User talk:Davidruben

Hi! Welcome to my talk page.

• Please create a new heading for new subjects (manually '= = xxx = ='). To respond to a message under the same subject, find the applicable heading below, press the "Edit" button on the right, and add your message to that section.
• I will always respond on your talk page.

Click here to leave me a new message. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with '~~~~'

Archives
September 2004 – December 2005 January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – August 2006 September 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 - excluding pending

Vitamin A and retinol

Would you be interested in performing the merge tasks that were suggested for Vitamin A and Retinol at Talk:Retinol? You previously expressed willingness to do so and you appear to have the best handle on the topic of those of us who were involved in the discussion. Dekimasu 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Still wondering and hoping. Rather not? Dekimasuが... 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BirthControl infobox

Thank you for your message on my talk page. If you can think of a way to get more people involved in the discussion please feel free. Re the particular poll you suggest: I would prefer to go more slowly and flexibly than that. The wording on each page needs to be considered individually. A vote on wording covering many pages at once could be too restrictive. I propose to change the wording on one page (the Condom page), then consider some other pages one at a time. Note that the first few changes I'm making/proposing to make do not change the wording of "failure rate/pregnancy rate"; I don't see why there would need to be extensive discussion on a change which has no effect on the way the articles display. People may notice the edits I did on many pages and come back to the discussion for that reason, as you did. How do you personally feel about the changes I propose? Please comment on them at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate". --Coppertwig 13:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You've asked me not to make changes in the BirthControl infobox "for now". Would you please be more specific about the reasons and the length of time or criteria for ending the wait period? Do you see anything you don't like about the new version (and if so, what?) or do you need some time to test and examine it, or do you just want to give others more of a chance to comment? Again, note that simply installing the new version will not change the "Failure rate" headings. --Coppertwig 17:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way: I wasn't assuming anyone other than myself had changed their views. I think no one had spoken against changing to "pregnancy rate" on the Condom page if it matches what the citation says, though there was strong feeling from RedHillian that the vasectomy page must use the word "failure" (though it still isn't clear to me what "failure rate" is supposed to mean on that page). Also, I had said "Here's another idea" and described the changes to the infobox, (which were designed to try to satisfy the various views that had been expressed) and no one spoke against it. --Coppertwig 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way again: Congratulations on creating the BirthControl infobox in the first place. Well done.  :-) --Coppertwig 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion happening and I don't think I should have to wait unless there's a reason and/or length of time (or criterion), preferably both. If I don't hear anything back from you or anyone else on my talk page or on Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate", I'll assume that when you asked me to wait "for now" it meant one week (i.e. approx 4 days from now). I hope that doesn't sound unreasonable -- I'm just asking for some sort of response from you if you want me to keep on waiting, e.g. how long? I re-read your suggestion for a straw poll and see that you have as one option case-by-case selection of terms, so that's OK. You may hold a straw poll if you like, though I don't see the need. Right now nothing's happening, though. Note that just changing the template doesn't change the headers, it just allows flexibility so they can be changed. If there's something you don't like about my version of the template please tell me. I don't see anyone making any opposition to either the new template, or to changes of wording on the Condom page, except you asking me not to do anything "for now" with no article-content-based or software-maintenance-based reasons given. --Coppertwig 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

--

Thank you very much for your gracious comment to me at Talk:Birth control/Archive2. I'm now simply waiting until I have a block of uninterupted time so I can do the change carefully -- probably a few days. --Coppertwig 12:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox question

I saw the thread above and wondered if you might be able to help. I've been wanting to create a template like Template:BirthControl infobox for use in articles in Category:Forms of abortion for some time now. I posted to Help talk:Infobox quite a while ago, but nothing has been forthcoming, and I still don't know what to make of the infobox creation process. Any pointers you might be able to lend would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 11:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok not difficult. Peroposed infoboxes can be added to Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed , which is really just somewhere for large number of editors to collaborate on an infobox development. I'm not aware that there is any formal vetting/proposing/accepting process, but it would be wise perhaps to discuss at Talk:Abortion where interested people (who contribute to articles that the infobox would apply to) can add their thoughts.

