User talk:Badgettrg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Badgettrg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

  • Good to see someone of the gastrointestinal persuasion around! -- Samir धर्म 06:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Medical references

  • Hi Badgettrg, I use the cite journal template. There's a neat tool that helps out: [1]. For example to cite PMID 8594428, I would go to the tool, which will create a script in cite journal format {{cite journal | author = Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, Andreola S, Pulvirenti A, Bozzetti F, Montalto F, Ammatuna M, Morabito A, Gennari L | title = Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. | journal = N Engl J Med | volume = 334 | issue = 11 | pages = 693-9 | year = 1996 | id = PMID 8594428}}
  • You can then reference it using <ref name=Mazzaferro> {{cite journal...}} </ref> , where Mazzafero is the first author.
  • Here's an example: The Milan criteria for liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma suggest that one HCC less than 5 cm or three less than 3 cm have increased survival with transplantation.[1]

[edit] References

  1. ^ Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, Andreola S, Pulvirenti A, Bozzetti F, Montalto F, Ammatuna M, Morabito A, Gennari L (1996). "Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis.". N Engl J Med 334 (11): 693-9. PMID 8594428. 

[edit] IBS

Good job with the article. IBS was the one GI article I didn't want to touch. I've removed the 5 points of stress management but per the WP:MOS, pathophysiology and epi should be separate (but not overlap each other). -- Samir धर्म 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back pain

Excellent work on the Back pain article! -- Fyslee 09:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (Physical therapist)

[edit] Flu

Flu
H5N1

Thanks for helping with the flu article. Care to help with H5N1? I'm adding the flu and H5N1 navigation templates here in the hopes that you will be inspired to read them and someday maybe add a line or two. Again, thanks. WAS 4.250 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stats and stuff

You`re the man! Andycjp Advent 2006

[edit] Clinical dx/rx

Does "clinical dx/rx" include the data in the WHO report Epidemiology of WHO-confirmed human cases of avian influenza A(H5N1) infection that should be included in Transmission and infection of H5N1 (but isn't because no one with an adequate background has volunteered)? Three Indonesian Clusters of H5N1 Virus Infection in 2005 contains data published after that which is relevant. The only other such study I'm aware of is one I thought poorly done on the cases in Turkey. WAS 4.250 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page

It would be good if you wrote a little about yourself on your user page. It is not a home page, but it belongs to the wiki as general information. Perhaps, take an interest in the layout of others' users pages before starting your own. Snowman 23:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary care physician

Nice section for the PCP article. Good work! - Ryanjo 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleting a page you have authored

In order to delete User:Badgettrg/test, add "{{db-author}}" at the top of the page; administrator will come along and delete it. John Vandenberg 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi there, thanks for your work on pneumonia. Could you please provide the full academic references for the papers that you referenced to. PMID codes in isolation are generally not sufficient (as they do not contain the year, name of journal, and authors). Cheers. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physician's perspective addition

The section is great, it will make a welcome addition to the article. Just place it wherever you feel it fits best in the medicine section. One small note, section titles on Wikipedia aren't capitalized (like article names), so please change it to 'The physician's perspective' or something similar. If you can add anything more to the article feel free to continue contributing, there's a section on the talk page with some suggestions on what needs to be covered, including several medical aspects. Just drop me a line if you need any help. I'm really just trying to keep the article free of vandalism and improve it's coverage, so I obviously know far less about the subject than yourself, but if I'm happy to help in any way I can. Thanks again for your work. Richard001 00:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LEARN diet

Hi! You've re-added previously deleted information on the LEARN diet. The article will likely keep getting deleted unless you can make clear why the topic is important, and unless you supply reliable sources that we can verify the information from. Good luck, and let me know if you have questions. -- William Pietri 02:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Please see proposed version at User:Badgettrg/LEARN_diet and its discussion at User_talk:Badgettrg/LEARN_diet. I have asked the administrator to restore or {{delrev}}. The first speedy delete was by a non-admin (I think) whose username escapes me. How do I find out if they are an admin - if they are not an admin they need feedback about process. The second delete was an admin - although I disagree with their interpretation of criteria for speedy deletion. By their criteria, I have seen many pages to delete. The LEARN diet]] page is useful for readers of the recent JAMA RCT at Obesity: Low carbohydrate versus low fat. Without the LEARN diet page, the reader is stuck wondering, 'what is the LEARN diet?'. Do we want the user to have to Google LEARN diet? I was only able to figure out what it was by following its reference out of the JAMA study.Badgettrg 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

