User talk:DocJohnny

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Welcome to the Wikipedia, DocJohnny! And thanks for the addition to the the Chemical imbalance theory article discussion. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are some perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, DocJohnny, and have fun! Ombudsman 22:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome as well. Drop by the doctor's lounge and sign in. alteripse 11:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi doc!

Good work on Syndrome X and Prinzmetal's angina! These articles were really in need of help! Have you joined our collleagues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine? These boys are turning out top-quality articles (just look at asthma and multiple sclerosis, two recent masterpieces). Your expertise, skills and help are much appreciated. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depression and anxiety

Hi. Sorry I didn't explain the removal properly. Basically, I think our argument is about names and definitions. Close to the beginning of the article on Chronic fatigue syndrome there is the section on Symptoms. That section strikes me as being central to the article. That includes a paragraph on Psychological/Psychiatric symptoms in general where anxiety and depression feature prominently. If you feel that there is the need to repeat this halfway down the article in the section about co-morbidity then go ahead, I won't remove it again. Please then consider not capitalising Anxiety and Depression and linking to the right articles: anxiety, depression or depression . If you think the Clinical depression article is more suitable as the link then you might consider changing the link also in the Symptoms section. You can see what the links look like if you edit this page. Have fun on wikipedia, I can see you have been working hard to make it better. Stefán Ingi 09:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

e fuller torrey talk page

Doc Johnny, please give us a hand with the E. Fuller Torrey article. We have JDWolff helping us too. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ref: "internal medicine," I respectfully disagree with your edit. There is, in fact, an "American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine" (ref: http://www.acoi.org/CertGen.html#Cert-Gen). It is an affiliate of the AOA and is charged with board certifying DOs in IM. However, I believe the ABIM does the lion's share of board certifying. I've returned the reference to the internal medicine page.

Lion's Share

Dunno much about these boards but the "Lion's Share" is all, not the major part (a common misuse and a twit to the King of the Beasts). Please see [1] Carrionluggage 04:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would be welcome at Treatment Advocacy Center

The Treatment Advocacy Center page is now protected. Your comments would be welcome.--24.55.228.56 14:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Category

Have added you to the Physician Category. Hope you don't mind.--Nomen Nescio 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem

this was archived on the ID talk page, so I am writing my response here to ensure you see it. I may have read your post incorrectly, and I evidently wrote mine poorly, because attacking anyone was the last thing from my mind. I can only apologize for my lack of clarity. I was not even speaking of the POV tag at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gracious note on my talk page, and as per your suggestion - delightedly. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Fever

Thanks for precision fix. Sorry I muddled it. By the way, I don't know what the previous entry on this page is, but the term is "ad hominem" (no "u" in it). Carrionluggage 04:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Had to point out my habitual spelling errors again, eh? :P I'm not even going to go check history, I'm fairly certain DocJohnny spelled it correctly and I was the one who made the error. No surprise there... KillerChihuahua?!? 12:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'S OK - KC - the NY Times et al often misspell "minuscule" "miniscule". They ought to fix the dictionary to allow hominum and "miniscule" (maybe).Carrionluggage 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miniscule has been in the dictionaries since the 70's :) [2] --DocJohnny 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spamlink

Hi, Doc. No, no bots here. The editor that added that has gone on a crusade adding numerous links back to that same site. Because most of his additions replaced more appropriate links or were redundant with existing links, I simply undid the whole lot of them. If you think the link is good and isn't especially redundant, then my bad. :) – ClockworkSoul 03:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my errors on Mina

Sometimes things slide right by me on this thing User:Kazuba 22 Dec 05

Immunological v Biological

You are quite correct about the links. The Biology link has no relevance whatever to oncology. I should have checked it out. "Biological therapy" and "biologicals" are common oncological parlance, referring to the treatments I mentioned on the oncology page discusion. For the sake of clarity it might be best to group them under a new heading of Biological Treatments (as opposed to Biological)Jellytussle 06:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.

Per your question on the edit summary: N.B. stands for Nota Bene. It was inserted in this edit. --Arcadian 22:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osteopathic medicine

Osteopathic medicine is a distinct type of medicine compared with conventional medicine because it's based on joint manipulation; this is why the move to merge osteopathy and conventional medicine is contested. It was a type of alternative medicine when it was created, and evolved to become very similar to conventional medicine, but it's not conventional, yet. Hopefully some others have opinions on this. --CDN99 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It almost deserves its own category, because it draws from conventional and alternative medicine, but then it would have to have its own version of every medical article...But my belief is that there is only mainstream medicine, and then there's alternative medicine, which encompasses everything else. --CDN99 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.

