User talk:Dyuku

Welcome!

Hello, Dyuku! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 17:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Codex Boernerianus

Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Codex Boernerianus. As you see, the NT mss project is a long one. We have not too much workers, and we are looking for the generous volunteers we can get. Your contribution is good. I hope you will continue your work in this article. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Welcome to wikipedia Chem. Wikipedia Chem does not aspire to parallel Chem Reviews or a synopsis journal. We rarely seek references to even newish cutting edge results. Tens of thousands of chem journal article appear annually, so we cannot possibly cope with much less parse them. Of particular interest, and where you can really help, is by citing tertiary sources (books, reviews of reviews) where material has been assessed and digested, and redigested. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. If you are new to Wiki-chem, you might be well served if you describe your plans or thoughts on the talk page of the article that interest you. Or if you have broad plans, at the Wikipedia-Chem site We really need folks with your abilities, but it would be a shame if you wrote at a level that was not sought and was later chopped out as being too specialized. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

___________________

Thank you for your very helpful suggestions, Smokefoot. Yes, I'm new at the Chem site, so I'll still need to learn the ropes. I guess my main interest is in health and nutrition, so I'll probably contribute some more editing in this area.

I suppose, on the second thought, this material I added about the mechanism of action of Allicin might be seen as too technical and/or too detailed, but it seemed to me like a genuine breakthrough in this area and quite interesting. I guess I may be wrong...

Also, I noticed on Talk:Allicin that this article has also been tagged with "WikiProject Food and drink" banner, so it's not just under Chem anymore. That aspect of Allicin article needs to be developed further, I assume.

I'll take your suggestion and write up something on Talk:Allicin page re my contribution and my thoughts on the matter. When I first saw this article, it just seemed rather sad to me that such an important nutrient as Allicin had virtually nothing about its health benefits. There was basically just a collection of footnotes, and a bare list of certain possible benefits. Why not include more info about these very important subjects? After all, I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of people coming to this article are mostly interested in the nutritional and health benefits of this compound, and how it might benefit their personal health.

All the best,

Dyuku (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

category "Garlic"

I'm proposing to create a category "Garlic", by analogy with category "Onions". There are quite a few pages of different types of garlic, so they need to be brought together under a category. Category "Onions" has a large number of items under it.

Could we recreate category "Garlic", please? I can't do it right now, so maybe you can help. Dyuku (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed this message on my talk page so sorry about the late reply. Undeleting it is not a problem (it was just deleted as an empty category), but I notice that both Garlic and Garlic Chives are categorized as Category:Allium which has only 80 entries. It looks to me like Category:Garlic was effectively moved to this one, presumably for some sort of consistency reason, though there is no discussion I can find. If you still want me to undelete I can do it but you might be best to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants in case there is some good reason for the name change last year - Peripitus (Talk) 06:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Peripitus!
No, I think it's a straightforward matter of re-creating the Category:Garlic. Yes, it was an empty category, but now it can be filled up.
Here are the items that can be put in this category,
Wild garlic
Snow Mountain Garlic
Ramsons
Field garlic
Garlic chives
Elephant garlic
Allium vineale (Crow Garlic)
Allium triquetrum (three-cornered garlic)
Allium canadense (Wild Garlic)
Allium drummondii (Wild Garlic)
And probably some more...
So this'll be a very useful category, by analogy with Category:Onions. So could we re-create it, please?
All the best, Dyuku (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dyuku, I didn't reply as I simply restored the category page (see here). The Cat already has 4 members - all yours to play with. Work commitments make me a bit inactive in the last month or so....sorry for the delayed reply- Peripitus (Talk) 07:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, after a little work, there are 16 wiki pages in the Category 'Garlic'! I didn't even know there are so many types of garlic. The culinary pages will also be probably added up eventually. Dyuku (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Testament Latin manuscripts

Yes, now is better. We also need some references. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Vitamin D article edit

Thanks Dyuku for getting rid of "nick steroid d"s edits on the vitamin d article; I was hastily reviewing for Wikipedia policies to nail him with. It was bad writing and full of original research about a fringe, controversial claim. 99.252.227.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You're welcome, friend. Yes, this is definitely fringe science. --Dyuku (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize first for not realy understanding exactly how to get something posted on wikipedia. That said: I believe that MP can no longer be ignored. It is more than 100% accepted that antibiotics are used to attack parasitic microbes which is the basic agenda of the MP. The studies below show a cause and effect of the secosteroid D and the proliferation of these microbes. Therefore, the MP calls for a temporary cessation of Vitamin D during the time that the patient is on it. The intent is to return the person to a normal condition to where normal and natural amounts of vitamin D can be tolerated. Right now there is a push from much of the vocal medical community to increase substantially vitamin intake upwards to 1000 IU to 12000 IU of D a day! There must be a counter balance to this. We have very credible studies and people ought to be given the choice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19393200 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18200565