First though which parameters where you thinking the infobox should contain (as the proposer you can be WP:Bold and decide upon the initial suggestions)?

• First use (anywhere) seems obvious
• Number or fraction of all abortions is problematic (i.e. different in each country and varies over time) - or did you want such data, eg Number_US = and Date_US = with nothing shown unless a date has been provided with the number parameter. Then separate set for UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand .... but where do we stop with including countries (Ireland, Carribean, South Africa...) ?
• Could have an Anaesthetic parameter as to whether needs anaesthetic or not (watch the sparks fly re American or British spelling).

Then I can then mark up an intial proposal to put forward at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed and we can notify Talk:Abortion. David Ruben ^Talk 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that the infobox creation process isn't as formalized as the stub creation process.This infobox would be associated with WikiProject Abortion, so, I could also propose it there too (in fact, I already have, it just didn't go anywhere). My suggested paramaters are as follows:

• Type of method: Surgical or medical.
• First use: When a method was developed.
• Last use: If the method has been phased out.
• Timeframe of use by gestational age
• Frequency of use: I think percentages would provide more immediate context as to how common a method was over numbers. With numbers, you wouldn't get an indication of how common a method was, in comparison to others, unless you checked other articles. As for which countries to cite, I'd say go with a few "representative" ones, perhaps the G8, or the most populous nations. An obvious criteria for exclusion would be countries in which abortion is generally illegal. I would also say that we should make note of countries that go against the general trend, that is, countries in which an abortion method is practiced more or less often than it is in other nations due to variations in laws or medicine.
• Availability: The legality of a procedure by country and whether it is generally accessible.
• Advantages and disadvantages
  • Potential health risks
  • Anaesthetic requirement
  • Contraindications
  • Other prohibitive or beneficial considerations (cost, invasiveness, how long a method requires to complete)

Maybe that's trying to cram too much information into one place? I don't know much about coding infoboxes, so I can't help you there. But I really appreciate your offer to help, because this is an improvement I've wished to see implemented on abortion articles for a long time. -Severa (!!!) 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems sensible start. One of things that became apparent with the Birthcontrol infobox was that in order to try and standardise what was inserted (particularly important given contentious & disparate POVs on the topics) the parameters were quite specific (hence not just advantages or disavatanges but various parameters within each of these). So do you see the Frequency of use, Advantages & Disadvantages as just 3 free-text parameters, or each having individual parameter components within the 3 categories ? No rush to reply (I'll look back later this evening or tomorrow) David Ruben ^Talk 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't really know much about coding an infobox, so I wouldn't know how to technically construct the parameters. I think standardizing the options would be the best choice, but we should also leave room for flexibility, given that sources are going to vary. How did you do it with the BirthControl infobox - free text, or standardized parameters? Information under the "Frequency of use" parameter could be easily formatted to include the components country, percent, and year. However, I see "Advantages & disadvantages" as being a single heading, in order to prevent the need for shifting a parameter between one of either two headings, depending on the specifics of the method (for example, "Anaesthetic requirement" could be listed under either "Advantages" or "Disadvantages," depending on whether the procedure called for anaesthetic). Also, perhaps it isn't desirable to associate the term "advantage" with abortion, so maybe we should substitute the title "Heath considerations" for "Advantages & disadvantages." -Severa (!!!) 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok working version set up on Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed via subpage of Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion (the proposal page is really unweldy so I've also placed suggestion that each proposal is made on a subpage). I've also added an explanatory (sub-)sub-page "/doc" as to its use. Decided in end that country usage-dates if not provided should request that this be clarified with "?when". Discussion on teh proposal now should be held at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion. David Ruben ^Talk 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This is exactly as I imagined the ideal infobox — concise and well-designed. Your explanation of formatting is also very helpful. Thanks so much for creating this! :-) -Severa (!!!) 03:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

I was about to merely create the infobox, put it in articles, and move on, but then I found the proposals page, which is essentially a graveyard of proposed and uncommented-upon infoboxes. I thought that your system is efficient, although perhaps too complicated, because I would have preferred to simply create the infobox in the template namespace, with a template indicating that it isn't active yet, and then develop it there. Having a subpage makes the infobox more useful for development, but the whole "proposed infobox" system makes that a latent infobox much easier to ignore, and nothing may ever get done for less active WikiProjects.