I didn't put that there but it's short for "nota bene" which is Latin for "note well." (it is used for emphasis or to emphasize a change in direction of thought.) Maybe you expected it in lower case? Carrionluggage 03:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link

I like your image of the dinosaur with the fish. Who won? But if one clicks on it, one gets eventually to the dead link [3] . Tut tut (not Tutankhamen, Tutankhamen). While some of the Wikiparticipants may be more interested in the "missing link" than the "dead link" it's hard to say which is worse. Hope you can revive the link. Carrionluggage 04:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can see the image in Wikipedia, OK, and now also on my talk page but if I click on this image I go to: [4] which shows yet another link

"T-Rex Car Emblem, available from Ring of Fire. [5]

and if I click thereon (hoping maybe to order a bumper sticker or window decal or whatever) I get to erehwon (i.e. nowhere). Maybe you can fix. I assume the dino won, by the way, but the fish species outsurvived his. Carrionluggage 04:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Link

Thanks for fix. I actually found a job of some interest via it - but I am probably too old for them. The place is [6] . Also, by the way, today's NY Times crossword puzzle has in it a query as to the "N" in "N.B." - hey now you know it. Carrionluggage 16:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These dinos may be more influential than "meets the eye." I found a link that led to this one: [7]

Actually, I am a not-quite-senescent scientist and even if the NCSE wanted me, I do not think I could afford to live in Oakland or nearby other than in a dismal or run-down section, but I did send an e-mail of inquiry. I would have to give up my best areas of research and learn more biology, too - but I am motivated to oppose the intrusion of ID into science curricula (not so much per se as because it is the nose of the camel or wedge or whatever trying to badmouth science and scientists and return us to the Middle Ages, if not the bronze or stone ages.) Carrionluggage 18:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theorist

I'd like to apologize for my intemperate remarks. It was a statement born of frustration and irony, but not entirely appropriate in context. --DocJohnny 05:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Took me a while to track down what that was in reference to... My statement was directed towards a user who was attacking (and continuously removing) a chart I composed for the psychoactive drug article, and I had felt it necessary to point out his ongoings in the talk pages of other articles he had been attacking. I guess you could say that my statement was also born of frustration, and not entirely appropriate in context ;) I have nothing against doctors. However I do not trust the intentions of the pharmaceutical industry to always be in the best interest of the patients as compared to the shareholders, and believe that much of their investor driven agenda trickles down in propaganda form to doctors. Cui bono ;) --Thoric 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'General' in 'General Medicine' & 'General Practice'

Hi, thanks for enquiry. You are mixing the use of General in the terms of General Medicine which is both a broad umbrella of medicine (vs. surgery) and a hospital department (e.g. a doctor might be a 'Consultant in General Medicine'), with community based General Practitioners.

I'll set out my understanding of how UK relates to US. 'General Medicine' is usually used to refer to hospital medicine. Until 15years ago, most hospitals had mostly a number of 'General Medicine Consultants' (Physicians) who managed a wide range of cases. They would admit patients presenting to Casualty (A&E/Emergency room) and so would cover strokes, heart attacks, pneumonia, cases of gastroenteritis requiring iv fluids, pyelonephritis, thyroid & diabetes, hypertension etc. Some patients might be transferred across the next morning to the relevant specialism (eg Cardiologist, Endocrinology) but not as a matter of routine. Only regional centres might have a hepatologist (liver medicine) & nephrologists, but neurology, cardiology, rheumatology and what was emerging as a new specialism of gastroenterology. Since of course medicine has developed in the last 10years and merely giving a patient with an MI a thrombolytic, starting aspirin & statin, managing hypertension and discharging home is insufficient. Nowadays there is cardiac-rehab programmes and treadmill testing leading to angiography is the norm, with many patients having angioplasty. Hence patients with an MI nearly always now must end up under a cardiologist. Patients with indigestion resistant to antacids, nolonger are referred primarily to the surgeons, but get better medical treatment and might expect an endoscopy; which of course necessitates a department (gastroenterology) to service such a need. There are very few true Generalists left, instead specialisation is the norm. Hence the Gastroenterologists/Cardiologists/Endocrinologists will be responsible on a rota for General Admissions from casualty, and there is probably a greater tendency to transfer patients between consultants after initial work-up.

