Hello, Fuzbaby! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine! Welcome to WikiProject Medicine! I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities: Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess Have a look at some related WikiProjects Have a look at the collaboration dashboard If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or please feel free to ask for help on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Renaissancee (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that in June you were looking for a reference for a survey? policy? or something? from the AMA about MMR. I am an AMA member and have experience looking up policy from the organization. Can you tell me more about what you were looking for? Chicagolive (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fuzbaby, I don't know if it is your intention to start an edit war, but I believe it is not. The Nurse Anesthetist article has been vandalized many times by those who are disdainful of nurses administering anesthesia. It was enlarged and improved many times by experts in the field; with an eye towards not allowing bias to creep in from any side of the anesthesia debate. In fact some users created pages to address that aspect of anesthesia provision in the U.S. where that fruitless debate can be explored. So you can see that many of the contributors to this article might be prickly when they see any changes to it.

I fully understand how Wikipedia works, and that everyone is welcome to contribute. In light of that I don't contribute to topics I'm not an expert in, i.e. carpentry, particle physics, etc. In that way the community is improved by not allowing misinformation to be disseminated. If you have valid, verifiable, non-biased information to contribute to this article, by all means do so. I'll be the first to stand up and support your edits. I hope this might clear up any worries you might have about the intentions of those involved in the recent reverts to the article.

Aestiva (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reference to Fugazi, isn't it? I love those guys. The name is inspired. The Squicks (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzbaby: You seem to have a distainful attitude for other health care professionals as evidenced by your comments on the doctor title page and apparently elsewhere by the comments on this page. To call me unethical has crossed the line into a personal attack and libel. This is your final warning retract your statements and refrain from further pov edits and disrespectful language.DoctorDW (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your blatant attempt to insert information to "trick" your patients into thinking you are a physician is unethical by any standard, and violates the policy set forth by the American Physical Therapy Association, the American Medical Association, and the American College of Clinicians. Additionally, the practice of medicine and the use of the title physician (or trying to make someone think you are one through deception) is protected by law. If any provider without a medical degree who worked in my clinic behaved in a way to mislead their patients I would ensure they were terminated and reported to their governing board. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fuzbaby. You have new messages at Nableezy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nableezy (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, hope you dont mind, but fixed the issue with your talk page. If this is how you would rather it display by all means revert, Nableezy (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your numerous contributions to medical articles. Could I draw your attention to WP:MEDRS? This is a guideline which offers guidance on the suitability of particular sources when expanding medical articles. Some of your references (e.g. Emedicine) are not particularly good, and the guideline explains why. Also, please make a habit out of of using citation templates and populating them appropriately (e.g {{cite journal}}). Let me know if you need any assistance with this/ JFW | T@lk 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. I'm aware emedicine isn't the best source, however, it often summarizes other sources and allows us to avoid too much reliance in primary sources; mostly I use it when I find unsourced claims in medical articles and don't have a lot of time to track down things in pubmed, my feeling is that an ok source that can confirm something is better than no source at all. Occasionally, I insert the emedicine source and the primary source that they relied on. I feel that is preferable to tagging it with the ^{[citation needed]} tag. Fuzbaby (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

It may well be that we got off on the wrong foot. I was looking at all the general editing you do and clearly you are not some random attacker like many in the past have been. I would love to collaborate with you on the articles and bring them more up to date. I am sure we can meet somewhere in the middle on anything contentious.Mmackinnon (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I truely hope so, thank you for being willing to work with me. Best, Fuzbaby (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will be away for a couple of weeks but I am excited to tackle the whole thing and reference it better. Thanks againMmackinnon (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fuzbaby for your recent edits to neuroblastoma concerning the N-myc nomenclature. Isn't it ideal to use the most commonly used nomenclature to avoid confusion? For the past 20 years MYCN (rather than N-myc) has been consistently used in the medical literature on neuroblastoma (see pubmed). What do you think? Thanks for your thoughts. DMLud (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% set in the changes to N-myc, if there is a strong desire to change it to MYCN thats fine. However, N-myc is the term predominately used in the United States (can't speak to elsewhere), both in medicine and in science. Pubmed search of N-myc results in 1668 articles and 139 reviews, while MYCN only 896 and 78. Additionally, MYCN is simply a redirect page, the actual wikipedia page that it redirects readers to is N-myc, and I think wikipedia policy would favor consistency in that regard. Best Fuzbaby (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzbaby, can you please supply a quote from your source which supports this statement: "to this date there exists controversy regarding their level of involvement"? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reference I provided speaks to the minority view, which is mentioned in the article. Is there a reason you want to leave it out? None of the editors at the Iran/Contra page, section Arrow Air Flight 1285 have a problem with the reference (which I didn't insert), and has been there a long time and even more specific language than "controversy".

