user_talk:alteripse/archive1_user_talk:alteripse/archive2_user_talk:alteripse/archive3_user_talk:alteripse/archive4_user_talk:alteripse/archive5

Did you ever find or make a reference style for wikipedia for EndNote? - Thanks Pengortm (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to set up IRC:

• I'm assuming you have administrative priveleges on your computer; that'll make things easier to install.
  1. Go to http://gaim.sourceforge.net, and click on downloads.
  2. Get Gaim-0.79.exe and install it. (It's Free Software, so you can copy it anywhere you like.)
  3. When it's done installing, it'll ask you to sign in. You'll see an accounts window.
     1. Click "+ Add".
     2. Change the protocol to IRC.
     3. Give yourself a screen name and password.
     4. Make sure the server is irc.freenode.net.
     5. Click save. Gaim will sign you in automatically.
  4. In the Buddy List window, do Buddies->Join a Chat.
  5. Channel:#Wikipedia. That's where I am at the moment.
  6. Type stuff. Everyone will see it.  :-)

--Ardonik 20:02, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

When I tried to connect, my norton internet security blocks the connection. Even when I tell it to permit it, it immediately gives me a messages saying I was disconnected.

• I don't know how to use Norton's products. IRC uses port 6667; see if you can configure Norton to unblock the port manually. --Ardonik 20:33, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Suggestions are coming in from #Wikipedia. Did you perhaps get a popup from Norton asking whether to approve a connection by gaim.exe or something like that? That's how Sygate's firewall works. --Ardonik 20:42, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

This is based on Sygate firewall, not Norton. I would guess that the firewall is blocking gaim. Does gaim work at all? If not, this will likely be why.

There should be something in the firewall software which lists blocked and permitted apps. Windows firewalls generally work on a per-application basis. Sygate works by seeing when an app tries to use the net, then pops up asking you whether to allow or deny. I am assuming (that's ass-u-me) that Norton would work similarly.

So: first go into the Norton firewall and see if you can find a list of permitted and denied apps. Make gaim permitted. If that doesn't work, see if you can find a list of permitted and denied ports, and try unblocking ports 6650-6669 - David Gerard 20:45, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

To be honest, I'm not really sure. However, I should emphasize that I downloaded the sequence in PDB format (PDB code is shown in image description), openned it in Deepview, played with the color, oriented the protein until it looked cool, copied it over to a paint program and then saved it as png. All of the pictures I uploaded were really made by me. According to an NCBI disclaimer, sequences are public domain, as far as they are concerned. Where it gets muddy is whether or not the protein sequences I used were patented by or copyrighted to the submitter. I haven't seen notices while I was making the pics. Even then, I'm not sure if creating a picture from a copyrighted sequence would make it illegal/copyright infringement. I was wondering about that myself earlier, so I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. As for Hexokinaseglucokinase, if you're interested in making your own pics, I can give you tips to figure out how to display proteins (with the colors and ribbons) with Deepview (it took me a few moments). Otherwise, I'll do it a bit later -- it takes about 12 seconds. --jag123 02:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you did that much to make it, it's yours and not someone else's. Please show me how to do that for glucokinase. alteripse 02:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(I'll assume you use the Windows version. Shift + click may be different for other versions) I get the PDB number from here, under IUMB Enz class and then PDB link (First in list is 1BDG). In Deepview, click on File->Import, enter the PDB id, and click the second PDB file button (under Grab from server). It'll load (and should give you an error about missing AA). You can close the status window but keep the control panel window open. Click on Display->OpenGl, Display->Solid 3D. In the control panel window, press Shift and click on a v in the Show column (they should all get unchecked) and then Shift + Click in a blank space under the Ribn column (they should all get checked). Click on the black arrow/triangle under R (complete right and top of Control Panel window) and select Ribbon from the drop down menu. Then go to Color (Main program) and click by secondary structure succession (that's what I use). Orient the protein and then save it. (I just did a Print Screen and paste into paint since it was faster than saving as tga and reopenning and resaving into png.) Good luck! Just to let you know, I plan to add pics to all the proteins; I've got all the oxidoreductases done so far. --jag123 02:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An amazing link for everything you don't want to know and then some: --allie 22:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Every search engine known to mankind

I've just stumbled on the HGH quackery article, and as I review the history, it seems you're primarily responsible for its current condition. Congratulations. I think it's an example of just what WP should be producing, though not quite a traditional encyclopedic sort of thing. We're breaking new ground here in that respect. I've also noted your admin nomination and endorsed it, though after the (tardy) fact. Congratulations on that as well... Good work. ww 19:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[Please feel free to move this award to a different place if you prefer, Alteripse.] Axl 16:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You are at once kind and fair. I love to write just to write, and even debate about the angels on a pinhead; but I do not like personal strife and conflict, and my wife even less so. It's not that I need 100% agreement; it's just we both feel so overwhelmed with the utter disdain and contempt for our work, work that is seen by so many as being something entirely different than what we intended it to be, namely, to recoginze someone we thought had merit and to find appropriate references. Anyway, thank you for your sweet disposition. icut4u

• Thanks. Can I save your last line as ammo in my next edit war? alteripse 06:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer (amusing, as always) to the problem of le mannequin pis leads me to suspect you might enjoy the writings of "Sir Charles Grandiose, Bt", who is one never to let the French forget that they smell garlicky.... All The French One Needs To Know, part II Part Trois. Best taken in small doses. - Nunh-huh 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh on lung placement at the Reference Desk. -- Kodos

Alteripse, you rhetorical question about jumping bacteria made me laugh so hard, I had one of the best laughs I've ever had in a long long time. Thank you, thank you so much!! :-) --HappyCamper 01:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a big laugh, too. It's on BJAODN for some reason (here). As long as we have a sense of humour, we have the Wiki. JFW | T@lk 18:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for lightening my day. Your answer yesterday on WP Ref Desk regarding the ant parasite life cycle had me in (circular, of course) stitches. Thanks...