If I may criticize somewhat, I think that what's established there has... too many layers. Creating infoboxes through un-subpaged means had problems, and while the subpage system fixes some, others are still there. If you have any comments, or if I'm being confusing, or if I'm confused, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks! Gracenotes^T § 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NHS hospitals

David, Having just been helped at an NHS hospital (fantastic place) I thought I might look around the WP pages and tidy them up. At Category:NHS_hospitals you describe hospitals as "operated by the NHS". Are you happy if I find or contribute something more accurate about the trust structure? Won't be for a couple of weeks anyway so no rush to answer. --BozMo talk 08:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Help on the implant page

Dear Dr Ruben,

You helped on the breast implant page before so I am asking for your help again. I have followed your advice/request and discussed any changes to the breast implant article and asked for a straw poll, before making changes. There are a few editors, including a DrCarter and an editor of Our Bodies Ourselves (an international women's health book -- translated into 18 languages I think) who generally agree about how to keep the article balanced. DrOliver, a plastic surgeon, disagrees with most of what we say, even when we provide direct quotes from the most reputable, unbiased sources. He just makes changes to the article when he wants to, regardless of any consensus that has developed. Can you remind him of the rules you established?

Also, some editors just like adding lots of photos to breasts on the page, the bigger the better. That's been a bit challenging too.

I don't think I referenced footnotes 8 and 9 exactly right -- they are official patient labeling available on a government web site. If you can help, I'd be grateful.

Thanks so much for your help. Drzuckerman 04:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Since my last note (above) Droliver has again reverted to his version of the breast implant article despite opposition of other editors in the discussion page. And, in response to a woman asking a medical question, he is now providing medical advice on the discussion page! I would not think this is the proper use of wikipedia. Drzuckerman 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

D&E definition clarification

Lyrl posted a request for clarification of the term Dilation and evacuation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion in response to another user's post at Talk:Dilation and evacuation#A bit of a problem. I thought that maybe your expertise could helpful here, so if you have the time, could you perhaps check out the post on the D&E talk page? Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Breast implants

Hi David, I've been on a wiki-break and I'm not actually back yet but I just wanted to draw your attention to the talk page for breast implants. Some editors are under the mistaken belief that you and I have "demanded" (actual word used in an edit summary justifying serial reversions) that straw polls be conducted for all changes to the article. I have clarified my position here and I just wanted to let you know in case you wish to clarify yours. All the best, Sarah 10:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox note

I just thought I'd leave you a note to let you know that I haven't forgotten about the abortion methods infobox. I'll be back from a vacation on Sunday. Hopefully then we can pick up on the infobox again. -Severa (!!!) 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Abney Windsor Hopton

Hello David,my name is Bill Edwards,i live in New South Wales in Australia.My GGrandfather was Abney Windsor Hopton.He was born in 1831 in Appleton Upon Wiske.He is listed on the 1851 Census as living with a professor of Language in 7 Albany Rd Camberwell.I have checked the records for his name and cannot find it on the hospital site.I was wondering if you have anything on him.He came to Australia and married he in 1861.Is there records of him gaining his certificate as a doctor.He was a surgeon he in Australia.Regards Bill

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.49.153 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Helps to provide signature for oneself and links to relevant articles (lots of Appletons, but I presume mean Appleton Wiske in North Yorkshire, England. No wikipedia article for Abney Windsor Hopton - need more details on a person to go looking. But is Abney Windsor Hopton notable, and if so why ? If not notable, then wikipedia is not a forum nor a geneology site.

