User talk:Ian Furst/archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ian Furst. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Chikungunya". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^operator / talk 04:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toothache, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cavity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

OTRS

Do you know how to submit info to OTRS? I've received pictures of regenerative endo from Ken Hargreaves (author of Pathways of the Pulp) for our article. I can upload them but I'm not sure how to submit the info that we release them. Ian Furst (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure! Email me and I'll send you the address and info you need to submit. You can do so by going to my userpage and clicking on the link on the left within "tools" called "email this user" -- and I recommend you activate this feature for your own account. Do so here: [1]. All the best! DRosenbach ^(Talk | Contribs) 11:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Chikungunya". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ian Furst. You have new messages at Loriendrew's talk page.
Message added 14:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toothache, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Extraction and Pulp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Step 1: Toothache for GA

Gah, just received a peer review response for one of my recently submitted papers which basically said "It's **** so please rewrite it and then we may publish it". I have decided to make it my goal this year to stop publishing off-wiki and focus my attention on publishing through wiki ... who is with me! =D Lesion (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's crazy user:Lesion. I'm an associate editor (and frequent peer reviewer) for JCDA (journal), and I can tell you that your writing is good compared to many of the articles I review. My impression is you tend to write more technically and longer than I would, but my writing style is often critiqued as too "familiar". Let's get toothache to GA and try and get it published. Illegitimi non carborundum. Ian Furst (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Ian, I'm very interested in working with you on the Wisdom tooth article, but due to geographic reasons my internet access is quite limited at the moment, so I am not able to participate responsively until after the 15th, when I will be able to respond daily, rather than once every few days. Sorry! LT910001 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, we're building an encyclopedia, not finishing it right LT. I'm going to chop some of the obvious stuff out, when you're back hit me up and we can build it. Think about what clinical photo's would be good too. Ian Furst (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Tale of a tooth

For copyedit, you're welcome.

May I tell you about my Mom's shoulder? She must have been between 35-40 or so, many years ago, and got terrible pain in a shoulder. Couldn't lift her arm to wash her hair. Injections and phys-therapy were tried. Our family doctor had been around a while and knew a lot; he told Mom to have her wisdom teeth checked. Sho nuff, after delicate oral surgery, her shoulder was OK. I reckon old Dr. Day didn't publish about this problem, but someone else must have? (Maybe it's here somewhere and I just haven't seen it.) Cheers, --Hordaland (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As I (barely) understood it, it was the nerve affected by the impacted tooth somehow sending the signals. But I certainly don't know. I do remember that the oral surgery was said to take a long time and was unusually delicate. Somehow doubt it was placebo or bruxism.  :)

So. This not a known phenomenon, I take it. --Hordaland (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds very strange. Wisdom tooth pain can radiate (and presumably also be referred) to the neck (see Pericoronitis#Signs_and_symptoms), but this doesn't easily explain the muscle weakness. Inability to lift the arm up in this manner would point to a problem with trapezius (e.g. accessory nerve damage) but ofc other muscles invovled in lifting arm...lat dorsi, deltoid, etc. As suggested by Ian, it is plausible that the underlying pain or occlusal interference from the wisdom teeth was responsible for aggravating muscular parafunction ... chronic abnormal use of the trapezius due to irritation from the wisdom teeth. The facial muscles in TMD can become very weak over time because the person begins to fear to use the muscle (see Temporomandibular_joint_disorder#Psychosocial_factors). Diagnostic flags I would look for here would be pain that is worst first thing in the morning and then slowly resolves during the day (nighttime parafunction) or pain that is minimal upon waking and slowly gets worse throughout the day (indicating daytime muscular parafunction). There is so often a muscular component to orofacial pain, even if it is not the main underlying cause, the pain is often enough to cause acute myofascial pain as people respond to the pain by clenching/grinding the teeth, frowning and grimacing with their facial muscles. After a few days this can get very sore indeed and not uncommonly accounts for a significant proportion of the pain. Lesion (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

dammit??? user:lesion. I see people with wisdom tooth pain all day Hordaland, there would be no direct connection to the pain (to the best of my knowledge) and it falls way out of the "typical" symptoms but your family doc must have seen something or clued into it in the history. Don't people with sleep disorders develop atypical myofascal pains? Ian Furst (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Dammit because of my typos... Lesion (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

lesion ah - thought I did something stupid. Ian Furst (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope =D Lesion (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I may be unknown to you Ian, but your work on this Impacted wisdom teeth article made me award you a barnstar. Not a Wiki-love of kittens and burgers, but you deserve this. Ethically^Yours! 17:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Anesthesia article

