this, but want to get it done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For creating lipstatin, which I just expanded a bit. I'm curious as to how you were so fast... are you, in fact, a med/chem article-creating bot? :) Best, Fvasconcellos 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, but Diberri's tool just added PubChem yesterday, which should help speed a lot of things up. --Arcadian 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll try and make good use of it. Fvasconcellos 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yummy!

I, Ciar, share this tasty cookie from Serephine with Arcadian for diligent work in putting navigation templates on articles within the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. I couldn't get around MCB so fast without them!! Ciar 18:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Munch munch - thanks! And I appreciate all the helpful edits you've made to the immunology articles lately. --Arcadian 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Diseases of the nervous system

re Template:Diseases of the nervous system - Wow, very impressive. It will take me a little time to work my way through such a comprehensive & extensive navigation box :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I note that this template isn't in a category, or mentioned on any Wikipedia/Project page. I'd like to add it to the "Navigation templates" section in WP:MEDMOS but it would be good link to a list of medical navigation templates. Colin°^Talk 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and feel free to categorize or edit it as needed. --Arcadian 12:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any more, suitable for the Medicine project? Colin°^Talk 12:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list, at the bottom of the page. (I had added the nav templates to pathology, but they were removed on March 10th, which is why I've provided the historical link. A note about the colors, to explain the inconsistency: I had been using the standard "Navigation" format, which used to default to light gray, but a month ago it was switched to a default of light blue about a month ago - an unfortunate switch, in my opinion. For the medical condition nav templates, I think it makes more sense to use gray than blue, so that they match the infobox color, and because blue is so closely associated with the pharm pages. That's why the most recent two are gray, but the previous ones are blue. I'm also thinking about switching over to "Navbox generic", and have used that for the last few. The templates automatically collapse if you have more than one on the same page (very handy in preventing template overload), but only if the templates are of the same type, which is why they should eventually be standardized. (That's why "Metabolic pathology" is uncollapsed on that page, while the others are collapsed.) More context about the options is available at Template:Navigational templates. Feedback is of course welcome. --Arcadian 13:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've discovered there are categories for drug and medical navigation templates. Some of those templates weren't in the category, so I've added them. I've linked to both those categories from the WP:MEDMOS guidelines. I wonder if there is any need for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Templates if we also have Category:Drug navigational boxes? (Colin)

I see some benefits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Templates. I think it is faster to navigate there than in the category. We also have more flexibility about how to make the content appear. --Arcadian 13:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Phagocytosis

I fixed the odd "x = y + z" bit in the above article. Now reads: The term "professional phagocytes" is sometimes used to describe macrophages and neutrophils, because these cells are considered to have phagocytosis as their primary function.. I assume you intended it as a temporary marker or something and it got lost amongst all your other concerns. You're busy. It happens! Secret Squïrrel 06:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - sometimes when I'm trying to outline a page, I use Pseudocode in my drafts as I try to figure out the structure. Usually I replace it before saving, but in this case I neglected to do so. Thank you for fixing it. --Arcadian 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Eponym

Let's see... first, on Wikipedia such issues are not decided by vote count - but if they were, you should take into account the debate about other eponyms on the same page, which has several more people stating that this is not useful categorization. Second, I didn't disregard your point about language, but note in counterpoint that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that we do categorize terms in wiktionary. Third, the people who commented that you didn't recognize are people who frequently work on categories, not on medical articles. That does not, of course, give them extra weight, but it certainly isn't grounds for discounting them.

It actually boils down to what the categorization system is for: if you look up, say, Adams-Stokes syndrome in an encyclopedia, and there is a section for "related articles", would you expect that section to point you to (1) other cardiac syndromes, or (2) people named "Adams"? >Radiant< 10:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Protein kinase Mζ

You are waaaay too fast. :-) [2] --David Iberri (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hormone Issues

Hi Arcadian,

I found an issue on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone, you actually deleted an external link: http://www.hormone.org/, this is a quote from your comments on February

"(outline long opening. also removed dead link, unrelated link, and journal reference which was not tied to article)"

well this is a recognized authoritative source related to the topic.

I'd really appreciate to see your point of view, but I strongly believe that http://www.hormone.org/ is not an "unrelated link", instead is a good source for further guidance to this topic.

Regards, Jennifer. JenniferFisher 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A good overview of the standards for inclusion is available at Wikipedia:External_links. If you read that page and still really feel that your link belongs on the Hormone page, then your best strategy is probably to ask at Talk:Hormone and see if there are any objections. --Arcadian 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven

Thought you might like to know: I submitted a Featured List Nomination for this list, of which you seem to be a major author. I did some tinkering around the edges (lead, references, section headers, etc.) first. Cheers! —Turangalila ^talk 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

thalmus page

at least note protection, and the talk page should not be protected.

Medicine portal

Hey, Arcadian! It'd be great! Boxes that need a continuous update: News, Selected image, Selected article, quotes, to-dos and projects. What are you interested in? And do you need any kind of help? Thanks in advance. NCurse _work 06:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still learning the format, but I just made my first edit, at Portal:Medicine/Things you can do. --Arcadian 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, that box hasn't been updated for a while now... Do you want to create a Selected Image template? I can list you the parts of the procedure. PS: you can reply here, I'm watching you. :) NCurse _work 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "Selected Image template", but if you list the steps, or provide an example, I'd be happy to help out. --Arcadian 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Speedy Deletion Warning

A tag has been placed on NADH or NADPH oxidoreductases, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Disease

Hi there Arcadian. Is there any "easy" way to populate {{Infobox Disease}}? I'd like to add on to aggressive NK-cell leukemia, and maybe, if there is an easy way (something similar to Diberri's template filler, or a single website where one can find the relevant information to fill in the fields) it might be worth mentioning on WP:MEDMOS, as we do for {{Drugbox}}. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Response at User_talk:Diberri#Infobox_Disease. --Arcadian 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will watch over there. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

UDP glucuronic acid

Hi there, sorry to bother you again, but could you merge Uridine diphosphate glucuronic acid and UDP glucuronic acid? They are the same compound :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry for the error. --Arcadian 01:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you don't think I'm stalking your contributions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The diagrams you add to my molecule pages are extremely helpful and absurdly prompt, so stalk to your heart's content. :) --Arcadian 01:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Internal Carotid Artery

Hi, I liked the additions to the Internal_carotid_artery article. A small point that I wondered about, really a semantic issue that I didn't want to clutter the Talk page with, and, as the same time I wanted to thank you for your additions to the article: Your wording of 'Traditional' classification I thought was interesting, but perhaps a bit unclear. Are you basing that on older anatomic texts, or a tradition of usage? I am unfamiliar with either, but that doesn't really mean anything and perhaps there are regional/national differences in teaching. Your 'traditional' classification seems similar, but not identical to the Fischer classification scheme, and I wonder if that is what you are referring to. It is an academic point, I admit. I am curious, what do the neurosurgeons/neurologists/neuroradiologists, etc, use at your institution? As an aside, and illustrative example, I was taught to call the LAD the 'anterior interventricular artery' in medical school....perhaps technically correct, but I've never heard or seen it referred to as such since then. Cheers, Felgerkarb 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)