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, so let me ask again: Can you please supply a quote from your source which supports this statement: "to this date there exists controversy regarding their level of involvement"?

If it's not clear, I am asking for a quote from your source which supports the statement which you inserted into the article with your reference. Can you please supply a quote? Crum375 (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insist, I'll add a direct quote. IMO it'll be less neutral than a summary though.

You warned him about inappropriate use of talk pages. He made a similar edit at Talk:Football.GordyB (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to check up on his posts after a while. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working a lot on the blood type page, and on the page for osteogenesis imperfecta. I saw that you did a lot of work on blood types for the GA review and was wondering if you could peek at the oi page too? Its a good article but needs a lot of cleanup with references and formating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned on the nurse anesthesia talk page you were going to do some work on that page? I read through it and tried to make a few changes, which were promptly reverted. I don't really care that much about the topic so I'm not going to put the energy into what looks like an uphill battle. I am going to tag it though with coi tag as the whole thing is written by someone working for AANA. Good luck editing. ChillyMD (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely in the near future, there is a lot of pov creep into that article and I would have to really sit down and spend a few hours sorting it all out. I'll probably just remove some of the more obvious problems and insert some basic history of the field of anesthesia into the article, which it currently lacks. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzbaby - if your are going to tag the Nurse Anesthetist page with "citation needed" then please do the research and insert the appropriate references where you see fit. You also stated that many references were not valid, then do the research and insert the appropriate references. I also noted that you stated the references were from few sources. Perhaps if you explore this issue, you will find that the practice and history of nurse anesthesia is only available from a few authoritative publications. You also taged some introduction sentences in military service that are not intended to be referenced, as the information is explained in the paragraph. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipse Anesthesia (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies on verification of information and sourcing. I don't know if you are a sock for Eclipse Anesthesia or not, however, the page needs to be updated to conform to wikipedia policy so that it is no longer just an advertising page written by employees of the AANA. If you don't feel you need to abide by wikipedia's policies feel free to refrain from contributing to the encyclopedia. Fallacies like "oh that can't be referenced" or "only our lobbying organization is authoritative" have no place here. If you are not Eclipse or one of his many socks then I encourage you to help with rewriting the page to bring it up to wikipedia's standards; as it is I've already improved it and started a new page about the AANA so that we can address the multiple problems with the page. Fuzbaby (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock for Eclipse, employees of AANA, what the hell? I don't think there is a conspiracy here. I have read over the Nurse Anesthesia page, and it seems rather informative and unbiased. You obviously have an agenda against advanced practice nurses or CRNAs. You have much to criticize, but have little knowledge of nurse anesthesia practice. Please prove that anything stated on the page is untrue. All the authors of the page can do is reference with what literature is availabe on the internet or in publications. I guess you feel that any reference to the AANA is biased and unreliable. I don't know what your credentials are, but you seem to be an employee of the AMA trade organization doing their dirty work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipse Anesthesia (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I thought that was you. And you are right, no conspiracy; look up what a sock is. As for the AANA he (you) already admitted working for it. Feel free to read [[1]], [[2]], and [[3]] before posting comments again. Fuzbaby (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting enough, it looks like a large portion of the nurse anesthesia article is original research by User:Eclipse Anesthesia that he published himself and then copied over to wikipedia as an "outside source". This sort of thing is highly frowned upon, and of questionable ethics. See here:[[4]] and [[5]].Fuzbaby (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to give my comments on this discussion. You are right; much of the content of Nurse Anesthesia is from my web page. However, I wrote it, I can do what I want with it, including adding to Wikipedia. There are no "questionable ethics". If you really research the whole content in Wiki, you will find that much of it is cut and paste from various resources, usually from the WWW. Not a lot of original scholarly work. Before I started contributing to Nurse Anesthesia, it was poorly done and contained old information. With help from other CRNAs, I think we did a good job. The AANA is very concerned about misinformation, so they did provide statistics and appropriate references. BTW, I do not work for the AANA. Please understand, there are countless APN haters (MDs, AAs) out there that vandalize the page, and it seems to come in waves. As stated above, if you can find information on the page that is not statically or historically correct, please provide the evidence. I have a library of anesthesia history books to gather and reference content. You also questioned the citations and references and stated they did not match. Well, web links can change. However, at the time of the editing, trust me that the citation was appropriately drawn from the reference. As a doctoral student, I know who to do that. You also stated there was an ownership issue. Well, it was more of a protection issue against vandalism and politically motivated misinformation. By the looks of things, the new ownership belongs to you. When you are completely done editing the page to the way YOU want it, I will take a look. For now I too much school work to do. - Eclipse Anesthesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipse Anesthesia (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I do not appreciate you tagging comments above as unsigned by me (Eclipse Anesthesia). I believe I know who that is, however. Talk about unethical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipse Anesthesia (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to understand; unethical referred to your use of your own self published material here and then claiming it was an outside source instead of OR; either to promote your viewpoint here or to use wikipedia to give credence to your website. As for signing your name, I wouldn't have to if you logged in for your comments, but no worry, IP trace makes it easy to see its you. In any event, please read wikipedia's policies so that you can participate in a discussion on how to improve the page and know what I am talking about when I reference policies so that I don't have to waste my time explaining them to you over and over. While I understand many pages here on wikipedia are targets for vandalism, thats what page protection is for; its not an excuse for poorly written, poorly sourced pov pushing articles. Fuzbaby (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to understand that the IP trace or WHOIS will identify an ISP dynamic or static IP within a city or area. It does not magically identify the person sitting at the computer. I work in a large hospital, where a few dozen CRNAs share the same few CPUs. Most of them have been following your attack on the page. In addition, most CRNAs have the same ISP at home. I cannot account for their actions. If I talk to you, I will let you know. Good luck with the Nurse Anesthesia page.(Eclipse Anesthesia (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