Search in Google gave 1st hit as Jenny's Guestbook, where one posting states "my last name is Edwards but my father is genetically a Hopton.He changed his name legally to Edwards after my mothers 1sr marriage name.I have traced a lot of his family back to Yorkshire.I have looked at the names in your tree,and i cannot match any of your names to mine.My fathers Grandfather and his ggrandfather were surgeons in Yorkshire.His grandfather,Abney Windsor Hopton was born in 1831 in Yorkshire.He went to a University over there to be a Surgeon.It seems strange that your Hoptons were from Yorkshire and i cannot find a match with any of your names.Regards Bill Edwards. ". Her homepage seems to be http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~jcowling/

Second link found for the precise use of words (ie within quotes) is nolonger existing, but the cached page is according to Google: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:05FZRb0eBT0J:www.derwood.com.au/public-tree/58.htm+%22Abney+Windsor+Hopton%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk which is to the grandchild. Seems Abney married Eliza Anne (Darling/Hopton) Giles (Abt 1844-1887). David Ruben ^Talk 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Rheumatoid Arthritis

Hi. I agree with your changes to rheumatoid arthritis. I added this section to "disease" but it was removed, twice, by a system administrator - White Knight. Any ideas why this was? I thought the science was good.

Thanks. Rowan.

Inhaler(s)

Hi, David. I see in a few spots there is some question on what I have suggested in the inhaler disambiguation page. You nailed it with how those in the UK and others from non- US sources call things. See ↔ BOI/Breath Activated Device under the name brand of, IVAX Easi-Breathe inhaler.

I am very much a patient and see alot of terms that are not exactly perfect but would like to see a smoother way of accessing the information. So I could use some help here.

(added) http://www.respimat.com/com/homepage.jsp

Now another inhaler to describe!!!

--RonEJ 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the amaurosis fugax article...

Thanks for your help on the amaurosis fugax article. I am new to wikipedia editing, and it was good to see how to better organize the content with lists. If you have any other comments on how to make the article better, or just editing in general, I would appreciate the feedback. I realize the article still needs more content and citations in order to be complete, and I will work on that in the days to come. Regardless, thank you for your time and consideration! Kilbad 04:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Brendan | kilbad.com

please help

Dr Ruben, we really need your help with the breast implant page. This is the worst situation I have ever seen on wikipedia.

There is an administrator, JFW, who keeps reverting everyone's edits back to droliver's version. Droliver, as you may recall is a plastic surgeon with strong views about the safety of breast implants, but limited understanding of epidemiological research. In recent weeks, an editor from a well known book on women's health (OBOS editor) and a physician (DrCarter) and I have tried to make small revisions to the article, and we almost always agree with each other. Sometimes Dikke Poes and some others also agree. Each time, JFW just changes them back to Droliver's version, or droliver changes them back.

At the risk of sounding stupid, isn't the role of a wiki administrator to be a more neutral party? Is it appropriate for him to always side with one editor against everyone else? As a published author (4 books and dozens of articles in the peer-reviewed medical and science literature) I just find this situation difficult to accept. I know wiki has a mixed reputation because of edit wars like this, but it is still widely used and I have spent a lot of time trying to improve about a dozen articles on health issues (most unrelated to breast implants). This is the only one where one editor seems to control the content, no matter what.

You have helped before and I hope you can help again -- and perhaps help us find another administrator so I don't have to keep asking you. Drzuckerman

Gosling

Hi David

I see you wrote an article on Ray Gosling: do you know where he is?

Kirkhf 06:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)kirkhf

Hi Kirkhf, I'm pretty certain I can guess your full identity from your username (but it is strictly forbidden to disclose personal info about other editors), so please do use the "E-mail this user" feature to contact me :-) David Ruben ^Talk 11:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:BirthControl

Hello. I did not understand your reason for undoing my reformating of the template BirthControl. Can you please explain it to me more clearly? Thank you for your time. SadanYagci 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume you refer to this edit from 7th March ? The edit summary explains it - namely I reduced down the line spacing of this to a more compact line spacing version (or at least this makes a considerable difference viewing in Internet Explorer). David Ruben ^Talk 00:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Hospital

For your editing prowess →

Cheers!