Clearly, I'm going to have to pay more attention to my education and to the Ref Desk. It'll be good for my cardiovascular system as well -- the laughter, I mean. ww 22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- for a particularly wry and apt history of slavery. -Nunh-huh 04:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accept with pleasure. Next I'll have to devise a star for "consistently amusing and informative".... - Nunh-huh 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase could only be the product of a truly diseased mind. Not that there's anything wrong with that.... JamesMLane 08:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I was rather proud of it myself but it seemed to drop unnoticed like a pearl into the depths... alteripse 11:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Red room at Versailles.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. (er, and sorry this template is so patronizing.)  — TheKMan^talk 11:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omenta aside, I encountered another little bit of drollery that I thought you might enjoy: Dr. Tom Cruise's Medical Forum - Nunh-huh 23:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, best laugh I have had in days. alteripse 03:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of an atypical barnstar, but you helped me with a question on the HD four days before my subspecialty exams in gastroenterology (which I've passed, woohoo!). Wanted to say thanks so much! -- Samir धर्म 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your message on Samir's talk page. Are you calling me a idiot sir? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Any friend of Harry is a friend of mine. alteripse 11:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. That was a joke message left on Samir's talk page. He's not blocked really. I hope he gets a good shock when he opens up his talk page. :D — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? And it could have been the start of an entertaining feud. alteripse 11:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bet! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. This week Crohn's disease was selected. Hope you can help…

WS 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrals Stmrlbs 21:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have hit his conscience. His blog suggests the wages of pretend science are far better than mine for honest work, though, so he has little incentive to make the switch. alteripse 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there is a lot of money in this. and he talks about it (indirectly) here Tired Concept

what is interesting about the "Neutrals" blog, is that he says::

One of the things I like best about the Wikipedia concept is that the knowledge base is additive; we all can add information to entries on the site. If we disagree with the biased point of view of an entry, we can contest it. In general, it is better with technical stuff, but some of the pop culture information is pretty good as well. One of the best concepts put forth over there is the idea of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV), the ideal of representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. The article on the BTD is missing some NPOV.

and yet, instead of contesting here, at Wikipedia, whatever it is that he thinks is biased, he writes about it (and you) in his blog- which does not allow comments. This demonstrates a rather biased view of NPOV, imo ;)

Stmrlbs 07:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attempt to answer my question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Antagonism_vs_Inhibition_.7C_Enzymes_.26_Neurotransmiters.

--Parker007 06:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be me, but it seems like we haven't met on Wikipedia for ages. You haven't been away, have you? Anyway, I've been working hard on coeliac disease. It's now a featured article candidate. Please vote! JFW | T@lk 20:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alterprise for your criticism of my contribution to the article on disease. That Barnstar is well earned! Regards, Rowan 02:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Rowan.[reply]

Hello, this is Joie de Vivre. I noticed that you felt I was insulting you at Talk:John Money, so I would like to request that you explain what I said that made you feel this way.

In two recent edit summaries (one, two), you referred to my words on the talk page as "insult and incivility". Because I take such allegations seriously, I would like to request that you point out where I insulted you or became uncivil.

The only things I can identify as being the source of your displeasure are where I described some of the content you wrote as "poorly-written", "crude and inaccurate".(ref) These statements are indeed critical of the content, but I do not see them as crossing the line to a personal attack.

I would appreciate your feedback because I seek to avoid personal animosity. We are both trying to improve the article; let's communicate. Joie de Vivre 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is astonishing. See fuller response on the appropriate talk page. alteripse 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I'm the mediator for the John Money case. I'll be adding comments soon. Drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions! mcr616 _Speak! 00:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure on Money seems like a good idea, but I'm not in a position to offer any particular level of participation. My attempt to find a reference for Money's efforts amounting to a hoax, by the way, are not bearing much fruit. Jonathan Tweet 23:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you are satisfying yourself on that count. I will wait until tomorrow to see if the fuss is finally laid to rest, and then I will post it on the talk page. alteripse 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, largely you have been OK, if not great at "mediating" the issues I have had with User:Plastic Surgeon. I speak of your clear bias towards treating User:Plastic Surgeon quite a bit more gently than myself (and your in-email suggestion that I might want to hide the history of the discussions I had with you/him about the conflicts for my own good was patently ridiculous), apparently because I disagree with your and his viewpoint about what belongs as proper reference in articles. I note that now, about a month after I officially registered my objections about his editing behavior (including his citation of his own web sites in articles and his lack of subtlety in editing Talk pages), other folks I don't know have registered similar complaints and reverted many of his other edits. I hope you remember that I did not in fact revert the primary edits he made to Klinefelter's syndrome but waited for him to do so.

I am surprised this morning to find out that you were made an admin in 2005 (User:Plastic Surgeon had claimed you were originally, but I didn't take him very seriously because he didn't show a lot of other clear understanding of the way the community works on both a technical (editing) level or a social level (he doesn't seem to have made a lot of friends or inculcated much respect for his contributions).

Given the kind of support you gave User:Plastic Surgeon during his and my conflict, and certain comments you made on his and your Talk pages, I get the impression that off-Wikipedia, you consider him a colleague of sorts. I have no idea if you yourself are a physician, but I get the impression that you may in some way be or feel allied in some way with the medical profession. A particular bias shows in the way you interact with User:Plastic Surgeon.

In any case, I suggest you may wish to get another admin to give User:Plastic Surgeon the admin support he requests (i.e. "right to vanish" is a proposed policy/guideline, as you must know, not an established one, so your reference to it in User_talk:Plastic_Surgeon is a bit weird) to try to avoid the appearance of COI. --MalcolmGin 15:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to pick a fight? I have no "conflict of interest". As should have been obvious to you from my greeting on his user page, I had no idea who he was before he started posting. I was certainly "gentler" with him for three reasons: he was a new user and clearly unfamiliar with WP customs; he asked for my help; and we have a scarcity of editors with real expertise in many areas, this can be an unfamiliar type of exchange, and I try to be especially welcoming to experts to try to offset the abuse they are likely to encounter from the ignorant. What you don't know and may not even be your business is that I warned him repeatedly against inserting links, explained that most of your complaints and arguments were within the bounds of reasonable behavior here, declined to get involved in his arguments elsewhere, and told him that he could not remove the conversations from the talk pages. As for the KS links, if you read our link policy, it quite explicitly states that there are occasions when a useful link may be acceptable, and that is exactly what I defended on the Klinefelter syndrome talk page. I have not run interference for his links anywhere else, have not disagreed with their removal, nor gotten involved in the arguments, and I resisted the temptation to do so when an editor who habitually misrepresents other editors' actions called them "vandalism" (which you realize is both incorrect and unkind). So now he has accepted defeat and left, and asked me how to eliminate the record of his participation. You must be feeling satisfied. Are you really being petty enough to complain because I didn't leave the evidence of your victory on his talk page, or am I misunderstanding the purpose of this post? alteripse 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to pick a fight. I'm giving you my honest opinion.

I have read about half a dozen relevant link policies/guidelines. My impression from the majority of those policies is that while exceptions are made for particularly helpful information from recognized experts it's still the best idea to use neutral, non-business-related links that do not leave the impression of even secondary or tertiary marketing. I don't think it's reasonable for you to imply that I haven't read them based on our apparent disagreement in interpretations.