All deletion is done by admins, so no worry there. If you see a page meriting speedy deletion, please tag it. We'd love to have an article on something where the information can be verified in reliable sources. Otherwise, Googling the topic is what people probably should do. So I'd encourage you to keep the article in your user space until you've found those sources and encorporated them. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 03:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

It's about time you had a barnstar. Axl 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The E=mc² Barnstar
Badgettrg, for numerous contributions to medical articles. Axl 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your input

Hello, please stop by Talk:Migraine if you can. We are discussing the classification of migraine as a disease or a disorder. Thank you, Postoak 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of reference management software

I wanted to thank you for your contributions to Comparison of reference management software, but note that I reverted them. The heading for "import" says:

This table lists the file formats which may be manually imported into the reference managers. This is in contrast to database connectivity, which is listed below.

RefWorks and Zotero can import from the PubMed database & are listed as such in the database connectivity section. They cannot import stand-alone PubMed-formatted files or PubMed files from any site other than PubMed. I provided commentary about this issue on the Talk page for the article & that is why there is descriptive text before those two tables. If you think that text should be clarified, please feel free to improve it! If you think that there shouldn't be a distinction between manual import and database connectivity, please bring it up on the talk page.

Further: the links you put in "Word processor integration" talked about MS Word integration, which is why they were marked as "yes" in the very first column of that table. Thanks again! --Karnesky 16:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waterfalls

Was curious as to why the addition of coordinates to Triple Falls (DuPont State Forest), Upper Whitewater Falls, Bridal Veil Falls (DuPont State Forest). The Waterfall template already includes the information you've posted. Were you correcting the posted information? 5minutes 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are some subdivisions near DuPont State Forest. Part of the big problem facing mountain counties: the growing debate between protecting natural resources and gaining the tax dollars that come from homes built in subdivisions (and priced / valued to the moon). Either way - thanks for your contribs. I'm not sure if the inclusion in the infobox is enough to get the falls on Google Earth, so rock on as far as I'm concerned. There's at least one other NC Waterfaller out there posting articles (WNCOutdoors), who's done quite a bit to get things started. 5minutes 12:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style note

Hi. I noticed that you linked every occurrence of "Non-Euclidean geometry" on the Euclidean geometry page. Well, that should not be so. Only one or a few instances should be linked. Overlinking is generally considered not good. Thanks. You can reply here. 15:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was a frustrated user after spending time on that page not realizing the other page was lurking. I suspect I overdid it. Feel free to remove, but please leave some. The page previously just had two links that were buried in random paragraphs. I am not aware of a specific policy on density of links, but I do not mind a heavy dose - for example, first mention per paragraph of an important concept that is covered in a related page. Badgettrg 18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Buddy, you're doing sterling work on many pages. I only recently noticed your major contributions to obesity. Please keep it up, and drop by WP:CLINMED to join in the discussions.

A quick note on edit summaries. I would strongly recommend you offer a bit more information on the nature of your edits. This makes it much easier for other editors to understand what you are trying to do.

I've recently done some work on pseudoxanthoma elasticum. Would you mind proofreading it for me? JFW | T@lk 10:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your additions to warfarin. Good work. Please do remember to add edit summaries. It makes it much easier to keep track of the development of articles. Also, I would think summaries of guidelines belong in the references section much like reference itself does - or do you disagree? JFW | T@lk 22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fun with Alcoholism Treatment

Hi, Badgettrg. Thanks for joining us on the Alcoholism page. You obviously have significant knowledge in this field, and your contributions are appreciated, but you've expanded the article in ways that we've previously trimmed it back because of length considerations. At one point we were working towards having an encyclopedic description of all of the drugs that are used for detoxification, but we decided that (a) they made an already too long article considerably longer, (b) this information is tangential to alcoholism in general, and (c) that particular type of information significantly exceeded the scope of knowledge for your typical reader, and would result in them not reading the article. In summary, the Alcoholism article is not a good place for us to give detailed information on how to detoxify an alcoholic.