Bennelliott 20:08, 1 April 2007

Admin reverts on WP:CITE

I am looking for some thoughts on the following... I added some stuff to WP:CITE about free sources (see [1]) following discussion, after getting majority agreement on the talk page (as per policy).[2]

SlimVirgin reverted.[3] I didn't find any discussion on the talk page about this. So, I left a message on SlimVirgin's talk page,[4][5] to which I did not get a response. I decided to re-added the section.

SlimVirgin reverted it again a few weeks ago. [6] Again, I did not find discussion. Again, I left her a message on her talk.[7]

Again, she has not replied to that message and recently made edits to WP:CITE--so, I'm left with the impression she won't reply. According to policy, changes are supposed to be discussed... yet this didn't happen here. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. Nephron  T|C 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree against consensus, and SlimVirgin has been apply other significant changes without discussion (eg promoting Attribution as if it is yet accepted as the umbrela policy for reliable sources,verify). I've reinserted the points and added a fresh discussion thread. David Ruben ^Talk 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. Nephron  T|C 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin deleted it again[8]... whereas this time she posted a message[9] on the talk page after deleting. Perhaps I'm too attached with the bit I inserted to be objective, but I'm having some difficulty with assuming good faith (WP:GF) in this case. Nephron  T|C 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tooth

Hello again! I could really use some feedback! I had asked a question about the Tooth article because I do not know what would be the best way to deal with information on human vs animal teeth. Most of the information is about human teeth. So, should there be a separate "animal teeth" 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" (or would this be an exception to have plural: "human teeth") article? What are your thoughts on the matter? 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. I have had one suggestion to move most of the information to a "human tooth" or "human teeth" article. I would appreciate any ideas. Thanks! - Dozenist talk 13:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical tag at MEDMOS

OK, I admit that I got distracted because of all of my travel; can we try to finish this up and poll for consensus? [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS is receiving opinions on whether it is ready to become a guideline. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

David, thanks for your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). I've suggested that the Classification column could be moved to a potentially better default position. Perhaps the guidelines need to say more about when someone might deviate from the order. For example, if classification was largely symptom-led then the Symptoms section should come first. If the condition was managed rather than treated, then the Prognosis section should come before Management. Could you review and consider changing the order in the guidelines? I'd also appreciate an entry from you in the "Comments on readiness for guideline" section. Currently there aren't anything like enough responses for us to regard this as having project-consensus approval. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 16:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

I hope you got my email. We can still meet up tomorrow, depending on a number of factors. I've also lost your mobile number (my Nokia 6020 has been misbehaving). JFW | T@lk 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - tomorrow = Sunday I presume despite posting time of 00:04 ? I've email you back David Ruben ^Talk 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

Could you please restore the discussion that you want to refer to, rather than the entire archive? Otherwise the talk page is rather wrong. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a recent thread on the page about what your section means. Perhaps you could say there, as I'm genuinely confused by it. Sorry if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to indicate in this talk page addition to Query section what the otehr thread had been. Now I'm getting confused too :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Arthrogryposis article

Thanks a million for the excellent reference fix up's you made in ur last 2 edits. I was thinking what a horible reference mess i left for some poor unfortunate to fix, now it looks heaps better :). N good on yah for making that new template, shall use it from now on when creating articles of rare diseases. Keep up the great work!petze 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sinusitis Edits

David It is painfully obvious that you did not read the artical.

"The Penn research team demonstrated the disruptive action of SMase in frog oocytes (egg cells) engineered to place CFTR in their membrane. These oocytes are an experimental tool that allows the researchers to assess the flow of ions across the membrane by measuring electrical current. The researchers found that direct exposure of the CFTR-containing oocytes to SMase of Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus anthracis bacteria shuts off the electrical current passing through not only the normal, but also the CF-causing mutant CFTR.

The next step for the research team is to develop specific inhibitors against the bacterial SMase and test the idea in an animal model."