I do appreciate that you didn't abuse your admin powers to shut me up, I do appreciate that you carefully toed several tempting lines during this conflict and User:Plastic Surgeon's long acclimatization period. While I do feel satisfied that I wasn't the only editor who found User:Plastic Surgeon's links to his business website objectionable, I'm actually regretful that this turned out to be such a boundary issue for him that he completely withdrew (apparently) from Wikipedia, because I thought his non-self promotional contributions were by and large helpful (though it would be cool if he had provided other citations when he made risky assertions) and I respect your contributions to Wikipedia overall.

The purpose of this comment is to remind you that as a custodian, it's probably best for you to avoid the appearance of COI. I think that you did quite well with most of that except that in your shoes, I would have chosen to delegate duties related to his right to vanish to another admin. This is not about evidence, but about process and about the role of administrators in Wikipedia. Regards, --MalcolmGin 16:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then we both see links the same way. I assumed his departure was not in itself a source of two-sided controversy. alteripse 16:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that we probably see linking similarly (though I tend to want to get rid of links that may violate various spam-related policy/guidelines, and you seem to be disposed to keep them around if they're useful enough), I don't know if you're getting or missing my original point about COI. Also, just prior to his departure, User:Plastic Surgeon deleted his own comments from a number of article talk pages. These were comments that had been replied to, and therefore he should have left them alone. Because of this, he caused some potential controversy just prior to your help in making him vanish. --MalcolmGin 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to his email that he could not remove article talk page conversations (users do have the right to remove their own user talk page material). I assume editors interested in those talk pages can restore those they think worth keeping. I guess I still don't understand your point. Where is a two-sided controversy that I am taking sides on? alteripse 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can do anything they want because of WP:IAR, but according to the guideline I referred to in an edit comment (Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments), it's actually recommended that editors not outright delete comments that have already been replied to. Are you not familiar with this guideline? --MalcolmGin 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to article talk pages, in which case I agree and enforced it? Or user talk pages, in which case a sizeable percentage of admins and users (myself included) support an absolute right to remove what they please after reading it if there is not an ongoing exchange? Again, the COI charge is only meaningful if there is an ongoing dispute, so I guess I am still missing your "original point". He's gone and asked me to remove what I could; I warned him that vanishing means no more editing, that I could not delete the usernames and histories. I restored the article talk page he deleted. What else do you want me to do or not do? alteripse 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested in the beginning of my feedback that I felt it was potentially COI or had the appearance of COI that you assisted him with his vanishing at all. Now that you've done it at all, I wanted you to know my opinion. I don't intend to or wish to take it any further than to note it here that I think your assistance of him was in COI, and I note that while you or he removed his own comments from his talk pages, you or he didn't also remove the replies, which could end up making other users look stupid or random.

Additionally, his leave-taking some some of the edits he did just prior his leave-taking were poorly done and ended up making parts of his User pages and some articles' talk pages look discontiguous and crappy. If I had been in your place, and did not feel in COI in assisting him with vanishing, I probably would have also at least gone through his more recent contributions and reviewed them for suitability, but obviously you were too busy or didn't think to do it. Since he's left the community, though, they're all minor quibbles.

The only thing I really mean to convey is that it seems like COI to me to see you assist him in executing his right to vanish, though I do appreciate that you could have decided to do it anyway for other more humanitarian reasons that I can't fault you for. --MalcolmGin 13:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I keep arguing with someone who "doesn't get it" way too long, and this seems to be one of those times, but I can't help it. I remind you that I have not exercised a single administrative function in the whole matter, nor invoked administrator status, nor done anything against your interest in any way. You can do every single thing I did for any user who asks for your help. As you admit, I even respectfully asked your permission to archive the initial exchange when the user wanted a fresh start. You have a complete misunderstanding of what COI means, as I have not a single "interest" that had anything to do with any disagreement you had with that user. You and I had a minor and reasonable disagreement on a single content issue at the margin of link policy, and I did not pull rank or do anything "administrative", nor in the end even insist on having it my way. None of it has anything to do with COI and it was not to your detriment. Get over it. alteripse 14:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm sorry that what I said has apparently deeply irritated you, and I agree that more talking won't convey the point in either direction. --MalcolmGin 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alteripse.

I asked a couple of questions in the CAH (17 alpha hydroxylase) section. Nic McBride - nic@sounddesign.co.nz125.239.46.152 17:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)§[reply]

And i tried to answer. Let me know if answers were clear enough. alteripse 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very clear, and thanks. Nic 00:11, 12 June 2007 (NZ time)