WP:Duck WP:MeatFuzbaby (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've seen that you and User:Ohtx have been editing the Xinjiang page. How is User:Ohtx's edits vandalism? After proper warning (if his edits are vandalism), you can request for an Admin to ban User:Ohtx.

Thanks; I've warned him twice but he's deleted the warnings. I've already reported him and requested page to be semiprotected in light of the current events. If you look at his edit history he's been trying to add unsourced (at first) material stating that Uyghurs in Xinjiang are criminals, taliban, rapists, etc to try to disrupt the page. His last edit he added a old source from a news article that didn't support his claims to try to "hide" the vandalism.Fuzbaby (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I left a Caution on his page. Keep up the anti-vandal work! All I can suggest is that next time, maybe start with a level 1 vandalism template, as to assume Good Faith. Thanks. AHRtbA== ^Talk 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first message was lower level and I then left him a lvl 4 warning when I saw he had deleted it and kept vandalizing the page. Thanks for the help, and tips! :-) Fuzbaby (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It seems that the page is now protected. If you have any questions in the future, you can drop me a line. Thanks. AHRtbA== ^Talk 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohtx you warned on Xinjiang. I left him a warning for 3RR which I see he copied onto your page. I've fixed your page for you, feel free to revert if you prefer it back. Gtadoc (talk)

No problem. I just thought that there was an edit war. My edit was only a minor one anyway. :) Tajik (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Sorry again for missing it/deleting it. I'll look closer at the edit history and put it back in (if you already haven't). Fuzbaby (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, you removed the weasel-tag on Xinjiang/Continued tension. I was the one who inserted it, but gave my rationale in a short-comment rather than the talk-page (Didn't know that how it was supposed to be done). Here's why the tag is needed: it starts with a link main article: East Turkestan Independence Movement, and a few lines later bring up the East Turkestan Islamic Movement out of the blue. Readers can easily be lead to assume that they are the same. I think that qualifies as "weasel-ish." Seb az86556 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I'll see if I can't rewrite the paragraph a bit and remove things that are misleading or don't need to be there; if you don't think its fixed afterwards just copy your comment onto the article's talk page and put the tag back in. Fuzbaby (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for pointing me to the principle of "neutral point of view". I am a new user so not too familar about how to make sure exactly I comply with it. Could you provide some info/examples/links to help me better understand that? Or if you could use my case as an example to show how to modify the information so that it complies with the principles, that would be very helpful. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oooh75 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome then! I'm not on a lot right now, but I'll try to answer any questions you may have as quickly as I can; you can also ask about proposed additions to an article by posting on the article's talk page. Some examples of npov editing can be found here:[[6]]

Here is a copy from wikipedias npov policy that I hope can explain things: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. By value or opinion,[2] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.[1]

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity.