Please hop onto the discussion page and chat us up about the topic. It's always good to have more informed voices with the more complex issues. In the mean time, I'm going to have to give it a good look-over and remove a bunch of what you contributed. - Robert Rapplean 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I had the same concerns about the level of details of my edits for that page. Rather than deleting the new content; how about we move it to a Alcohol detoxification stub and link to the new article from Alcoholism?Badgettrg 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I had the same thought. Done! Thanks again. I'll encourage the detox enthusiasts on our page to go contribute to that one. - Robert Rapplean 17:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since part of the goal is to trim down the long alcoholism page, I removed a bit more of the detox content on the alcoholism page and also put in a main tag. Feel free to change if it is not in the direction the alcoholism page needs to go.Badgettrg 20:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gray1217-Castells Point-b.png

Hi there! Just thought you'd like to know I've deleted Image:Gray1217-Castells Point.png. As for derivative works of Gray's plates, you may simply tag them with {{Gray's Anatomy plate}}, note in the summary you edited it yourself, and add the copyright license of your liking. I recommend {{PD-self}}, and have taken the liberty of tagging Image:Gray1217-Castells Point-b.png with it; I hope you don't mind.

Keep up the excellent work, and if I can be of any assistance, please let me know :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very muchBadgettrg 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teaching doctors to Wiki

I was impressed to see this. You've done some interesting work in clinical informatics too. I've often wondered how we can teach doctors to engage more with Wikipedia. Any bright ideas? JFW | T@lk 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you are a physician: are you in practice or academics?
  • Regarding licensed doctors, we need to 1) find a way to make wiki edits easier. You and I take editing for granted, but I think technical tasks like linking references to PubMed will frustrate many clinically excellent docs whose edits we want yet they do not have the time to learn the technicalities of editing. I think we need to promote facilitating edits such as described in the discussion you participated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Let.27s_make_linking_to_PubMed_easier. 2) we need to find a way to give fair CME for good edits.
  • Regarding medical students, I do have an idea that I recently implemented, and enthusiastic about, and am writing up for publication.
  • Lastly, I have fundamental concerns with WikiPedia allowing edits from unregistered users. At the moment I have not to waste too much time in edit conflicts with unsupported/fringe opinions; but I am sure it will happen due to the many financial conflicts of interest in medicine. I am still debating whether to fully switch over to Citizendium. I would do so, but WP is so far ahead with nice templates and even PDA access through http://pda.en.wapedia.mobi/. Do you have insight as to whether Wikipedia will stop allowing unregistered edits? Badgettrg 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a clinician in specialist training. I totally agree that the present system of sourcing is annoying, but it's the best we can do. I also support your worries about unregistered and fringe editors, but the Wikipedia community has decided to tolerate these; it would be a complete waste if you switched to Citizendium. If you having trouble with these editors, simply ask WP:CLINMED for backup; we can usually help.

Why did you undo my edit to warfarin? I gave some reasons in my edit summary. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyme disease

Are you able to join the discussion on Talk:Lyme_disease regarding the length of the article?

I also noticed your edits on the Symptoms section, usefully removing some content to a different article; I added a very brief summary in situ. Neparis 22:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was low on time so quit after the move when I should have done a summary as you did. I have to pass on joining the discussion. Badgettrg 03:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exenatide

All of the information that you added to Exenatide was already in the article. Since there is no need for redundancy, I removed it. If you wish to add the same section, please remove the redundant material first. Thank you. Ward3001 20:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I was trying to avoid stepping on the toes of whoever added that content to antidiabetic drugs. It was pretty sparse anyway. Did you see the external link to dailymed I added at the end?Badgettrg
Do you mean the external link to Daily Med? The info appears mostly, if not completely, identical to the PI. Ward3001 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physical examination

Hi Bob, I noticed from your publications and faculty page that you have an interest in physical examination. Many articles presently lack useful resources in this regard, and I am personally quite fascinated by interobserver variability in the identification and interpretation of clinical signs. The JAMA articles ("does this patient have clubbing" etc etc) on the Rational Clinical Examination fill an important void, IMHO. Apart from the textbooks (e.g. Barbara Bates), are you aware of any journals dedicated to the issue? JFW | T@lk 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were more, but it seems to me that physical diagnosis research is getting sparser. The Journal of General Internal Medicine might be friendly to physical diagnosis research.Badgettrg 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atrial fibrillation

Hey, just must have noticed that I've been copyediting atrial fibrillation a little bit. I was about to include the studies from last week's BMJ when I noticed you'd already done that. Great.