I'd hate to think my hormone hierarchy picture was a write off. Maybe you and I and Dbrouse can work together to improve it. As I've said on the hormone discussion page my expertise isn't in hormonal signalling and the figure is an improvement of one I found in my biochemistry text book. I've already offered to supply my original powerpoint file to Dbrouse, if I make the same offer to you, maybe I can act as a kind of coordinator, and together we can improve the figure. K.murphy 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, as the diagram does have some good qualities. I am not very adept at making or editing diagrams. The other problem is that unless we stick to major signals, the diagram will look like a bowl of sphaghetti, as virtually every system in the body talks to every other. As we identify more hormones, examples of one-way hormonal control become fewer and fewer, and every organ of the body is an endocrine organ. A real challenge! You might want to start by listing the glands and organ systems which will warrant a box apiece. Then we can compile a list of hormone signals that connect the boxes. I do not have the time to rework the diagram but if you or dbrouse feel ambitious would be happy to review your lists and proof your efforts. alteripse 13:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the Anabolic steroid article to be a featured article. Please vote in support of it being a featured article here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive3. Contributors have been working vastly to improve this article since then taking into account criticism of it and improving it on all accounts since it's last nomination and it has gone a long ways since then. Please vote in support of it. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not really.. I think it's pretty clear to a lot of people what it "feels like" to have both low and high blood sugar. Those who are aware enough can tell what foods they shouldn't have at the time, etc. Is there a similar feeling for protein? It's possible to have too low levels or too high, but is there an identifiable feeling associated with it? Wikidan829 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people would dispute your claim. All well-controlled attempts (and there have been many) to test the reliability of those who "know" when their blood sugar is low or high have demonstrated that few people can do it consistently or accurately. May I politely doubt that your own ability to do so has been demonstrated objectively? alteripse 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but not without rebuttal ;) I'd like to see your claims sourced. I actually didn't become aware of my blood sugar levels until I studied it and knew what it was all about. The crash I get after eating a high carb meal, for example. I thought I was just getting tired until I became a little more educated on the subject. I clearly recognize the point past just being hungry, to having low blood sugar much later, and then to the point where my body switches to fat supply. Is it impossible to believe that I may be one of the "few" people who are aware of their bodily functions? Wikidan829 01:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have confirmed my skepticism, and yes, I do not believe you are one of those "few people", which is a polite way of saying "almost no one". It is quite common however that people imagine they can accurately sense their own blood sugar levels. There are many papers in the medical literature on hypoglycemia showing that people with self-diagnosed hypoglycemia are almost invariably incorrect at distinguishing normal from low, and several papers in the literature on diabetes showing that people with diabetes are poor at distinguishing degrees of high sugar or distinguishing high from normal. The exception to this is that people with diabetes who take insulin are moderately accurate at detecting low blood sugar levels because they actually have real hypoglycemia as well as the meter to hone the accuracy of their perceptions. I have started to reference this article and will eventually put some references in that section as well. In the meantime don't make any large wagers on your ability to do so with anyone with a machine for measuring your sugar. alteripse 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when I haven't had food that I need in a while, feel dizzy, ready to pass out, can't see straight, irritable, wanting to run everybody off the road who is driving too slow on the way to get something to eat, it's just a figment of my imagination? Oh and btw I'm 5'11 160 lbs, not some fatarse looking for his mcd's fix. Wikidan829 13:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I said. What I said is that most people imagine that they have a much better ability to assess their blood sugar than they do. That is not the same thing. You are not imagining your symptoms, but you may be imagining a low blood glucose at the time of the symptoms. PMID 7227659 In other cultures people may be taught to attribute the same symptoms to something else. alteripse 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I stated this wrong. I did not assert that I can say exactly what my blood sugar is to any precision. I absolutely believe I can tell when it is at an extreme(either too high or too low for my own good), based on collective symptoms that trigger thoughts that I need food, or shouldn't eat anything more with carbs in it. I also differentiate between an empty stomach(want food) and these collective symptoms(need food). If what I feel is not attributable to low blood sugar, what else do you think it could be? Wikidan829 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the abstract of the study you linked, and I'm not sure how relevant it is. Postabsorptive hypoglycemia suggests to me that this is hypoglycemia after these patients ate a meal, the insulin did its dirty work, and now they are feeling lethargic. I'm aware of the "apparent" symptoms after eating chinese with a few cans of coke, but this is quite different from the experience I was referring to above. Wikidan829 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating, so I moved it to your talk page, the article's talk page probably isn't appropriate for this. Wikidan829 18:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably most appropriate for the idiopathic postprandial syndrome talk page but here is ok too. You misread the abstract, but I think you are beginning to understand that a large part of the problem is semantics. Doctors in general are quite literal about using the word hypoglycemia to mean measured "low blood glucose", not "feelings that might be due to low blood glucose but usually arent". We are aware that the large majority of people with self-diagnosed "hypoglycemia" do not have unusually low blood glucose measured at the time of symptoms. So doctors have 3 responses to that: (1) don't argue with people; let them call it hypoglycemia; its a harmless diagnosis and it takes too much time to explain otherwise without offending; (2) explain to them there is no "real disease" there and they should stop worrying about it; or (3) explain that the feelings are real and we do not understand the cause but it might be helpful to eat regularly and healthily and we would rather reserve the term "hypoglycemia" for the rarer conditions where the blood sugar is measurably low. As you can imagine, some doctors find options 1 or 2 the easiest if their office is busy and they are trying to avoid extended conversations, or they are not quite confident of their own knowledge of hypoglycemia. Not all patients will respond positively to option 3, though most will if explained adequately. What a doctor cannot do is "take away" the hypoglycemia diagnosis without offering something understandable and not dismissive in its place.

As to your question "if it isnt hypoglycemia what is it?", I do not know. I can speculate, as others have done, that it is a problem involving brain sugar levels rather than blood sugar levels, or overly sensitive triggering of adrenergic glucose defense mechanisms by a falling but not low glucose level, etc etc. alteripse 20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. It seems(and I may be wrong) that hypoglycemia is being used as both a "current condition" or a more chronic one. By that, I could say right now I am in hypoglycemia, which will go away once I eat. Or, a person might be called hypoglycemic if they have a tendency to persistently have low blood sugar. Which, to me, means that people who are "self-diagnosed" with "hypoglycemia"(as a chronic condition) may be in a different category than those who simply feel they have it because of their poor diet for that day or two, who mostly likely wouldn't take a trip to the doctor for it.

I was unaware of the brain having separate sugar levels than the blood. How can this be? Is there a medical term for it? Also, if that is the situation(maybe it sounds worse than it is), isn't that just as important to take care of? Wikidan829 21:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the important point. Few of the people with self-diagnosed hypoglycemia have actual low blood glucose as the cause of their symptoms, and most doctors would prefer to use the term just for those who do. From that standpoint there is no difference between those who self-diagnose a single episode and those who self-diagnose recurrent episodes-- without documented low blood sugars at the times of symptoms, neither is likely to be hypoglycemia. The proposed term for those who have recurrent symptoms but no measurably low glucoses is "idiopathic postprandial syndrome". The term for those who have a single episode of symptoms because they haven't eaten is "famished". One important difference between measurably low blood glucose with symptoms and symptoms without measurably low glucose is that the former can lead to seizures, coma, brain damage, or rarely death, while the the latter never causes objective harm to the brain, just bothersome symptoms. This is one of the reasons why it doesn't "get the respect" that "real" (i.e. measurable) hypoglycemia gets. alteripse 02:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alteripse, thanks for your input on the idiopathic postprandial syndrome. In the meantime, did you get to know anything new about pathophysiology or even treament of this syndrome? I'm desperately looking for solutions. My symptoms are frequent hunger and extreme fatigue. I'm planning to try some drugs that were positively tested to reduce fatigue in the Chronic Fatigue Syndrom. If you wish, I will tell you the results. Greets, Cayron (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason why you reverted the edit to the phimosis article? If there is could you please give it in the discussion page where I raised the issue which my edit addressed and we can discuss it there. Obviously I don't mind the edit being revised if there's a reason for it, but I'd appreciate a discussion about the issue at the very least. blankfrackis 06:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I see you placed a discussion topic at the bottom of the page.blankfrackis 06:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your correction of the misinformation given, it would be best if you could avoid using terms like "crap" and "fools" and saying bad things about the author who supplied the info. It's sufficient to simply correct the error and move on. We both want to give the correct answer AND avoid personalizing disputes, after all. (Incidentally, the misinformation looked suspect to me, as well, but I didn't have any proof that it was wrong.) StuRat 06:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you found bad information more objectionable than sharp language. alteripse 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find them both objectionable. However, if someone is trying to give good info and be polite, I can forgive an occasional transgression on either. StuRat 15:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Just crap. Drinking olive oil results in formation of fecal globules by a process of saponification. It comes on through, and is vastly interesting to fools who are taken in by this nonsense. I am sure if you ask, czmtzc will offer you a cure for the evil eye as well. alteripse 23:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Reminds me of some of the (I'll be nice) "stuff" my dad buys into. Some people weren't born with intuitive "sketchy" sensors that let them know when they're getting scammed. Wikidan829 07:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed some info you have added and I think they have added a dispute template of some sort. Not sure how to handle this, so I'm letting you know. Thanks. Mseliw 01:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I asked for explanation. alteripse 02:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
Sunday July 8, 2007
Time: 5:00 pm
Location: It will be in Center City, Philadelphia at 112 North 9th Street Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Tel: (215) 829-8939