For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[3] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups. A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

Please don't hesitate to ask if you have more questions! Fuzbaby (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC) `[reply]

Thanks for proding (that's a verb, right?) Day-Light Bright Light Therapy System. Now I've learned to do it and prodded Learnia, as well. - Hordaland (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, glad I could help! Fuzbaby (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments regarding your recents edit of the cipro article.

A Clostridium difficile infection is the principal cause of ciprofloxacin-associated diarrhea and pseudomembranous colitis. In June 2007 the FDA changed the package insert for ciprofloxacin to include the warning that that Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea (CDAD) is associated with the use of ciprofloxacin. As such the validity of using of ciprofloxacin to treat infectious diarrhea would be called into question. Why would you use a drug that causes the very symptoms you are treating?

Ciprofloxacin was first patented in 1983 by Bayer A.G. and subsequently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1987. In 2003, sixteen years later, it is still referred to as a “drug of last resort” To wit: “This finding raises grave concerns that ciprofloxacin may not remain effective as a drug of last resort...” The Resistance Phenomenon in Microbes and Infectious Disease Vectors: Implications for Human Health and Strategies for Containment Stacey L. Knobler, Stanley M. Lemon, Marian Najafi, Tom Burroughs 2003 ISBN 0-309-08854-2

The other reference I had used also stated that ciprofloxacin often is used as an antibacterial agent of last resort and this was in 2006. Additionally Jim Hoover, for Bayer Corporation, states that “ciprofloxacin should only be used in patients who have failed at least one prior therapy. Reserved for the use in patients who are seriously ill and may soon require immediate hospitalization.” Alaska Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee March 19, 2004

I have no argument what so ever that indeed the prescribing of cipro is rampant and has been for over twenty years. But this does not change the fact that it is still considered to be a drug of last resort by prudent physicians. Whether it is employed by other physicians as one is a whole different kettle of fish. It most certainly is not as you had noted. As such what is the fair way to approach what is being stated within the literature and what is taking place clinically? As they are diametrically opposed to one another. Both positions cannot possibly be correct at the same time. So how do we determine which one is the correct one to be presented in the article?Davidtfull (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the role cipro plays in c dif infections; you are correct that it can cause said infection, but so can almost any other antibiotic. Its a rare side effect. Cipro is commonly given for travelors, sometimes even before travel, and its rates of complications for that indication is pretty low (in adults). Again, any antibiotic can cause c diff, but the two that are classically associated with it are clindamycin and ampicillin/amoxicillin. In the US at least, cipro is certainly not a drug of last resort, and while some may argue that it should be, that doesn't change the reality that it isn't. Our role as an encylopedia is not to advocate how some people believe a drug should be prescribed, even if they are correct. We can site them as a source, but we shouldn't leave out other information just because we disagree with it. Fuzbaby (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the assertion that c dif is a rare side effect of the fluoroquinolones, as well as that the rates of complications in travelers is pretty low as well. In particular the prophylactic use of cipro to treat travellers diarrhea. If something is not associated with the use of the drug, and therefore not reported as such, the numbers would be skewed. There is tremendous concern regarding c dif being caused by these drugs and I believe the current rate exceeds what is found with clindamycin and ampicillin/amoxicillin according to the latest liteature. But be that as it may. I had changed the text to present both points of view within the article.

I was not advocating one position over the other. Within the liteature, as well as a number other published sources, cipro and the fluoroquinolones are referred to as a drug of last resort, even today. Hence this was reflected in the article. The fact that cipro is widely used as a common antibiotic, with no thought given to it being reserved as a drug of last resort was also stated within the article. So what was left out of the article? Both positions were stated and it was up to the reader to note the discrepancies between what the medical community states for the record and actually does in clinical practice.

On a side note I cringe everytime someone refers to the side effects of this class as being rare. Rare or otherwise makes absolutely no difference to the person who actually experiences it. The rampant ignorance found within the medical community regarding the safety profile of this class is appalling. This is a reality as well. And as you stated: "...but we shouldn't leave out other information just because we disagree with it."