By comparison, most UK doctors work as General Practitioners in the community. They are independent contractors who work within the National Health Service. Their generalism is now seen as a specialist skill in its own right (whoa betide an upstart Hospital Registrar (US Resident) who tries to refuse to see a patient I think may need admission, or starts to talk down to me). We deal with on-going care for the patient, managing skin/respiratory/bowel/urinary/genital/skin infections unless requiring intravenous antibiotics (hospital setting required). We will deal with the majority of childhood presentations (colds, cough, ear infections, conjunctivitis, eczema, bed wetting), and will perform post-natal checks on neonates as well as later developmental screening. Routine gynaecology: contraception, pelvic inflammatory disease, dysmenorrhoea & menorrhagia will also be managed. Routine ante-natal clinic checks are also undertaken in the UK by GPs or by a midwife (obviously ultrasound monitoring, amniocentesis are hospital activities). We deal with the majority of dermatology & rheumatology. Psychological & minor psychiatric problems form a large part of our workload (major cases if not requiring admission are managed with a Consultant Psychiatrist and their team taking the lead, but routine monitoring and most repeat prescribing of medication remains with the patient's GP).

So to answer your question, yes hospital 'General Medicine' = 'Internal Medicine'. The bit about Gynaecology & Paediatrics refers to community 'General Practitioners' (aka Family Doctors) which is somewhat analogous I believe to US 'Family Medicine'. Of course GPs vary in their skill mix & interests and some, such as myself, will have a greater interest in 'general medicine' (here term used to mean the field of, rather than the hospital department). davidruben 02:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, think our discussion will eventually prove to be major part of some updates to a number of WP articles....

Before answering your questions, I should point out the following.

  • Consultant is a term used for one who has completed their training and achieved a post of being able to work unsupervised (there may of course be a head of a department within a hospital). As such the term is used both for hospital Surgeons and Physicians. GPs were (40years ago) traditionally looked down upon by hospital consultants as having left further medical training early after just 1 year following medical school. Now GP training is 3-4years with formal assessments and then similar continuous appraisal. With hospitals nolonger the white castles of old, but rather competing for contracts & referrals from the community, the power very much has swung to GPs to commission services. GPs & (most) Consultants see themselves as equals in the provision of healthcare. Some GPs have suggested a change in title terminology, but the vast majority of GPs would prefer to not be called 'Consultants' as this, in the UK at least, is seen as synonymous with the term 'Specialist' and GPs now very much see themselves as specialists in 'Generalism'.
  • Most doctors within the UK work in the NHS, whether that be a NHS Hospital or the larger number of community General Practices (also known as Medical or Health Centres, Surgeries, Practices).
    • Use of the term 'Health Centre' is confusing to everyone as strictly speaking they are local centres owned by the NHS itself (vs. a partnership of GPs owning/renting their own premises). Here would be located the community District Nurses, Health Visitors, Physiotherapists administrative offices and clinics. They may or may not also contain space to be rented out to one or more GP Practices.
  • All doctors within the NHS may also undertake some private work. For hospital consultants, this may be within the NHS Hospital itself (in a set of attached private consulting rooms or private wards) or at a Private Hospital. For GPs this may be at their main NHS surgery (remember they privately contract to the NHS, so their owed/rented premises are very much their own to use) or at separate private general practices (of which there are very very few).
  • Hospital doctors have inpatients (those staying in a hospital bed) and outpatients (what I gather in the US is referred to as Office practice). Hence a consultant is obviously tied to a hospital for inpatient care, but necessarily so for outpatients (although they need hospital facilities to arrange investigations). The basic model to assume about the UK is that a consultant is purely hospital based. However if working in a hospital group, they may find that they only admit inpatients to one of the hospital, but may have outpatient clinics in some of the other hospitals. Some consultants will also run outreach outpatient clinics - i.e. clinics held outside of the hospital site, but this is usually a minority of consultants who get to be able to do this. Outreach clinics are most often in Health Centres and occasionally in a GP's surgery; but they are never part of the General Practice partnership and get no additional money for this - they are still employed by their NHS Hospital to provide care to a given geographical catchment area. Consultants tend to like outreach clinics because it gets them out of the same building, they get to meet local GPs (who treat most patients in all fields of medicine) and so can establish a dialogue on managing less severe cases and developing the overall management protocols of their field of expertise in that area.