1.The meat of the sentance about staph reads that Staph is capable of interfering with ion flow in the absense of any genetic abnormality of the host. This effect is not site dependent, in fact it is not even species dependent in that one of the studies I cited refered to work done on the effect of staph Smase on ion transport in frog eggs engineered to express CFTR. The bug does not care where the cell it situated. Staph A has all the viralance factors in inventory to interfer with normal epithiel mucus flow, in the lungs, in the sinuses whatever, and this by the way explains why only 50% of the people with Cystic Fibrosis have any anomolies in the TMCF gene, but that in NO way diminishes the applicability to sinusitis.

2. It is IRRESPONSIBLE to ignore the limitations of the current "gold standard" tissue stain and bacterial culture techniques to the point that those limitations have been FORGOTTEN. It knocks the old 'either this or that, not this, so that" chain of logic into a cocked hat because it is not either this or that by a long shot. The false negatives for cultures where the bacteria are present but have formed Voltron and settled down to a biofilm are very high, because unless that currate happens to scrape right on top of it they will not be picked up.

By the way, in 1981 a researcher for the CDC named Couch who worked in Epidimology published a study linking flu, and staph to chronic respitory infections. He published and then retired and nothing was done with the data. If more attention had been given to it we might have a staph vaccine by now.

AND In addition to the links I posted you really need to go here, to that wild and crazy Center for Biofilm Engineering website funded by that hotbed of specioius activity the US National Science Foundation.

http://www.biofilmsonline.com/cgi-bin/biofilmsonline/ed_misconception.html

A Biofilm Primer

HTML Printable Version PDF Printable Version

A misconception A science based largely on an artifact. Over one hundred years ago, Robert Koch made one of the most important conceptual and technological breakthroughs in the history of microbiology. He developed the methods to create a solid nutrient media in order to grow and isolate pure cultures of microorganisms.

The importance of this discovery to advances in medical, agricultural and industrial microbiology would be hard to overestimate. The dividends these techniques returned have positively affected the lives of nearly everyone on the planet. The training of generations of microbiologists has been based, to a significant degree, on the investigation of the properties of pure cultures and the elucidation of the properties of these organisms one at a time. As productive as this strategy has been, it tends to perpetuate a misconception. In fact, pure cultures are virtually absent in nature.

This suggests that most of what we know about microorganisms has been learned under laboratory conditions that are not representative of how microorganisms are found in nature. Microorganisms, like other organisms, exist in assemblages or communities where a variety of interactions exist. Mutualism, commensalism, antagonism, and saprophytism are but a few of the more common interactions known to exist among microorganisms and multicellular organisms.

---

You really need to go over there and take a read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truehawk (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I did read the links given, and to accuse me otherwise is a breach of WP:Assume good faith. Indeed I thought they made interesting reading. I've copied the above and my reply to Talk:Sinusitis where other editors can view and comment. David Ruben ^Talk 13:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic Blood Pressure?

A very close acquaintance had a bleed/hemorrhage (stroke) and is still in hospital. Watching the monitors in ICU I began wondering about the dynamic relationship between pulse and instantaneous blood pressure. This does not seem to be mentioned in the Blood pressure article. Perhaps because it can't be very easily monitored? Even with an intrusive measurement, the device tends to malfunction if the individual engages in activity. When hypertension causes a brain bleed, would that likely be because of one instant of high-stress, perhaps induced in the small by activity? While the resting pressure would indicate how high the active pressure will likely get to, is it the pressure it actually gets to which is important? Under normal activity, how high will a normal person's blood pressure get? Pulse is easily measured dynamically. How much does blood pressure as a function of pulse vary from individual to individual? (including especially non-healthy individuals here). Can instantaneous blood pressure be estimated directly from pulse and resting pressure? Perhaps you need first to take at least one extra measurement? (It would seem the relationship would be roughly linear, but perhaps it's proportional to the square root because of the area dimension involved? One would guess that as the heart beats faster, each individual pulse/beat would initially jump in strength, then eventually taper off; and then there's the resistance element of the function). Does the normal body regulate different arteries so as to provide extra pressure where needed, but not overload delicate capillaries which cannot take the stress? Does high blood pressure and hypertension essentially mean that at rest the individual is under so much stress they have no capacity for safe activity? I.e. their resting values are perhaps close to what a healthy individual's maximum values might be?