It seems most of the article is referenced now, and we may reach the stage where we can push for peer review. Do you think any further improvements are needed? If so, is there anything I can do to help? With a bit of luck, it could even reach featured article status. Some more images might be needed.

Interested? JFW | T@lk 22:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you removed the section "Diagnosis: Routine office evaluation". I am not sure if on purpose of not as you were moving a lot of text around. I put it back in, let me know if you think it should be someone else. We had a patient in the hospital who seems to have had their a-fib missed a routine visit, so this article had an interesting, relevant observation.
To me, most all articles, including this one could still be improved, but ok with me to proceed. I do not know about peer review and unfortunately will not have time to contribute but will watch.Badgettrg 22:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Now this information appears twice: under "Routine office evaluation" and further down under "Screening". Surely, once is enough? Cheers, Doctormatt 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Well, check atrial fibrillation again and see what you think. I split the content over the two locations - hopefully without redundancy.Badgettrg 05:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to avoid the use of the term "office" evaluation, because in the UK this term is not used for general practice (the word "surgery" is used instead). The peer review process takes place at Wikipedia:Peer review. It is a crucial step in the improvement of high-quality articles, and I would strongly recommend you familiarise yourself with the process. JFW | T@lk 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How about 'Primary care appointment' or 'Primary care visit? Unfortunately, in the U.S., 'consultation' implies a subspecialty visit. I am having difficulty thinking a good term. Do you have otehr ideas?
I will look at Wikipedia:Peer review.
Have you seen http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/cross/? I would like to see WP think in this direction.Badgettrg 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the proposal of "relative evidence weight" very interesting, and even technically feasible. Mr Cross seems a sensible bloke. Is he editing Wikipedia by any chance?

Obviously, what Wikipedia needs most is experts in the relevant fields wielding their knowledge of the literature and removing mindless cruft and House M.D. trivia in favour of material that makes sense to the layman. My personal ideal is to shorten the gap between the patient/carers and the evidence. That would mean that someone just diagnosed with COPD will be able to see fairly easily on the basis of what evidence she has been prescribed tiotropium and a LABA.

Have you heard about WP:MCOTW (medical collaboration of the week). We are working on meningitis. Your help would be appreciated! JFW | T@lk 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that unless WP starts disallowing anonymous edits, we are heading for major conflict of interest in medical pages as authors start seeing the power of WP. I searched Pfizer at http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ and was relieved not to find any white-washing on first glance. I suspect most of the vandalism will come from small outfits and not the big companies with reputations at stake.
I am guessing that Cross is an editor for WP, but I do not know. WP:MCOTW sounds interesting, but I doubt I will be able to help. Day job spills into night job for me.Badgettrg 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic Journals project

Hi, a new project has started up to focus on journals and journal articles. Please consider joining in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, as we could use your experience and we will be promoting encyclopedic topics like /Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (PMID: 7580661) and /annals. John Vandenberg 23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting project. I added some suggestions to Template_talk:Infobox_Journal. When I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, I did not get the impression the project would promote synoptic types of articles such as /Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (PMID: 7580661).Badgettrg 22:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Warfarin. Thank you. --Slashme 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry.Badgettrg 06:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neuropathic pain

Very nice cleanup. Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz 16:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indents and lists

Hi, just a quick heads-up about obesity. I'm not sure whether it's a great idea to provide information in the form of lists. Similarly, I'm not quite sure about the need to provide verbatim conclusions from studies in an indented fashion. Is there no way this information can be presented in prose without formatting? JFW | T@lk 21:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Badgettrg 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The first study is about medical students. I'm not sure if they can be generalised to the general readership; there are also differences between medical textbooks and an encyclopedia... I agree misquotation is a big problem (BMJ 2005 traced an error in the pathology of dermatomyositis through its misquotations in the literature), but are you convinced that verbatim citations are the right answer to this phenomenon? JFW | T@lk 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MCOTW

 Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Ascending cholangitis was selected.
Hope you can help…

JFW | T@lk 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LEARN diet

Hey Bob - hope all's well. Would you mind writing a stublet on the LEARN diet (presently a red link from obesity). Alternatively, if you throw me a reliable source I could do it as well.

