User talk:Red Act

Welcome!

Hello, Red Act, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Mitigation of global warming#Population Control

Again, welcome, and thank you for editing this article. To say that you have improved things over the substance that was there before is the understatement of the year! I dislike of course the idea of population control as a mitigation strategy, my view is that any application of this strategy that would produce noticable effects on the CO2 output in a timeframe that would make any impact on this centurys temperature rise while at the same time not lead to riots and or rampant extremism or gross unfairness to the poor is unlikely in the extreme. kind regards sbandrews 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation "science" statistics

The citation is the following :

Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23.

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% JPotter 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to?

Did you mean this edit? [1]. It seems odd, and if you did mean it the edit comment is deceptive, which seems rather unlike you William M. Connolley 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC) I think Stephan has fixed this William M. Connolley 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of this edit was unintentional. The only thing I was intending to do was to add the reference, and remove the nearby Fact tag. Everything else was a mistake. I must have been looking at an older version of the article when I clicked on the "edit this page" tab. Sorry. MrRedact 21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Medical Diagnosis

When did asking for the name of something on the human body become a medical diagnosis? A person on the RD asked for the name of the white tongue bumps that are common for some people. He didn't ask what caused them. He didn't ask how to treat them. He didn't ask if it was a disease. He didn't ask if it was something he could pass to someone else. He didn't even claim that he had them. He just asked what the name was. Yet, you decided that asking for the name was a medical diagnosis and decided it was worth deleting a link to an article that describes the types of bumps that some people get on their tongue. Are all questions about the human body banned from Wikipedia now? -- kainaw ™ 16:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just "asking for the name of something on the human body" would be something like "what’s the name of the little piece of tissue that extends a little ways over the base of the fingernail?". I’d obviously have no problem with that question. The actual question asked, however, differs from asking for the name of a cuticle in two important ways: 1) The question was about a condition which most people don’t have most of the time (at least, I’ve never had a symptom that fits the description). It’s not like a cuticle, which everybody has (AFAIK). Indeed, the title for the question calls it an "abnormality". 2) The condition is "very sore to the touch". Normal things that are just "something on the human body", like a cuticle or philtrum or something, don’t usually cause pain.

Asking about a painful abnormality sure sounds to me like asking about what could potentially be a serious medical condition, and is a lot more than just "asking for the name of something on the human body." For example, skin cancer might also present itself as a painful, abnormal bump on the tongue.

Asking for the name of a painful, abnormal condition is asking for a diagnosis. The symptom is an abnormal, painful white bump on the tongue. Whether the name of the condition that produces that symptom is "herpes" or "canker sore" or "lie bump" or "skin cancer" or "epithelial cyst" or "parasite" involves making a decision as to what condition is most likely to be causing that symptom. Making that decision is making a diagnosis. MrRedact 19:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent that you do not know what papillae or geographic tongue is. Neither is a medical diagnosis. Papillae are a normal part of the body that everyone has. Geographic tongue is rather normal with only a few people having severe geographic tongue. Most people only have the symptom of raised papillae - which look like white bumps and can be painful. But, it appears that your intent is to refuse this information to everyone and hide the fact that everyone with a tongue has papillae and those with geographic tongue commonly get raised papillae. I find it very pathetic that you can rationalize this as a medical diagnosis. -- kainaw ™ 14:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If geographic tongue isn’t a medical condition, then why does our article on it contain sections entitled "Symptoms", "Histopathology", and "Treatment"? More importantly, why does the National Institutes of Health Office of Rare Diseases list geographic tongue as a "disease"?[2]

Our article on diagnosis defines diagnosis as "the recognition of a disease or condition by its outward signs and symptoms". Geographic tongue may not be a very serious disease, but saying that the questioner's symptoms are indicative of geographic tongue is still a diagnosis.

According to our article on geographic tongue, geographic tongue is a synonym for benign migratory glossitis. How can you, with no medical degree, and without having looked in the guy’s mouth, distinguish between benign migratory glossitis and less benign forms of glossitis? According to the glossitis article, some of the possible causes of glossitis are bacterial infections such as syphilis, viral infections such as herpes simplex, iron deficiency anemia, pernicious anemia, oral lichen planus, erythema multiforme, aphthous ulcer, or pemphigus vulgaris. Do you really think you can tell that his condition isn’t one of those disorders from his two-sentence description of his symptoms?

What makes you so sure that his condition is even any variety of glossitis? For example, mouth cancer can start with a sore area on the tongue.[3]

I highly suspect, in fact, that you did not make a correct diagnosis. He describes his condition as "very sore to the touch". The geographic tongue article says that it "is not common for the condition to cause pain." His condition involves a single white bump. Geographic tongue involves irregular areas of discolored papillae.

Reference desk editors not being allowed to offer a diagnosis is not just a stupid, arbitrary rule. Like it or not, we live in a very litigious society, and huge sums of money have been awarded for really ridiculous lawsuits. You basically told the questioner that his condition did not warrant medical attention. If it turns out that he really has mouth cancer, he could sue Wikimedia for providing a forum in which incorrect diagnoses are frequently made by people with no medical qualifications, and I’m not so sure that the lawsuit wouldn’t succeed. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings by deleting your post, but I think it’s more important to prevent the risk of Wikipedia from being harmed by a lawsuit, and to prevent Wikimedia from deciding to close down the Science ref desk due to legal liability concerns about too much unlicensed medical advice slipping through on the page. MrRedact 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, your rationalization that naming a body part is a diagnosis is pathetic. I'll ensure to wrap any comments about body parts with "THIS IS A NAME OF A BODY PART AND NOT A DIAGNOSIS" next time. -- kainaw ™ 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Papilla" is the name of a body part, but "geographic tongue" is the name of a disease. The National Institutes of Health calls it a "disease".[4]. The Mayo Clinic calls it a "disease".[5] The Diseases Database lists geographic tongue in that database of diseases.[6] The New Zealand Dermatological Society says that it has "no cure",[7] which implies that it’s a disease. DermAtlas lists geographic tongue as a "diagnosis,"[8] which not only implies that it’s a disease, but provides direct evidence that determining that some symptoms are due to geographic tongue is making a diagnosis. You can wrap a post about geographic tongue with a disclaimer that it’s just the name of a body part, but that doesn’t actually turn the phrase into the name of a body part. The name of a body part and the name of a disease are two very different things. And if you list the name of a disease in response to a question about what a symptom is, that’s making a diagnosis. MrRedact 23:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've shared your post with everyone else and you've made an otherwise very boring day in otolaryngology an enjoyable one. -- kainaw ™ 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted the question I posted?