I have no problem scaling back some of what was stated and placing it in the overdose section: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick steroid d (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so this should be discussed at Vitamin D talk page. --Dyuku (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with dermatology-related content

I know you passed before, I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

Hi Dyuku. Just to let you know I refined my latest response to your question on my talk page, in particular mentioning the (un)importance of the phonon-photon distinction. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I thought some more about your responses to the above, and it occurs to me in light of your acceptance of G&T that you might welcome/enjoy an interactive tutorial on any aspect of physics relevant to the atmosphere that you might not feel completely certain of, at your convenience and speed (and mine since I am sometimes away from a computer for several days).

I'm not a meteorologist but I was trained in physics, having taking all the coursework leading up to a Ph.D. in physics in the 1960s, namely Sydney University's physics honours program, prior to embarking on a research project for my dissertation. Wanting a broad background for my research, I did the same for pure mathematics and for computer science. In the end I elected computer science for my dissertation, on the strength of which MIT hired and later tenured me. My subsequent research has not impaired my training in pure mathematics and physics, if anything it has reinforced it. Fourier and Tyndall weren't meteorologists either, and Arrhenius's Nobel Prize was for his research on electrolytic dissociation which played no role in his subsequent investigation of atmospheric physics, so not being a meteorologist is no handicap when it comes to the basic physics underlying global warming.

If you feel 100% on top of atmospheric physics then there is no need to even reply. If there's any aspect of it you find puzzling however just let me know and I'll be happy to chat with you about it, at your speed and convenience as I said. And if you catch any mistakes I make, that would be good too since then I'll have learned something new. If you're interested just let me know. Cheers, --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood irradiation therapy

Thanks for joining me in trying to educate the world on this potentially far-reaching therapy which is largely ignored by the Western medical community. If you follow the history of its development, you can spot the language and ethnocentric politics that have kept this knowledge out of the reach of people who can only follow English language publications. There are significant discoveries in this area but I am not sure what I can put in without sounding "promotional" after almost getting deleted on the first attempt and later being substantially edited down. Qudore (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's for sure, Qudore, ethnocentric politics all the way. We do have some America-firsters in this area, unfortunately. It's not easy to deal with these issues, so you'll need patience and persistence. But solid, peer-reviewed evidence and good science should win in the end. Our goal is to promote evidence-based medicine on Wikipedia. We have peer-reviewed publications on our side, so keep doing the good work! --Dyuku (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement Dyuku! Indeed the repeated failure to open up this knowledge so that it is not by default largely in the exclusive realm of the Russians and Chinese can be quite discouraging (enriching improvements always welcome). Especially having had first hand experience of the therapy (particularly intranasal), having co-conducted related research, and having studied the rich body of international research - something that the Western medical community has chosen to ignore ("not invented here" syndrome or political(?)). It is definitely not quackery - the Russian, German, Eastern European and Chinese scientists cannot all be complete idiots. Should we discard everything that people have no time to edit it for Pubmed listing and made US-centric? What a loss for the advancement of knowledge! What we have left on Wikipedia now is so vague that it gives little respect to all the good scientific work invested over the last 30 years. Qudore (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of "potentially far-reaching therapies", but this in particular hasn't been ignored by Western medicine. Claiming clinical benefit before basic research has been done, and claiming it can treat everything before being tested and replicated does a disservice to readers. What do results like this say? Nothing - there is no control group. And what is "sudden deafness"? What is due to a dramatic placebo effect, versus an actual effect? With this experimental design, you can't tell. With tests and results like that, the scientists are indeed idiots because they have no idea what results are due to actual intervention and what are due to people being impressed by a very sciencey-looking experimental setup. It's not a matter of "not invented here" it's a matter of lacking plausibility and having better things to spend money on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should consider removing ultraviolet blood irradiation from the group so that we do not confuse the readers. That has consistently been the source of your contention (you have brought this up again above). I think UV irradiation (which was very much American promoted) is pretty much done and there is no need to say that just because it is not credible, the other two are also not credible. The latters' principles are very different. There is no evidence that the intravenous and intranasal modalities are dubious if you get down to understanding the biochemical and bioengineering mechanism. At least 1.5 million Europeans get treated with various forms of low level laser therapies including blood irradiation. The results are well documented in the research centers in Russia and Ukraine. The Chinese have their own. But I guess if you are American these therapies will remain a black box. Based on my knowledge of ongoing conditions, unfortunately I am also of the opinion that you will not see these therapies practiced widely in the US in the near future, notwithstanding the evidence. Too bad there is no big money to fund lobbyists to support these therapies. Qudore (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to post this on your WT:MED reply about BIT, but it's off topic. The pubmed link you provided was for low level laser therapy, which is a different page (with a quackwatch page suggesting LLLT is simply a way of applying heat). I've also worked on the LLLT page, and much of my work was integrating the most reliable sources I could find on LLLT which suggested the research base is expanding, but still remains limited to pain with suggestions for wound healing that are not yet confirmed or refuted. I'm not against lasers, but I am against undue promotion of claims on bad evidence.
I never understood the claim that "big pharma" is against anything, or it's all the lobbyists' fault. It's not the lobbyists' fault that there isn't a good evidence base for laser therapy, and perhaps laser manufacturers could offset that by funding research.
If you admit there isn't much evidence of laser therapy (particularly blood irradiation therapy) being discounted or ignored in the US, then that would seem to indicate that it is undue weight to place much emphasis on it.
Anyway, for all claims, it is up to the claim-maker to prove it. Argumentum ad populum doesn't mean something works. Neither does claiming conspiracy. Only evidence does that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys talking about this UBI method that was invented prior to the widespread introduction of antibiotics? A search of PubMed for this specific method gives fewer results. You may discuss this on my talk page. Oldspammer (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for what you replied on my talk page. Thanks. Oldspammer (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Your addition to Medicinal clay has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain where you see a copyvio. --Dyuku (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, linked in the edit summary here. It is not enough simply to change a few words or reorder a few sentences and call the text your own work - that infringes the copyright of the original source and cheapens the intellectual effort devoted to creating it. Examples in the table below are drawn from this source and your edit here.
Original source your text
"The bacterium produces a potent toxin that causes necrotic lesions. It destroys the fatty tissues under the skin." "This bacterium produces a powerful toxin that causes necrotic lesions, and destroys the fatty tissues under the skin."
"The toxin is immunosuppressant. Patients feel no pain and the body mounts no response to infection. It leads to disfigurement and isolation, not unlike that seen in leprosy". "The toxin produced by the bacteria suppresses the immune system, so patients feel no pain, and there is no response from the body to the infection. The disease is quite similar to leprosy."
"'They could be produced and distributed cheaply and easily stored,' Williams says. That would make them ideal for use in developing countries." "Thus, such treatment is expensive, and may be difficult to obtain in third world conditions."
If you persist in making such edits, you will be blocked from editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that this is a copyvio. As the WP:PARAPHRASE says, "...limited close paraphrase may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use; close paraphrase of a single sentence is not as much of a concern as an entire section or article."
There's only a possible problem with the first sentence, so I can use a quote instead. Also, I rephrased the second excerpt further just to be on the safe side. The whole thing looks like this now,
Buruli ulcer