Thanks very much for the message, Ian. By all means, please go ahead and get the ball rolling with respect to that page. In its current iteration, it is at best an embarrassment to my specialty. That article has suffered greatly due to the efforts of one or two editors who appear to have some sort of axe to grind, and I prefer not to become embroiled in such matters if possible. Like you, I would like to see this article become a GA at some point in the future. Best Wishes! DiverDave (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Perfect DiverDave. My plan is to simply follow the MEDMOS rules and layout. If the editors choose to participate, we can have the debate about where "personnel" goes and what reliable sources are. All the best. Ian Furst (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Chikungunya, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anesthesia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Toothache

Hi Ian, I've been through the whole article now and soon I feel it will be ready for GAN. We just need to tighten things up, reduce repetition, reduce wordiness (often my fault for long phrasing) and make sure everything is referenced that needs to be referenced. I have experimented with the layout in the most recent edits and turned the treatment section into a more generic discussion, and moving anything specific to the respective causes sections. Also, when you added the link ASA to the treatment section, what did you mean? Assume that you didn't mean ASA physical status classification system as the context doesn't make sense for that. Perhaps we should also make the prognosis section generic... thoughts? Lesion (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've done the honors. Usually have a variable length of time ... maybe a week or so before someone takes reviewer task, so there is still time for us to make changes before then. Lesion (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw you had re-nominated dental implant. As I said I am not very knowledgeable on implants ... also because of our collaboration on other articles, I might not be a objective and critical when reviewing your work compared to the work of another editor. I would be fine if another editor took the main reviewer task to chip in and give extra feedback. If you like I can post a notification in a few places to attract a reviewer? Lesion (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There might be benefit in both cases to have a "non dental" person to review the article. Lesion (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted on the help desk yesterday, unfortunately there have been no takers. Suspect that dental implant is a pretty intimidating article for most editors. Perhaps should place a notification on WTMED? Lesion (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Lesion will do thx for trying Ian Furst (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

response

Dear Ian Thank you for your suggestions. First, regard conflict of interest, I was setting the record straight. Your conclusion about unreferenced content are not correct. I would suggest that you read the papers we have published. a peer-reviewed publication, which was subsequently reiterated in a science article is not unreferenced. If you can reference your claim then it would be helpful. If you are changing content which is referenced then you have an equal and perhaps higher burden to substantiate your claim. Nad I urge you to do. There is no example of growing bone sub-periosteally by just injecting a biomaterial. Sinus lift involves remodeling of alveolar bone and the in vivo bioreactor involves formation of bone from the periosteum through intra membranous ossification. I am sure you aware of the fundamental differences.

Regarding, the attribution of the invention to me, that is a fact and that is borne our by articles and the patent filings. You can check it out.

(VPShastri (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC))

Your GA nomination of Dental implant

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dental implant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll give you more feedback in the coming days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I was out of town for a day, yesterday and overlooked your message. Just noticing it now. Sorry.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Content Creativity Barnstar

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Hello Ian. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for all the hard work you have put in thus far in improving the Anesthesia article. It is now much more in keeping with MEDMoS, much more balanced, and far more useful to readers of Wikipedia than it was before you undertook to revise it. Best Wishes! DiverDave (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ty

Thanks for that msg Ian. Yes it is a wide-scoped topic and I think we both learned a lot =) I would like to work a bit more on the article with you before we apply for the journal publication thing. P.S do you see what I mean about a degree of chance as to whether an article passes GA or not? Depends very much on the reviewer's standards ;P It would be good to see some more formal guidance about how to review a medical GA... I think should be reviewed by persons with a medical background and persons without a medical background. Lesion (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Toothache

Hi, congratulations on the recent GA. I have nominated it for Did you know, which will hopefully result in it appearing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/Toothache. Thanks, Matty.007 17:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danger triangle of the face, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Dead links

Hi Ian, re: your edits to Dentistry, see the guideline on what to do with dead references – they generally shouldn't be removed except as a last resort. As for the link you removed, It might not be the most reliable source, but at least it cites its references! I've therefore reinstated it using using a version archived at the Wayback Machine. I've also used the edit summary search tool to find any other instances where you removed dead links, and did a similar operation on the link you removed at 100th Regiment of Foot (Prince Regent's County of Dublin Regiment) way back in June 2011. Sorry if I may seem overzealous, but dead reference removal is one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia. Graham87 05:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Graham87No worries Graham87 - I didn't know. I have no memory of the old one but this latest one, the link was dead, the editor copied and pasted stuff from the way-back machine into his blog and posted it. Thanks for correcting it. Ian Furst (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

dental implant

Ian Furst, thanks for your explanation and question.