So now to address your questions:

  • Is General Medicine (Internal Medicine) in the UK only hospital based?
    • Short answer is Yes. However some consultants do outreach clinics. Also some GPs have specialised interests (usually Diabetes or Rheumatology) and so run some specialised clinics (either in their own surgery practice, at a community Health Centre or indeed at a Hospital under a Consultant) for either just their own surgery's registered patients or for the wider local community (this seems to be the way the Government wishes to develop services - Consultants take a long time to train up and are expensive compared to the looked-down-upon "humble" GP)
  • Are there pediatricians? Are they hospital based or office based?
    • Yes and like all consultants almost exclusively hospital based (see above).
    • With the partial splitting of General Medicine as a single field/department into the separate sub-specialities (Cardiology, Rheumatology, Endocrinology etc), Paediatrics is very much seen as an equal branch of Medicine unlike US where you seem to suggest a 3-way split of hospital doctors into Internal Medicine, Paediatrics & Surgery. Of course Paediatricians do not take part in the general medical rota for emergency admissions and run their own rota between their consultants as to who sees & admits children from casualty (likewise general surgery vs. Obs&Gynae admissions).
  • Are there pediatric subspecialty tracks?
    • Yes, but more often Paediatricians within a hospital department will each have their own areas of special interest and so may switch some (but not all) of their general paediatric outpatient clinics as specialist ones (e.g. Paediatric Gastroenterology or Paediatric Diabetology). A local District General Hospital (serving approx. 300,000 population) has too small a catchment area to generally support pure Paediatric Sub-Specialists. Hence Paediatric Cardiologists or Paediatric Rheumatologists tend to located at regional specialist centres. Care is needed here of course in understanding, as a Paediatric Rheumatologist is more likely to be a Rheumatologist who has sub-sub-specialised with children rather than a Paediatrician who has sub-specialised in rheumatological disorders (likewise a Paediatric Urologist is a Urology Surgeon who has sub-sub-specialised for children and is never a paediatric physician who has learnt surgical skills).
  • Are there office based subspecialists? ie cardiologists, gastroenterologists, oncologists
    • Most UK Physicians train in a subspecialty. Posts of broad "General Medicine" have largely declined for a rise in the subspecialty posts (e.g. increase in intervention following an MI, cf. just 2weeks of bed rest 20years ago has necessitated Cardiologists rather than generalists). The main split of General Medicine was to Respiratory Medicine, Cardiology, Gastroenterology and Endocrinology. Dermatology, Rheumatology, Neurology and Nephrology have always tended to have been separate fields of medicine from 'General Medicine' and do not take part in general casualty admission rotas.
    • They are all hospital based, although some get to run an occasional (1-4 a month) outreach clinic, but not at sites they can individually call their own (i.e. not owned/rented directly by them) - e.g. at a Health Centre or at a General Practitioner's surgery as part of their hospital-based contract to provide care for a given local population.

Please feel free to continue asking other questions to clarify what may not be seen as obvious to a non-UK resident. Then we shall need to add & tidy up all the WP articles on Doctors, Physicians, Consultants, Registrars, Residents, Interns, Medical training etc. David Ruben Talk 15:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just spoted no WP link to District Nuring (chronic wounds, monitoring of house-bound diabetics etc) nor Health Visitors (routine childhood development and support for mothers) - major UK topics needing entries, but I'm not an expert to really add more than stubs. David Ruben Talk 15:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Gimmiet

Just so you know, I blocked Gimmiet for other reasons than what's going on on Natasha Demkina and I suspect User:Prycon is a sock puppet. Gimmiet's on parole and I've posted notification of all this on his arbitration page, so hopefully we'll get this all sorted out. Bryan 05:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. again

I just edited the disambiguation page for Lincoln Heights to include # Lincoln Heights, a neighbourhood in Fredericton, New Brunswick

N.B. (Nota Bene) that New Brunswick is NB or (I think) N.B. Carrionluggage 08:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding CfD

Was any of this necessary, especially the deletions [8][9] of the archived discussion on the CFD page? Mr. Wales' goal seemed to be the preservation of the category while bypassing the administrative processes that he set up. This was accomplished. Why then blank out the discussion? It had been closed. I have absolutely no stake in this issue. But I am extremely taken aback by what happened. I had always assumed that while Mr. Wales would be the ultimate arbiter above arbcomm, he would abide by the same processes that affect the rest of us. If the goal was to make it clear that absolutely none of the rules apply to Mr. Wales, that is now abundantly clear. --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't have a problem with you declaring the cfd over by fiat. Wikipedia is clearly yours. But I don't think blanking discussion is a good thing if user contribution is deemed valuable and dissent is allowed. --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the discussions, I moved them to an appropriate place. I find it very strange that anyone (anyone!) would accuse me of not thinking user contribution is valuable and not allowing dissent. Check your premises, my friend.