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your impressive I have been noticing edits in numerous articles related to science. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to leave a note on my talk page. I replied at Talk:Puberty. --JWSchmidt 02:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alteripse, I'm getting worn out at the Mannatech discussion just trying to keep track of point/counterpoint, so you may have noticed I'm recommending a moratorium on further discussion there vis-á-vis Cosmochao's persistent campaign about a conspiracy to suppress the miracle of glyconutrients and questioning of other editors' motives. If something new is offered by Cosmochao or any editor then a response is warranted, but I think further responses to the same arguments is counter-productive. Of course, we should still address any edits to the article itself appropriately. What do you think? Jim Dunning | talk 04:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always argue with these idiots far too long. It's like a car accident I can't stop looking at. I will take a break as well. alteripse 10:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling. Jim Dunning | talk 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost done; give me a minute and I'll fill you in on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, left comments on article talk page—if you disagree with any of my section heading shortening after reading WP:MSH and looking over WP:MEDMOS, don't hesitate to change. You have a very nice start there. Yes, cite templates in general really chunk up the article size (making it slow to load) and empty parameters do add a lot of overhead (I've checked numerous articles after removing them). I didn't use cite templates at all on Tourette syndrome because of their high overhead. Ping me if you need me to have a look in the future. I don't know the topic, but I do know how to set up refs and comply with MEDMOS. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh Oh, please look at section on anabolic steroids for my contribution - did say it was my first attempt on Wikipedia. Mrtilney (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent event with Chris Benoit a professional wrestler who slayed his family and supposedly had steroids in his home at the time, numerous people have been attempting to alter the Anabolic steroid article to remove any implication that steroids don't result in "roid rage". I wanted to ask if you could keep an eye on it and revert any major changes to it before they get adequate discussion in the talk page by all involved parties. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That occurred to me too. A connection will remain unprovable, whether or not any usage is discovered. I did notice, as part of the news coverage on the steroid angle, the mention of the early deaths of a couple of other pro wrestlers of heart problems, which is more difficult to dismiss. alteripse 10:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anabolic steroids definitely can cause heart problems in some individuals if used incorrectly. There's no doubt about that, though I suspect Steroids get the blame unfairly when other drugs including cocaine or stimulants are at play as well. It will be impossible to prove Chris Benoit lost his mind due to "roid rage" alone as it is not even considering the fact that most scientists don't believe such a thing even exists, however none of that will stop the media from postulating that it was steroids given the bad reputation steroids have in the popular media. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in delayed menarche results from my daughter's height.Aged 13 her height was 155.5cm,aged 14 163.5cm,aged 15 171.0 cm and at 15 3 mths,her current age she is 172.5 cm.Menarche started when she was 15 yrs 1mth.My wife is 160cm and I am 170cm.Her elder sister is 26 and 166cm. her 23 year old brother is 172cm. I am her biological father and retired nearly 6 years ago at age 57. Both my wife and I spend plenty of time with her and I take her to school and collect her. We dog walk in the afternoons and have a close relationship.Although her sister no longer lives at home she dotes on her younger sister. She has a close relationship with her brother who still lives at home.She likes school and has many friendships.She is rarely upset and enjoys many active pastimes - Girl Guides,Keyboard lessons,Lifesaving classes,trampolining.Our holidays include skiing and she has unusually for an English girl had 2 holidays at Camp America. On both occasions we took her and the second time travelled in the US before and after Camp. Sorry to go on at length but I was interested in the comments made re delayed menarche and the link to a stress free environment,relationship to elder sister/brother and her close relationship to me. This is probably stronger than her sister's relationship and no doubt due to my spending more time with her and my own relatively stress free life following early retirement (normal retirement age 60).This is my first contribution on Wikipedia so hope I've done it correctly.Mrtilney (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As expected a few people are attempting to get the Anabolic steroid article delisted from being a Good article because it doesn't conform to what the popular media says about anabolic steroids. Since it's nomination for being a Good article and it has done nothing but improve since then and is now at the criteria for a featured article with 100 referneces and months of editing to improve prose and grammar and neutrality. Nonetheless some people seem to want it delisted, So could you add some input? Here [[2]]. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's being brought up again for GA review. It more than meets the GA criteria. You should vote Oppose delisting it as a good article if you think it meets GA criteria found here WP:WIAGA. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alteripse,

I am a PhD student at the University of Sheffield, conducting research into 'genetic politics and reproductive technology'. I read your comments here on the 'Newborn screening' talk page and I wondered if you'd like to take part in my research project? I believe you'll be able to make a valuable contribution. Before you decide, you should be aware of what this involves. I want to email you with a few simple questions on the topics of the research. These emailed questions will be sent in stages, over a period of weeks, and all of the identifying information you provide will be treated with confidentiality. The research findings will be disseminated amongst stake holders in the field and I would be happy to share these findings with you prior to any publications. If you are interested, you will find my contact details on my userpage. Feel free to get in touch should you have any questions. Your valuable contribution would be much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas 16:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check your email. alteripse 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should ask about the Growth Hormone article. See the growth hormone treatment article. I didn't know about the template, I have used the PMID in other contexts. Thanks for mentioning it, it may make adding referrences a lot easier. By the way, where is TamPax Romana from? I also appreciated the article on Jeffrey Hudson! You seem to be a kindred spirit on the complementary and alternative medicine issues. Pustelnik 17:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would enjoy the book on which the Jeffrey Hudson article is based (mentioned at the end). The TamPax Romana was a bad pun about a question at the WP:Reference Desk last year sometime; I don't even remember it but was gratified it amused someone. Maybe you and I should have another go at an HGH quackery article; my original version was suppressed by the defenders of fraud and nonsense here. alteripse 03:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

• Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
• Join our mailing list
• Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alteripse, is this what you're looking for— [3]

Or is this one different? Let me know if I'm on the right track.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a sugar-pill-controlled study on the effectiveness of sugar pills is... how shall I put this... delicious. =) Antelan ^talk 04:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's really-- dare I say "sweet"?-- is that I just learned a few days ago that one of my partners is treating a child with mannose under the direction of Hudson Freeze. The child has one of the carbohydrate-deficient glycoprotein syndromes, an extremely rare (way more rare than 1 in a million, so rare we don't even have an article on it) genetic disorder of glycoprotein synthesis and perhaps the only disease known for which mannose makes any sense at all as a treatment. You might have noted that our friends have repeatedly tried to remove the citation to his opinion on grounds that he is "not qualified" to comment on therapeutic use of glyconutrients! I had not realized until this week the degree to which Freeze is the world expert on this category of disease. I think we need an article on the disease. alteripse 10:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to co-author it with you. Antelan ^talk 11:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered CDG syndrome, a bad title for an article. I am proposing renaming on the talk:CDG syndrome page. Add your support if you agree. alteripse 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

carbohydrate-deficient glycoprotein syndrome congenital disorders of glycosylation carbohydrate deficient glycoprotein syndrome

Never mind. I went ahead and redirected all of them to congenital disorder of glycosylation. Please go ahead and enhance the article. alteripse 13:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, but first, another question before I make a fool of myself :) Would you agree that some carbohydrates digest faster than others? Say white powdered sugar as opposed to unbleached bread. Wikidan829 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The difference is measured by the glycemic index, which is a comparative scale of how fast 100 grams of a given carbohydrate can raise the blood glucose. alteripse 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How about the same for different types of protein? Again I can be working off of misconceptions, but whey protein absorbs faster than say the protein in a steak? If so, is there a value for this?

As far as the glycemic index, I believe there is also a glycemic load, which is a more accurate measurement, as it accounts for actual quantity to what was ingested. Eating a few grains of white sugar won't raise your blood sugar nearly as much as a tablespoon. Goes into the whole "eating in moderation" thing... Is there a similar value for protein?

I'm just trying to be a little more educated on the macronutrients in general. Unfortunately, the actual dietary info on protein has been taken over by Atkins and body building "experts"(who say drinking 8 whey protein shakes a day will make you huge haha). It's so easy to find information on carbohydrates, but it almost appears as though nothing is to be said for protein as well. It's common sense that if you're going for 200g of carbs a day, you wouldn't fulfill it with candy bars. What about the other nutrients? Thanks! Wikidan829 22:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that glycemic index refers to speed of absorption, but the size of the load has more to do with how high the glucose goes and how long it takes to return to normal. I have not heard of something similar to the glycemic index for measuring rate of absorption of protein, but I am sure there are differences. Fat eaten at the same time as protein or carbohydrate tends to delay stomach emptying and slow absorption, so the glycemic index is much less detectable when carbs are part of a mixed meal. I think the reason you haven't heard much about this with protein and fat is because the differences of speed of digestion have a whole less to do with meaningful physiological and clinical issues like diabetes. While there are disorders of fat and protein malabsorption (e.g. exocrine pancreatic insufficiency such as cystic fibrosis), they are far less common than diabetes. Basically the dimensions of protein nutrition are (1) total calories and quality of the amino acid mix. Either casein or whey has a more physiological mix of amino acids and the other doesn't (I forget which is better and I am too lazy to look it up-- you shouldn't have any trouble finding it). High intake of un-useful amino acids just leads to lots of urea and gluconeogenic substrates being formed. When we are trying to cover high protein intakes for people with diabetes, we usually count protein as needing about 15% as much insulin as the same grams of carbohydrate. For fat there are some essential fatty acids, but mostly the nutritional issue is just total calories. By the way, in terms of nutritional terminology, protein, fat, and carbohydrates are macronutrients (measured in grams per day), while vitamins and minerals like vitamin D or zinc are micronutrients (measured in mcg, ng, or pg per day). I don't know if that covers your question, but it sort of defines the edges of my nutritional expertise. alteripse 22:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. To answer whether casein or whey is "worse" I would say whey. I believe that whey not only has a low mix of acids, but also most fast absorbing one, which I don't think would be good for lasting you to the next meal. Also since it absorbs such a surplus I think you convert a non-negligible amount to carbohydrates(actually I think you said that with "gluconeogenic"), which can possibly also spike insulin. I knew that macronutrients were the 3 big guys, but I wasn't sure what micronutrients were. I always assumed micronutrients were just low-level like amino acids, or simple or complex carbs, and macronutrients would have been the higher-level groups. Guess I was wrong. Thanks for you time! I learned a lot. Wikidan829 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request the block of IP address 195.229.241.181 as s/he is constantly vandalizing SummerSlam (2007) even after I warned him/her. --Hornetman16 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind.--Hornetman16 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I do believe you have found my mysterious illness! Thank you very much! Delta 16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why delete my postings on famous people with delayed puberty?

For a couple of reasons. First, they were not referenced and seemed like they might represent original speculation on your part. Second, the delayed puberty seemed to have no relationship to why they were famous. Third, delayed puberty is so common that we could have an endless list but I don't think it would add anything to the reader's understanding of the topic. Fourth, it was decided by many editors after lengthy consideration we really don't want a list of famous people with each medical condition unless it somehow adds something to the article or the topic. Finally, the comments were stuck in inappropriate places in the article. If you still disagree with my removal, get yourself an account and do some editing to gain some credibility, find some references to support your claims about these people, and put it on the talk page or the WP:Requests for comment page and see if you can garner some support. alteripse 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected. Hope you can help…

JFW | T@lk 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd mention my amazement when I came across your name on the wikidragon page, and tracked you a bit. You seem to be one of the few remaining legendary Wikidragons. This is my primitive version of a big fat smiley face graphic on your page, beacause I don't know how to make one of those.