I don't expect answers to all these questions. Pointers to where they might be answered would be good. (Perhaps in wikipedia, blush). And consideration for covering some of these concepts in some articles would be nice. Perhaps there's a "physics of blood pressure" article in wikipedia or elsewhere. Or maybe there should be.

Oh. Just noticed Poiseuille's law. I'd forgotten how complicated physics could be (blush). It doesn't seem to discuss a pulsing system, though. There is Blood flow. Sorry, I think I think lots of complicated thoughts without the background knowledge to integrate them, or assess their importance.

Ah. Found Exercise hypertension. It states rises in systolic under activity to 250, 220 or even 200 need to be watched. Since a healthy pulse can nearly triple under exercise, dynamic blood pressure is obviously not linearly related to pulse. A resting value close to that. Yikes. Though I've little idea what 100 watts of exercise is actually like. I hope if nothing else this note helps re-illustrate the confusion some people have over these matters.--SportWagon 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for query and you have done well to find the points mentioned above. It all gets more complicated still of course in dynamic systems (i.e. pulsatile vs. constant linear flow). For one thing there is a partial reflected pulse pressure wave that comes back down the arteries from the far-off tissue capillary bed. The degree of reflection is to do with the relative impedances of the main artery and its branches - in clinical setting this explains why the blood pressure in the arteries at the ankle are higher than at the elbow (see Ankle brachial pressure index and its talk page re ratio of cross-sectional areas need for impedance matching). The shear stress occurs maximally around branches and helps explain why atheroma occurs so commonly near arterial branches. The time-average pressure used to establish blood flow to the tissues is given by the Mean arterial pressure, which given the curved nature of the cardiac pulse is estimated as diastolic plus one third of the pulse pressure (i.e. MAP = [(2 x diastolic) + systolic] / 3), however as you correctly point out, the arterial wall stress is maximal at the top of the systolic pulse pressure. Suffice it to say that this is a whole topic in itself - haemodynamics (see also Blood flow & Impedance cardiography) and my university Professor Raymond Gosling would be appalled by my hastily half-remembered Radiological Sciences BSc haemodynamics (the medical field is termed Angiology) - sorry :-) David Ruben ^Talk 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

==Hi doc ==

thanks a lot for messags and note , i am tryig to add these few words i am adding in a simple english ,i wanted to ask u , how i can join a society here on Wikipedia ?

thanks a lot

Dr.tawfik 01:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr.tawfik (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Goto Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants anyone free to add their name to list. Project is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine and its talk page is the doctor's mess. David Ruben ^Talk 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Distal

Hi David,

Thank you for your efforts on the Palmer notation page. I hope they will give more publicity to my preferred tooth charting system. The word distal means "away from the midline" and is, I believe, the correct term in the context of tooth position. It is the opposite to mesial which is a more commonly used term, especially when used to describe the movement of teeth "mesial drift" throughout life.

Distal (dis'-tal) Away from the midline; in dentistry those surfaces farthest from the mid-line of the dental arch. Ref. Heinemann Modern Dictionary for Dental Students 2nd Edition by Jennifer E.H. Fairpo and C Gavin Fairpo 1973

Mpreston 04:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Mpreston

I agree, but I thought the previous wording of "to number the teeth from the midline distally" was awkward. Firstly it was redundant, in as much that "from the midline" is it in itself to move distally. Its a like stating "to go up superiorly", one only needs "to go up" or "superiorly". Also it seemed unecessary "jargon" to use the word "distally" when the plan english was quite sufficient in itself and made for better prose :-) Incidentally thanks for introducing me to "mesial" not a term as a doctor I think I had ever encountered (I would have used the term "lateral").David Ruben ^Talk 13:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Seborrheic Dermatitis

I posted the link to the yahoo group, because i think it is the best resource for people who suffer from the disease.I have SD, and i got my face and body clear by following the routines explicit in there. I found that group, through wikipedia. I want to help people the same way someone did, by posting the link. If you don't believe me, please visit Seborrheic Dermatitis Yahoo Group - and read the routines of people like scott and photos of how they were before they found the group, and after. wikipedia's external links page says "Links normally to be avoided" and foruns appear in the list. I know. But they just say "normally". I mean, this link is really important if you know what i mean. waiting for the response.