My purpose here is to encourage a productive positive discussion. The CfD was totally invalid from the start, period. I am not acting differently from any other editor with good sense. There are important issues to be discussed about how to deal with a serious problem, and CfD is absolutely not where we are going to have that discussion. --Jimbo Wales 22:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#From_the_living_persons_debate --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 23:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange that anyone (anyone!) would accuse me of not thinking user contribution is valuable and not allowing dissent. Check your premises, my friend.

I was not trying to accuse you of anything of the sort. I am and was assuming good faith. I was trying to point out that the effect of blanking out the archived cfd was IMO a diminution in users ability to contribute and dissent. --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose here is to encourage a productive positive discussion. The CfD was totally invalid from the start, period. I am not acting differently from any other editor with good sense. There are important issues to be discussed about how to deal with a serious problem, and CfD is absolutely not where we are going to have that discussion.

I don't dispute your motives, and on several levels I agree that the CFD was precipitous. But your exercise of authority went far beyond what any other editor, admin, sysop, arbcomm member would be capable of. All of us see articles, CFD's and other things that we deem invalid. None of us are able to decree that they are "invalid, period" despite whatever reasoned arguments are available. I am just trying to point out that by this series of actions, you have clearly set yourself as far apart and distinctly above ordinary wikipedia users/admins/etcetera. --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree that we may be poorer for it, but no one else has your authority to declare CFD's pointless. No one, absolutely no one else has the authority to "impose it from top down" as you did. I honestly do not understand the pretense at egalitarianism. I don't have a horse in this race so to speak, except in as far that I was honestly shocked at what happened. I am not disputing your authority, or your good intentions. I do object to the glossing over of this unilateral exercise of authority as merely what anyone can do. Any other user/admin/arbcomm would have been banned for deleting a CFD in progress. I think Wikipedia needs a clear line of authority and you are obviously at the top. If you reserve the right to overrule matters that is obviously your privilege, but lets be open about it. I really think that you should restore the archived CFD section, since you have now removed it from the talk page and I don't see what harm it did. But I will leave this topic so as to avoid doing further violence to deceased equines. --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I replied to you on Jimbo Wales' user talk again.
In furtherance to that: I think it's rather silly that with over $1 000 000 being spent on this project per year, people can just limit their actions to a single oppose, or support. How Lazy! :-P Time to actually do some work eh? :-) If you think you would be blocked if you tried to actually discuss and come to consensus, I'll certainly help you and back you up, and stop that from happening. In fact, that goes for everyone else who does the same too. Disclaimer: if a lot of people take up such offers from me, I may need to delegate to other people of equal or better skill and reputation *grin* Kim Bruning 03:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electroconvulsive therapy

I thought you were over generous leaving that POV edit in and just adding the disputed tag. So I have been a little bolder and reverted, and then added the disputed tag. Being an annon user, we may need to seek a temporary page block if 3RR occurs, thus forcing debate within the talk page where both of us have urged that user (or does WP in such circumstances seek to impose a user URL block ?) David Ruben Talk 00:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The annon user has reverted yet again - I now count x6 reverts within the last 24hrs. Several (revert) edit comments have asked that they discuss in the talk page prior further re-insertion of what is stated to be POV. A member of the Counter Vandilism Unit has stated on the talk page that they are looking into this - shame annon user not engaged in discussion.David Ruben Talk 03:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I'm staggered at the research you have just undertaken on the references given. Great job. I think the discussion on the BMJ article [10] is really useful in setting out why clinical research of effectiveness vs analysis of patients' satisfaction (which is weighted benefit vs weighted costs) differ. In particlular the distinction of retrograde and antegrade memory loss between different studies is critical (opponents will cite high retrograde incidence, clinical trials of low/zero antegrade incidence but both refer to "memory loss"). I agree totally with you about Anon highlighting the original article being poorly cited. I've posted messages to User:CloudSurfer & User:Andy.we who were the only two listed on WikiProject Clinical medicine#Participants as being psychiatrists to see if we can enlist some help for this critical review of the citations. David Ruben Talk 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Johnny, just wanted to say that I'm very impressed at the amount of effort you've put into this situation. It's absolutely ridiculous how much work this anon editor has turned out to be. --Uthbrian (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving up arguing with "Doogs" over the minutiae of the Class III designation. Some progress has been made, but unfortunately s/he has started editing dubious information into the article again. You might take a look and see if the situation is worth any more of your time, as I feel I am out of my depth here and nobody else seems to be paying attention. N6 08:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAMS

Hi John, nice to meet you! Class of 1998 here. I suspect there are probably quite a few of us floating around here. --Uthbrian (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for renaming

Doc, could you add {{cfr|new name}} when you propose a category for renaming. This at least alerts the people who have worked on the category time to respond. --Salix alba (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary referral hospital

I was about to edit Tertiary referral hospital re them providing 'a full complement' of services, but then realised I was probably misunderstanding the term as it is used in the USA. My initial thought was just of somewhere providing a Tertiary care service (e.g. Regional Transplantation service or Psychiatrict inpatient ward) which in the UK may be at a specialist Hospital site or as an attached unit to a District General Hospital's more routine services.

However I suspect that 'Tertiary referral hospital' may be more about the level of the hospital itself, rather than the level of a particular single speciality care. This in the UK would be the distinction from a GP led community hospital, a local Hospital providing some services but without an A&E, District General Hospital providing A&E and most services, and special hospitals (mostly medical school training hospitals or those with a particular focus, eg regional cancer centres or children-only hospitals).

So which is it - a centre with one or more areas of 'Tertiary care' expertese (but perhaps not providing all areas of routine care), or a description of a hospital having full range of services (but perhaps not having every possible subspecialism) ? David Ruben Talk 13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I (sort of) get the idea. Don't think the term really applies to UK - a GP in primary care refers to a hospital specialist (secondary care) who in turn may make a tertiary referal to tertiary care, but we do not have a formal numerical system of grading hospital's facilities. So I think the article needs remain US-only. Could you though edit the phrase 'a full complement of services' as this would not appear from your comments always to be the case (and hence my confusion). David Ruben Talk 01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

216.60.25.6

Hey, I saw your note on WP:AIV. Block policy forbids blocks of more than a month against IPs that are not open proxies. I blocked him for a week right now; we'll see how that goes. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cranial therapy

It looks great. The criticisms couldn't be any clearer; now we just wait for the next anon to start arguing that it works and vandalising the article. :/ --CDN99 01:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Fever Again - Query

I noticed you've been editing the page on scarlet fever. One of the items in the list about its signs and symptoms is "illness." This is very nonspecific and I was mainly wondering if you were the one to put up that item, and if so, would you rather change it to a more specific term? Thanks! Spiraling 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osteopathic mess

The article on osteopathy is becoming a disaster. We need to rework it. I made some suggestions in the talk page, but I didn't want to do any major reforming unilaterally. What do you think?Donaldal 04:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some big changes happening on the osteopathic article, and I thought you would be an important person to have make contributions. (You're a DO, right?)Donaldal 04:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electroconvulsive therapy

Hi,

The Electroconvulsive therapy article has just been edited by someone from an IP address. All they've done is move the CCHR link to the head of the list of references, and delete the fact that said organisation is run by the Scientologists. I've made comment on the talk page that I think the edit should be reverted - would appreciate your thoughts if you're interested in re-entering that particular debate!

Ta, Nmg20 23:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfArb Orthomolecular medicine

Hi, I have seen that you discussed with the two editors of Orthomolecular medicine some time ago. You might be interested in adding a statement into the RfArb I have listed here [11].

ackoz 10:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas A&M University

I could really use your help and all other current and former students from A&M to rewrite and expand all articles relating to Texas A&M. -- Hut101 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Image:AggieRing.jpg and your user page

I was expanding the fair use rationale at Image:AggieRing.jpg, and I saw your user page linked to it. I have commented out the image from your user page. I did this because the Aggie Ring itself was identified as copyrighted, making the image a photograph of a copyrighted work of art—and under the same limitations as if the image itself were copyrighted. One of those limitations is that fair use cannot be justified on a User page. Sorry about that, but I wanted to let you know why the change was made. Regards, —C.Fred (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

WikiProject Texas A&M

Howdy! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Texas A&M University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks and Gig 'em! Addbot (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new medical resource

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). Presto54 (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New medical organization

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reach@wikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

DiptanshuTalk 13:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DocJohnny. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:DocJohnny"