I direct you to the following article:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/2009.171v1

in regards to a patient who suffered recurrent Clostridium difficile infection secondary to his exposure to ciprofloxacin. Note within the responses not one physician recognized the contributing factor that continuing ciprofloxacin therapy was having. (Note that he was treated for urinary tract infections several times during the course of this illness with ciprofloxacin) Though it has been well documented that exposure to ciprofloxacin is a serious contributing factor to Clostridium difficile infections, not one word was mentioned regarding this within the article. As such if this is not even made note of during the case presentation what are the odds that such problems, should they occur as a result of prophylactic use of cipro to treat travellers diarrhea, be recognized either and attributed to such use?

A number of hospitals have put severe restrictions on the use of the fluoroquinolone class in regards to c dif infections being caused by their use. Hence this association is far more wide spread then 'rare' as you had stated. As such I do not believe that I "misunderstand the role cipro plays in c dif infections..." I believe this to be an error of ommission by the treating physician who fails to appreciate this proven association. Davidtfull (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to you tagging the statements of Jim Hoover as being dubious this is the exact text found within published minutes of the ALASKA MEDICAID PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS COMMITTEE MEETING (March 19, 2004)to wit:

Jim Hoover, regional manager for state government affairs for the Bayer Corporation for the five northwest states, discussed second and third generation quinolones. Bayer makes Ciprofloxacin, which has multiple generic equivalents coming out in June that will have very attractive prices. Normally the quinolone class of drugs is used in patients who have failed at least one prior therapy. The patients tend to be fairly ill and require relatively acute care that often may be the last step before they are admitted into the hospital. In the five northwest states he covers in the Medicaid arena, four of them have chosen not to limit these drugs, because they are acute care medications. By the time the physicians get to this classification, they tend to have a good idea of what bacteria is involved, what antibiotic is the most potent for the bacteria and which penetrates that particular body side the best. The relatively minor cost saving that may be achieved by going from one brand to another can be offset by the time the patient has to spend at the pharmacy waiting for the physician to either approve or override the preferred drug prescribed. These drugs are often the last step before admission into the hospital and the patient may end up in the emergency room if they have to wait for their medication. That would only have to happen a couple of times a semester to significantly offset any potential cost savings gained from going from one brand to another. He encouraged the committee to carefully consider the real benefits to limiting the quinolone classification verses the downsides to having the patient wind up in the hospital. Moxifloxacin (Avelox) is only indicated for respiratory tract infections and skin and skin structure. For the most part it is used in sinusitis infections, pneumonia and bronchitis. Bayer believes that appropriate promotion of these drugs, both for potential development of resistance and appropriate use guidelines, is very important. Bayer follows the Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines for community acquired pneumonia and promotes within the Otonlaragology Acute Sinusitis guidelines. Bayer recognizes appropriate step care therapy and promotes it products accordingly. http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dhcs/PDL/minutes_meetings_pdl/minutes_031904_pdl.pdf Davidtfull (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this shows my problem with the sourcing you've used. First, to make the claim that you do in the article, you need more than a reference in a committee meeting in Alaska, and certainly more than a passing mention about quinolones that doesn't single out cipro. I see that other sources in the article have a similar problem, as pointed out by other editors, they refere to quinolones in general but in the article are used to reference cipro in particular. Its clear that "drug of last resort" may apply to some quinolones, but it certainly is not how cipro is used (at least in the US, as I don't practice in any other country or know much about other standards). As it is, the only drug mentioned specifically in the reference is moxifloxicin. His argument seems to be for reclassification so that quinolones would be more, not less, available. So really there are two problems, one is the source doesn't support the statement for drug of last resort, and second even if it did that is not sufficient without other references (like FDA guides, pubmed articles, etc.) that back it up. Fuzbaby (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the reference in question was not used to support the argument that cipro is considered a drug of last resort (by some within the medical field). It was used to support the following statement made by Jim Hoover:

Normally the quinolone class of drugs is used in patients who have failed at least one prior therapy. The patients tend to be fairly ill and require relatively acute care that often may be the last step before they are admitted into the hospital.

Additionally if you had read the full reference you would find that cipro was mentioned at least eighteen times as well as dozens of other fluoroquinlone drugs. Since cipro is over two and a half decades old you are not going to find any recent articles that address cipro specifically. And what articles you do find are hopelessly out of date and have been refuted by more recent findings. As such you are kinda forced to use all inclusive references when you write about a drug that is over twenty five years old if you wish to keep the information relative. We had the same issues in regards to ofloxacin. Older drugs have outdated references for the most part. Just the nature of the beast.