Will we have your help on diabetes mellitus? I think we need to include the most pivotal trials, and split off the less relevant stuff into sub-articles. JFW | T@lk 11:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a trivial edit; every time I look at diabetes mellitus, I end up editing diabetes mellitus type 2. Happened again this time.Badgettrg 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstarification

To Bob Badgett a Barnstar of the Tireless Contributor for his continuous improvements to vital medical articles. JFW 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
To Bob Badgett a Barnstar of the Tireless Contributor for his continuous improvements to vital medical articles. JFW 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LEARN diet

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of LEARN diet, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:Badgettrg/LEARN diet. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for recreating that. I only noticed now that it was previously deleted. If this has been the subject of clinical trials and meta-analyses it is obviously not an advertisement etc. I will defend the content if necessary. If someone tags it as a speedy again, just add {{hangon}}. The CorenSearchBot action was undone by another contributor, so no need to worry about that. JFW | T@lk 17:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re User:Badgettrg/annals

Hi -- I note that you are preparing a version of Annals of Internal Medicine at User:Badgettrg/annals. Could you please remove the categories and stub tag from the draft article, as at the moment the draft page shows up inappropriately under Category:Medical journals & Category:Scientific journal stubs. Thanks, Espresso Addict 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

DoneBadgettrg 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The wrong way to move ‎Preventable medical errors to ‎Preventable medical error

If you wanted to move [[]] to [[]], ther is a move button at the top of the screen. Doing a cut-and-paste is wrong, since the original edit history has to move with the page in order to maintain the legally-required GFDL contributions history. Please read Help:Moving a page for the details.

I'm going to follow the request-and-fix procedure at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. -- ArglebargleIV 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it easier to revert my change, then to a proper move?Badgettrg 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that once the destination file is created, it takes an administrator to fix it -- non-admins can't do a page move over an existing file. Once the process the tag I dropped on ‎Preventable medical error, they'll fix it up, though. -- ArglebargleIV 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done – no worries. — madman bum and angel 20:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Badgettrg 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Migraine

Looking at the edit history of migraine, I'm not sure if semi-protection of the article would have any benefits. Semiprotection will only stop anonymous editors (who are in the minority) and those who have recently registered. It will not stop long-term editors with a weird perspective. I see you've started work on the article; I don't treat migraine frequently so I won't be able to help much, but we definitely need to mention recent associations with stroke risk. JFW | T@lk 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to better understand the connection with stroke and vasospasm in other location. Although the treatment section of this article is bothersome, someone has done some very nice work in other locations. For example, I did not know about the NEJM study suggesting an association with PFOs. Agree that protection may not help; I wish that WP would require registration and make the authorship of odd edits easier to identify. I thought for sure some of the triptan edits would prove to be anonymous edits from Glaxo, but http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ did not reveal that to be true.Badgettrg 17:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)


[edit] New article userfy

Hey there. I moved your new article to your userspace; User:Badgettrg/Malignant hypertensionTemp. When you have enough content to warrant an article, feel free to re-release it. Thanks! Tan | 39 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob, could you clarify why you created that page? The edit summary indicates that there might be a copyright problem. If that is so, could you inform me which sections are copyvios, so I can rewrite them? JFW | T@lk 21:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I created that page in error while helping a student working on malignant hyperthermia. Someone else tagged malignant hypertension as a possible copyright problem. - 16:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, Bob, are you behind the influx of several new contributors all gradually updating the MH page after months of inactivity? If your students work hard this can be a WP:GA. Do you have access to some good images (e.g. a vial of dantrolene in its interesting suspension)? JFW | T@lk 11:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)