I added the anchor, so that I could create a redirect page to that section. It makes it easier to find when searching.

I have been using pmid and isbn templates for about a year now, because a bot automatically fills in all the data. I did not know there were any disadvantages of using the pmid or isbn templates. Although the Project Medicine talk page contains a long debate, the Project Medicine article still recommends using PubMed ID or ISBN, without qualification. Does that need to be changed?

The only reason changed the template, was because the reference provided no links. The only visible change I thought I was making, was to provide a link to PubMed, which provides numerous cross-references, and to the author's free version. Considering that most journal articles are government funded, it is too bad that taxpayers must pay again to see them.

If there is a translation problem with pmid or isbn, it would seem better to fix those templates, rather than writing the proposed bot to fix all the references using the pmid or isbn templates.

Should the documentation for the pmid or isbn be modified to explain their shortcomings?

I assume you have been at this a lot longer than I have, so I respect your judgment.

Thanks again for your message on my talk page. Wikfr (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please check to make sure I have done it correctly this time. Thanks for your help. Wikfr (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Usually journal articles make their formal appearance behind a paywall, that shows only the abstract for free. When you click on the document identifier in Wikipedia, such as the PMID, you get to the paywall. However, most publications also allow the author to post the pre-print to the author's web site, and allow free access. I can usually find a free version, by searching for the paper's title and/or author. Wikfr (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dental implant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biomechanical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dental implant

The article Dental implant you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Dental implant for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the first article that I have both failed and passed. I did not realize I was reviewing an article I had already passed. Either I had been confused that the article was still listed at GAN or because I was having surgery I had mistaken my familiarity with the content for my personal reading vs. prior review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now I see the bot has mistaken a pass for a fail as well. This is crazy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger Thank you very much for all your hard work on the review. Much appreciated. You'd previously failed the article, I assume the bot picked that up. All the best. Ian Furst (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Toothache

On 10 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Toothache, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Toothache. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 10:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for some input in GA review of Leukoplakia

Hi Ian, I am reviewing Leukoplakia, but unfortunately I do not know the ins and outs of Leukoplakia as you might. I've more-or-less done a complete review and am satisfied that it will eventually be promoted, but I would appreciate if you could run through the article and look specifically for any errors or misrepresentations of current consensus. I've already made comments on prose, checked images, and done a check for verifiability, but it'd be nice if I could get a specialist eye to look over the article briefly, too. The review is here: Talk:Leukoplakia/GA1 and if you could add your comments under a 'Comments from Ian Furst' subheading it'd be much appreciated. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do Ian Furst (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Video

I think it's excellent. I'm offline for a few days though - in the Aussie bush. I'll talk to you when I'm back in civilisation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	The video for new editors is excellent. Many thanks for creating it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		To Ian Furst, thank you for your comments at WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No Video

Ian, We can't currently play the video at CRUK (ie nothing happens). Is this because we (have to) use Internet Explorer? When I played it before it was the penultimate version, at home on a proper browser. Are you in NYC for the conference? If so, no doubt there's much techie advice available. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC) No, not there. Sorry. You need to use Google, the codex Wikipedia uses isn't on IE.Ian Furst (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Wiki CRUK John

How would using google play it? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John sorry - use Google Chrome instead of IE Ian Furst (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Out of the frying-pan! I would use Firefox, but as I say above we are not able to in the office here (or Chrome). This is not uncommon in large organizations & you need to make the video accessible to what is still (amazingly) over 50% of the browser market. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John - Not I - it's a Wikipedia thing related to the fact that whenever a video goes on YouTube, YouTube actually pay a licence fee to the codec maker (mp4 or whatever it is). The only open source codec is .ogv/.ogg, which IE refuses to support (but Chrome does). I'd offer to upload the video to YouTube for you, but I don't have access to the original file until 5pm tonight (if you want, I can upload it then). I've also pinged Bluerasberry who knows more about this and may have a solution. Long term it won't matter, due to the adoption of HTML5 Ian Furst (talk)

Thanks! Something by the end of the w/e would be great, so I can show it in my training here, & get reactions. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll put it up tonight. Ian Furst (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John video can be found on Youtube at youtu.be/gJxaQa_eZvA momentarily. Ian Furst (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Had it set to private, now public. Ian Furst (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, great Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.