This mycobacterial disease is found primarily in central and western Africa.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has described Buruli ulcer as "an emerging public health threat". The disease is caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium ulcerans - which is related to the micro-organisms that also cause leprosy and tuberculosis. According to one researcher, this bacterium, "...produces a potent toxin that causes necrotic lesions. It destroys the fatty tissues under the skin."[1]

The toxin that this bacteria produces tends to suppress the immune system, so the afflicted people feel no pain, and there is no response from the body to the infection.[2] The disease is quite similar to leprosy. The commonly accepted treatments include antibiotics and surgical intervention. Nevertheless, antibiotics have not been very effective, and currently play little part in the treatment of this disease. Surgical excision can be effective if undertaken early, yet it leaves scars, and can be dangerous. Advanced disease may require prolonged treatment with extensive skin grafting. Thus, such treatment is expensive, and may be difficult to obtain in third world conditions.

Two French medicinal clays have shown some promising results against this disease. Dr Lynda Williams and Dr Shelley Haydel of Arizona State University have been studying the effectiveness of these clays, which are mostly made of minerals called smectite and illite. These clays exhibit significant antibacterial properties.[3]

Is it OK now? --Dyuku (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dyuku. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent copyright infringement at the page Medicinal clay. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished reviewing your contributions, and removed or worked around several additional instances where you inappropriately copied or closely paraphrased content. I would appreciate if you would also review your contributions, as it is far from unlikely that I may have missed some. You may also be interested to read a writing guide on the topic, for instance this one from Purdue or this one from George Mason. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of California Bureau of Naturopathic Medicine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article California Bureau of Naturopathic Medicine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Bureau of Naturopathic Medicine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Delta13C (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Margaret Coulombe, "Healing Clay" Arizona State University website
  2. ^ Margaret Coulombe, "Healing Clay" Arizona State University website
  3. ^ Margaret Coulombe, "Healing Clay" Arizona State University website