Zantaggerung 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 5 and give your input about the next meet-up. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot 21:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this message because you are on the [list], you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot 22:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I have been to the dwarfism page, which you have made significant contributions to. I appreciate your input. I would like to help, but I am rookie on Wikipedia. I am a person with dwarfism and the national Vice President of Programs for LPA. Let me know what I can do. Thanks. Tslug 00:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Bill B.[reply]

Hi Alteripse. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look as if your going to be round any time soon (or long for that matter), but I still thought it would be only fair to notify you that I've changed back "involuntary" to "forced", on the same reasoning I had changed it 2 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=62286463 Regards Sean Heron (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the addition of the reference to the Chemosphere article. PMID 17307219? I consider congenital hypothyroidism to be one of my particular areas of expertise, and I would still not consider organochlorines to be a known etiology of congenital hypothyroidism. I can only get the abstract on line, and do not have access to the journal. The statistical analysis might be a bit forced, and I am always a bit wary of odds ratio arguments. There are articles on massive PCB exposures causing hypothyroidism, but that is not the same thing.Pustelnik (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The planning for the summer Philadelphia meetup has begun. We would appreciate your input.
You're getting this invitation because you're on Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Addbot (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local Italian restaurant.
This has been an automatic delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Would you be interested in volunteering some time and expertise to help the Wikimedia Foundation in a collaboration with the National Institutes of Health? I unfortunately do not have a lot of details to give at this time, but in short, I'm looking for a group of Wikimedians (primarily US or UK based, but that's not a requirement) that have interest or expertise in various medical fields, to help participate in a Wikimedia Academy event with the NIH. Even if you don't think you'd be able to attend the event, but would be interested in helping out online in any capacity, I'd love to hear back from you. Please leave a message on my talk page at User talk:Swatjester if you are interested. Thank you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
June 14, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alteripse, good to finally converse with you! Do you have a moment to offer your thoughts regarding neutral POV of the Mannatech article, which I have been maintaining lately? See the Talk there. Thanks, prhartcom (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alteripse, I would appreciate your thoughts on the discussion topic I started on the Mannatech article regarding a recent edit. Thanks, prhartcom (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alteripse, long time not heard from you. Hope all is well. I've started to work on diabetic ketoacidosis and I would be delighted if you could offer your comments and recommendations. I will also be trying to deal with your question on Talk:Mishnah. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i saw the answer, thanks. I took about a 15 month break, and my intention is to spend less time here, focusing on a narrower range of article. Once upon a time i started a new ambitious DKA article. The start is here if you want it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alteripse/diabetes_workshop . alteripse (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About this: I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your offer, and I have multiple reasons to believe in JFW's. I haven't decided whether now is the time, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, up to you. I have paid no attention to admin nominations for about 2 years but doubt much has changed. The only potential downside is that editors with a grudge come out of the woodwork to oppose nominations of those who have annoyed them (you may be thinking to yourself, "so how did he get approved"...). I don't know you very well so you can decide if its worth the public hassle. It does make fixing problems and reverting vandals quicker. Just say so if you want it. alteripse (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alteripse,

I will answer where the discussion originated Talk:Blood_sugar#inconsistency_between_chart_given_and_text_in_Normal_Values_section. Best, --— J.S.^talk 13:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I tried to upload a slightly better PNG version of the file, but it didn't work giving a strange error message about a bad extension.

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
September 12, 2009
Time: 3 pm
Location: University City, Philadelphia

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

NOTE: The date and time of this meetup has been changed to accommodate other regional activities.

The purpose of this meeting is to finalize our plans for the Wiki Takes Philadelphia event. We'll discuss logistics, establish jobs, and coordinate with participating groups.

The floor will also be open to discussing other projects relating to the Wiki and Free Culture movement.

Afterward at around 5pm, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your response to my query. Plausible "guesses" such as yours are valued input when I'm choosing the wording for archival photo captions. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too oppose the proposal, but there's no need to cause hurt feelings. I'd really appreciate it if you'd please consider rephrasing your comment... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, though one might hope that a person would not identify so strongly with a proposal that they cannot distinguish characterization of the proposal from charaterization of the person. alteripse (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, and your comment was in no way uncivil toward the proposer. I only asked you to rephrase in order to avoid even the possibility of causing hurt feelings.

Thank you for making the change. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
April 11, 2010
Time: 12 pm
Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City, Philadelphia

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, April 11, 2010, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of causes of hypoglycemia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of causes of hypoglycemia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. PDCook (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alteripse. I see that you blanked the article. Per our guidelines: "Under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion." Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked it because i had only a few minutes of internet access last week and wanted to save everyone the trouble of debating it. I didnt have time to find out how to completely erase the title. Delete it legally if you prefer. alteripse (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change. See the explanation/discussion at: Talk:Idiopathic_postprandial_syndrome#Wikipedia_is_for_everyone!_Not_just_for_medical_professionals!.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations prove that GH treatment is safe (if well administrated) and effective toward many diseases. Of course it is necessary to use GH when it occurs a deficiency (usually old men and sometimes youngs too, have a GH deficiency), it is possible to write this (if it was not clear), but you should not delete citations and make false and POV articles as you did it--250GP (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I wrote was false, whereas intentionally or unintentionally, your additions were either false or misrepresented as I explained. You are sloppy with your language: "safe if well administered" is not the same thing as "no side effects". You cannot point to a single false statement I made and I have no idea what you mean by "POV" unless rejecting quackery is excessively POV for you. alteripse (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the need to continue this, let's do it at talk:HGH controversies. alteripse (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you wrote was false and wrong! The citations fully confirm what I wrote (therefore your allegations about mispresenting the citations are completely false), if you continue in this way I will put directly the sentences from the articles.--250GP (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why before it was clearly written that diabetes mellitus is caused by Cushing syndrome and hyogonadism and now not? Why many serious scientific articles are removed in the metformin and diabetes mellitus articles? Maybe the upward author has true to say that you are payed by pharmaceutical industries to write lies...--Maronna (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just like the guy above. You think pharmaceutical companies pay people to interfere with testosterone use? alteripse (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have had some contact with User:250GP and reverted many of his edits. Today, I have reverted some more of his edits because they seem to include misrepresentations of references. Do you think this person is the same as the banned editor User:Testosterone vs diabetes, who has been making all kinds of disruptive edits to related articles, and also espouses the same kind of irrational conspiracy theories? This may be more of the block evasion: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Testosterone vs diabetes. ChemNerd (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not been aware of the previous bozo, but this guy's crank perspective and bad english match posts from more than one name and ISP. Probably the same. I initially thought he was new here and could be reasoned with. Clearly not. At this point, I am inclined to agree with Abbott Arnaud-Amaury alteripse (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guidelines said it was a good idea to put a note on your talk page, about any emails, so here it is. :-)
--Seren-dipper (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this recently published article, funded by Mannatech? I included it in the company-funded research section. It seems notable since it is the only clinical trial I have seen on the topic. Please fix the edit or add info to the wiki page regarding this as you see fit. Cmcnicoll (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area this Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 5 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together in the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art 39°58′05″N 75°10′59″W / 39.96801°N 75.183156°W / 39.96801; -75.183156

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

Smallbones (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear after the discussion at BN so far as to whether you would still like your tools back. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i want my tools back. Sorry this is completely confusing. It looks like on the bureacrats noticeboard someone is claiming there is no need to request because nothing was deactivated. alteripse (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, only a couple things have changed since you've been away in regards to this:

• Administrators who don't edit or make a log within one continuous calender year are desysopped. At that point, you can request it back at any time at WP:BN, unless the below has happened.
• Administrators who have not edited or made a log in three continuous calendar years are subject to a new WP:RFA for restoration. :You don't need to request your tools back, especially since you became active again, but you are more than welcome to. If you don't want your tools back, and you become inactive for three years continuously, that is when you'll need a new RFA. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Please may I have my tools back? alteripse (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted your return and just wanted to say welcome and happy 2013! -- Scray (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. alteripse (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back indeed! Never thought I'd see the day... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have asked a follow up question here and I'd like your professional opinion. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You write a lot of articles on Health-related subjects. 140.254.226.183 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not so recently. Trying to decide whether to get back into the article writing business. alteripse (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the general tone of your comments here, please consider that some editors who try to contribute accurate answers on RD/S might find your statement, "I have to say i have not seen anyone else answering with broad medical expertise that would exceed that of a medical student, though many of the answers to simpler questions are perfectly accurate", to be somewhat off-putting. As you say, some questions (like the low testosterone one) are such a morass that I don't wade in. I know I could do more but I try to avoid arguing from authority (i.e. I depend on references more than most, which takes time), and I have to balance priorities. -- Scray (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you are agreeing with me but suggesting that saying so publicly might offend some of the other editors? OK. alteripse (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. I'm suggesting that your statement could reasonably be interpreted to mean that you believe you are alone in displaying broad medical expertise (...). I find that off-putting, but your reply makes me think it might be intentional, so I will desist. -- Scray (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other doctors on wikipedia but I have not seen any posts at the reference desk suggesting that level of knowledge on medical topics. For several years I was a frequent answerer there, but have been paying attention again only recently. Perhaps I have simply missed them. Who were you thinking of? alteripse (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Alteripse! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not offended by a suggestion, but in the interest of maintaining a productive discussion, could you rewrite your recent comments so they do not focus on the other editor (the ip), and maybe change the tone so it's not so confrontational? --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot fault your recommendation. While I may be mistaken, I think the last comment was from a familiar editor who is likely Adamo himself, with a long history of sockpuppet edits and attempts to make this article a puff piece for his book. Go back through the archives of this talk page if you are curious. He used to complain on his website about how biased wikipedia is. His english usage is much more proficient than the comments you just politely rebuffed. You have done a nice job, by the way, of keeping this article balanced and objective in the text, and your style of response is clearly more appropriate than mine for the casual good-faith editors. I just couldn't help responding to the familiar trolling. alteripse (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're right about the sockpuppetry. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Philadelphia's Great American Wiknic at Penn Park
	You are invited to the Philadelphia edition of the Great American Wiknic taking place in Penn Park, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there!--User:Ocaasi (talk)|}}

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Alteripse! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Developmental delay. Since you had some involvement with the Developmental delay redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ego White Tray (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians are invited to the GLAM Café at the Chemical Heritage Foundation to meet, talk, and edit. We provide the space, the coffee, and the snacks: you provide ideas and enthusiasm! On the second Tuesday of each month, starting November 12, 2013.

Hello Alteripse, I hope you are doing well these days. I stumbled upon the Mannatech article and its talk page today and once again appreciated that you keep it on your watchlist. The article seems to have calmed down a lot since a few years ago when both anti- but especially pro-Mannatech editors kept trying to insert non-encyclopedic information, but I notice the Company-funded studies section has expanded. I am not sure about those studies cited. Do you have a moment to give it a read for credibility? I see the EJCN reports "An open-label dosing study to evaluate the safety and effects of a dietary plant-derived polysaccharide supplement on the N-glycosylation status of serum glycoproteins in healthy subjects" in which science officer R. Sinnott participed, the International Journal of Food Microbiology reports an "In vitro modulation of the human gastrointestinal microbial community by plant-derived polysaccharide-rich dietary supplements" which Sinnott helped write, the Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science presents "Effects of a carbohydrate supplement upon resting brain activity" and an Australian study on "Saccharide Effects on Cognition and Well-Being in Middle-Aged Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial", both of which we cannot read online and cannot yet find relevance to the Mannatech company. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Join us this Saturday (July 30) at the Philadelphia Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit". This is an opportunity to meet other local Wikipedians, have fun, and discuss potential projects.

The event is this Saturday, between 1pm-5pm at the Picnic Grove in Penn Park.

(To unsubscribe from future messages, remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list.)

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

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

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

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

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Technical work like template designing for the journal.
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

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

Diptanshu^Talk 13:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

Hi Alteripse, in a reply you made at Talk:Sex assignment#rewrite in bullet point 8, you talked about A F-S and some supposedly debunked statistics and research concoted by undergrads, and said you had references and quotes available. Can you please provide them? (At the talk page, not here, please.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gender of rearing 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/Gender of rearing 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.  Sandstein  14:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alteripse. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jesse Roth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barnes Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by IVORK were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs more than just the org's own website. WP:RS WP:NORG etc etc, you should get this with 8000+ edits.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Alteripse/Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Alteripse/Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— IVORK _Talk 00:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alteripse! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — IVORK Talk 00:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alteripse, thanks for your inquiry. My knowledge on Taiwanese railways is limited, but I can offer you some.

• I have one good book on Taiwanese railway: 台灣鐵路火車百科（1999年初版） ISBN 9579801584, authored by zh:蘇昭旭 in traditional Chinese. My copy is the 1999 first edition, but the latest is the third edition although I am not sure the third edition is compatible with the first edition. The book is a comprehensive encyclopedia of modern Taiwanese rolling stock.
• For the pre-1945 history, Japan's National Diet Library has a digital collection of materials: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/search/searchResult?searchWord=%E5%8F%B0%E6%B9%BE%E7%B7%8F%E7%9D%A3%E5%BA%9C%E9%89%84%E9%81%93&featureCode=all&filters=1%3A00&viewRestrictedList=0&__lang=en

Hope this helps.--Sushiya (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alteripse. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, User:Alteripse/Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alteripse. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alteripse. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]