And it was the reliance upon such older and outdate references that I believe that one had come to the conclusion that cipro was considered a drug of last resort. At one time this was obviously a true statement. That is until Bayer started promoting it shamelessly for chest and sinus infections to compete with levaquin. At that point being considered a drug of last resort went to hell in a hand basket. Now it is handed out like halloween candy with no regard to reserving it for life threatening infections. In one hospital it is referred to as "Vitamin C" as every patient gets a dose daily whether they need it or not. As such I have no objections to you deleting any reference to cipro being a drug of last resort. We will just make mention of the fact that those in a position to set policy have failed to get this memo is all, as they continue to think that it is still being reserved.

But having gone generic you will see yet another huge increase in its use, but generics will be your only choice in the very near future. I am willing to bet that Bayer will soon be pulling the plug on cipro, in the same manner as J and J has just pulled the plug on floxacin. Avelox will be Bayer's replacement work horse and cipro will fall out of favor. Particulary when the defective product lawsuits involving cipro become too expensive to ignore. But then again Avelox will be facing the same legal liability issues and has already been restricted so maybe Bayer will just pull both drugs and cut it's losses. Just like the manufacturer of Tequin did recently. Actually more than half of the manufacturers of the drugs found within this class have done exactly that over the years, come to think of it.Davidtfull (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a confusion between NPOV and having the AMA entry edited to conform with the AMAs view of itself. These are not the same. However the appropriate place for this discussioon is the AMA discussion page - where I will raise it.--Wickifrank (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to see what you mean, pointed out if you could please; mostly my interest in the article is keeping out the more wacky povs out there that are just interested in putting in unreferenced material that wouldn't be added to any other organizations wikipages. Some of the material that gets added to the article is so outlandish I almost wonder if its serious or just someone trolling.Fuzbaby (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, now I see your edits. You may well believe what you write, but if its 1) not relevant to the article or 2) not sourced then its likely to be removed. None of that has anything to do with npov.Fuzbaby (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fuzbaby, the user RoyDickson who was causing trouble with Alaska pilots articles has left a message (a full week after the discussion ended) at Talk:History_of_aviation_in_Alaska#Long_list_of_pilots. If you could comment there it would be helpful. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding former air carriers inquiry - There were approximately 90 air carriers that operated in Alaska in the 1920-1940 period. Some of them went out of business when their founder died in a crash, some sold or merged with other carriers, and some were just one man, one plane services that went out of business. The air services started in Fairbanks, then grew in Anchorage, while quite a number started in southeastern Alaska. There were about 16 that through mergers and acquisitions became part of Alaska Airlines. The other survivor was Woodley Airways which became Pacific Northern Airlines which merged with Western Airlines which was acquired by Delta Airlines. Some that did not survive were important carriers such as the Reeve family of air services and the Wien family of air services. So, there is a lot of interesting history in Alaska Aviation and its participants. Old33 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Old33 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, I'll watch with interest your additions. Its certainly a fascinating history.Fuzbaby (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I've rewritten an article for MyCeliacID, a saliva genetics test. The previous 2 articles that I've posted have been deleted, so I'm seeking help from more seasoned Wikipedia editors. Would you be able to give me some feedback on the work I've done so far? The article is currently posted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EGOeditor/MyCeliacID.

Any help would be very much appreciated.

Thanks. --EGOeditor (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks. Having taught at a university for several years, I know that sometimes its just important to sound right. That particular article has so much wrong with it I finally broke down and said it though! Fuzbaby (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your wholesale revert of edits to this article borders on vandalism. If you have an issue discuss onthe article talk page.DoctorDW (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by that you mean reverting your edits where you slanted an entire article, then thank you, and I'd happily do it to any othe articles you try to wreck. I see you failed to take the advice on reading wikipedia's rules and policies before returning to editing. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You stated, "While the MD is necessary and sufficient to practice medicine, the PhD is sufficient but not necessary to recieve NIH funding and a university position to undertake research." There are related comments being exchanged on the Juris Doctor discussion page that you might be interested in. There two POV-pushing editors have been insisting for the past three years that since the J.D. is a prerequisite for a PhD or JSD in law, the JD is not a "true" doctorate. Your contributions to a balance of sanity on that cite will be appreciated. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

---

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

• WHO's list of Essential Medicines[7]
• Neglected tropical diseases[8]
• Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

---

IEG grant

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

• Swedish
  Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
  Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
• Dutch
  Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
• Polish
  Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
  (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
• Arabic
  The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [9]

News in short

---

To come

• Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
• Proofreading drives

Further reading

• Translators Without Borders
• Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!