Daniel

ps:sorry about my english (non-native speaker)

User:87.196.84.145 14:20, 8 May 2007

The "normally" really does apply, exceptions would be if the article is directly about the forum itself, or if the forum was involved in some controversy in the wider world about the disorder (see WP:External links). Otherwise they are a series of individual opinions (and such information would not be permitted directly within articles under WP:No original research). The information may or may not be useful, but they do not require assertions to be supported by impartial objective studies and who regulates or censors the forum ? In general therefore, forums are not WP:Reliable sources. A better source of information would be a review article from some notable publication (i.e. a peer-reviewed medical journal), whilst other sources are inherently less reliable (news paper stories are often, but of course not always, not well balanced in their reviews of the latest treatments). Good places to look for review articles are the MedlinePlus and eMedicine sources linked to in the infoboxes of many medical article. For specific journal papers (of which some will be review articles), PubMed allows the largest online searching of biomedical journals. Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi to enter keyword searches, for SD there are 2272 hits. David Ruben ^Talk 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Salmonella nomenclature

Two points - the sentence as read is discussing CDC convention, which is to not italicize the serovar. Secondly, the serovar name is not the species name (a species name *should* be italicized). The point of the nomeclature that the CDC and others have accepted is to differentiate between the species and serovar names so that they are not confused for each other. I assumed Wiki convention would hold for genus and species names, but to use Wiki convention to over-ride the detailed convention of specific scientific nomenclature seems a bit counter to the idea of sharing accurate information.

Thanks, --01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Gshell

IRC

I replied to your question about IRC at that page (can't remember the title). I figure talk pages are faster. What client do you use? John Reaves (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC help

Thanks for offer of help on IRC - terminology completely baffling to me (not helped by freenode instructions written as if translated through several languages into final english) - just which channel are admins supposed to log into, and how does one register when it seems by invitation only. Finally what on earth is a cloak ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First, here's a good help guide for beginners of IRC. Second, here's the link to the administrators channel, per WP:IRC, along with a description:

#wikipedia-en-admins is a private channel used mainly by admins and some other users. Despite the name, the channel is - like every other IRC channel - completely unofficial. See Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins for detailed info.

Third, a cloak is a username on the internet which covers your location. For example, if I were editing from home, instead of Real96@34.56.294.5 showing, my cloak would be Real96@wikipedia/real96. Hope this helps! Real96 01:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is where you get a wikipedia cloak (see here). Cheers! Real96 02:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi David - I just wanted to say thanks again for the nomination for adminship and the kind words. The nominations meant all the more coming from editors for whom I have so much respect, and I hope to live up to the expression of trust. Keep up the good work, I'll see you around Wikipedia, and let me know if I can be of assistance. Thanks again. MastCell ^Talk 15:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BNF52small.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BNF52small.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image been superceeded for that for cover of the 53rd edition. Therefore I agree image nolonger has valid use and deleted.David Ruben ^Talk 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

King's College Hospital

Dear David Ruben

Not all of Camberwell is within Southwark, although most is. King's College Hospital and its immediate surround (in which I live) is in fact in Lambeth in the ward of Herne Hill. If you wish to confirm this then you can check this either on the Southwark or Lambeth websites (the Southwark website has a better map). The subject of Camberwell's split between 2 boroughs is also discussed at length on the SE5 community forum as it is felt by many local residents that this has lead to a lack of long term conjoined planning to the areas detriment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yasf75 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC).