User talk:Topnife

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Topnife, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! -- WS 22:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. really nice to see another doctor around here, be sure to also have a look at WP:CLINMED and WP:MCOTW and I hope you don't mind I added your userpage to Category:Physician Wikipedians. --WS 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you marked Image:Gastric Bypass, Roux en-Y.jpg as being a creative commons license image, but you also said on the image's page that it was used by permission. This caused me to put the "permission" tag on it, which means it will be deleted soon unless you can document that the image was actually released under a CC license, and not a "Wikipedia has my permission to use this image" license. The latter is not allowed; we only use images here that have been released under the GFDL, have fallen into the public domain for one reason or another, or have a legitimate fair use argument. Thanks - Tempshill 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, the license tags page is not a friendly page. From your description, it sounds like the "Attribution" template may be what you want. I'll go switch it to that. If they truly want to allow that usage - that is, that it can be used for any purpose as long as it's attributed, then that's great and is certainly usable. Note this includes commercial usage! They may not be OK with that! Please don't get a statement from them that Wikipedia has permission to use this image - such images are forbidden.

The reason for the folderol is that our content is supposed to be licensed under the GFDL or a similar "free-as-in-freedom" license. Numerous "fair use" exceptions exist, but they are troublesome to some of Wikipedia's "downstream" users that may live in countries that don't have the same fair-use legal situation that American websites do, for example. Other downstream users may sell Wikipedia content commercially in some way, which is legitimate as long as they follow the GFDL license - but this legitimate use of the content gets tangled up and difficult when our content includes pictures with licenses like "permission" or fair-use photos.

Thanks and be sure to leave any questions on my talk page - Tempshill 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to answer your other question, if a statement from the author of a picture is given to you that confirms the licensing, then you (at present) can just paste the statement into the image's "licensing" section. This is not at all secure or verifiable, but it seems to be the policy here. Tempshill 05:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese American Internment[edit]

Hi--I just got round to your comments on the talk page, and I really do appreciate your last attempt. You've made a number of points more dispassionately than a number of others who attempted same, particularly re: the MAGIC decrypts. There is a reference to MAGIC in "Support then and now", which was placed there two years ago by a user who wasn't as clear and objective as to their contents. Especially since MAGIC keeps coming up, the article needs to deal with it. I'll keep your comments in mind. --ishu 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again. I'd like to ask you to consider contributing to the article in the near future. For a number of reasons, I think the time may soon be right for you to make some helpful input to the article and discussions. Briefly, there is attention from a number of other editors, which is feeding a growing acknowledgement of POV and citation issues in the current article.

The attention comes from a series of administrator actions generated by one editor. This editor has more knowledge about the topic than you state you have, and has raised a number of similar issues. This editor has also highlighted several factual misstatements. However, while this editor has been very persistent, he/she also has been very disrespectful of the process, which has resulted in several disciplinary actions against the editor (warranted in my view), including a Request for Comment (RfC).

I'm asking you to consider editing for several reasons. First of all, you are more skeptical of the article as presented than I am (and/or less familiar). As a result, you read it more critically and with more challenges to basic assumptions. Second, you have already brought a set of good questions and perspectives to the discussion. Third, you approach the article and other editors with good faith to an extent I have not seen from skeptics in the past.

I have reviewed some of your challenges and those of this other editor. Fundamentally, there are factual errors that have been propagated throughout much of the existing references on this topic, and some of these are present in the article. Having said that, let's say for example we have 100 references, 85 of which contain at least one factual error (often times, it is the same error). I hope you agree with me that each of those 85 references may actually have at least one useful fact to contribute. This other editor does not agree on this point.

Once the RfC is resolved, I'm considering nominating Japanese American internment for the article improvement drive. If and when I do, I hope that you will support the nomination and editing process.

I'd like to add that the whole RfC process makes me realize I owe you an apology for failing to intervene in your discussions with GMatsuda. He stepped over the line in a number of ways, and that's not OK, and not just because you gave up on the article. It's clear to me that GMatsuda committed many of the same acts as this other editor. I admit that my take on the topic is more in line with GMatsuda's, and this is almost certainly why I let it go. I can only offer you an apology and pledge to do better next time. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and maybe we could have had a better article and discussion if I'd set more boundaries.

You are free to decide what to do. Whether or not it matters to you, I will not think less of you if you decide against contributing to the article. Regards, and happy editing, ishu 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bariatrics[edit]

Bariatrics: Wow, we actually have a bariatric surgeon editor! Care to weigh in on this article with me?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 09:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MED[edit]

Hi,

the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastric bypass surgery[edit]

I agree, it's not terribly US-centric. I'll remove the {{globalize}}. --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes you might like to use[edit]

This user is a physician.

This user is a surgeon.

MD	This user has a Doctor of Medicine degree.

--DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 01:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandlism done by 207.193.126.66[edit]

207.193.126.66 has been blocked from wikipedia, it is not a permanent block, because it is a school IP adress, it is a 6 month block. I hope there is less vandlism now. --Drestros power 14:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Drestros power[reply]

Henrys[edit]

Hey man, i'm going to rewrite the Richard I of England article and i noticed your comments on name confusion. Very good point and thanks for the heads up, it is the most awkward area of 1173-1189, darn confusing. Hopefully my version will be less baffling! --Tefalstar 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Henry II was King because of his Mother's claim. His son would have been Henry III and was crowned, but because his Father outlived him, the young Henry was never regent in his own right. That's why we know him as The Young King over here. So when the next Henry came along in the family some years later, he was called Henry III, because he ruled England alone, in his own right. Hope that's clearer! :)

Hello[edit]

According to your userpage, you're a doctor. People who are not doctors do not know medical terms and comorbidities was not wikified before so it should be. William Ortiz 04:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe that the term is explicitly defined, particularly with respect to morbid obesity, in the paragraph immediately following, where it is also the title of the paragraph. It is also hyperlinked there to the definition. Topnife 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I changed the link to that section, but the article is still kinda confusing to the layman. William Ortiz 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roux-en-Y anastomsis image[edit]

Hi Topnife,

I have a question for you about an image you upload:

1A. Is the Roux-en-Y image anatomically correct or does it show a variant?

Most of the Roux-en-Y images on the www show the proximal portion of the anastomosis pointing toward the drainage side of the distal portion, i.e. the proximal limb of the anastomosis makes an acute angle, as is typical in anastomoses done in vascular surgery (compare [1], [2] with [3])

1B. If it is a variant, is the reversal of the "Y" (e.g. [4] (reversed) vs. [5] (non-reversed)) to decrease gastric emptying?

I disambig'ed Roux-en-Y and wrote an article about the Roux-en-Y anastomosis. Feel free to leave your mark there-- I'm sure there is room for improvement.

Take Care,

Nephron T|C 03:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image shown is my particular version of the Roux en-Y gastroenterostomy (drawn by a medical artist from Ethicon Endosurgery, to my specs). It can be connected end-on, or side-to-side. My specific technique involves use of a circular stapler, inserted through the upper end of the Roux limb, and connected to the posterior wall of the gastric pouch (the anvil is actually passed through the oropharynx using a pull-wire inserted with the PEG technique). After the circular gastroenterostomy is constructed between the stomach and the side of the bowel, the end of the bowel is closed transversely with a linear stapler.

Most laparoscopic surgeons use a side-to-side type of connection for the gastroenterostomy. Some use a linear stapler, others create a completely hand-sewn anastomosis.

Topnife (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I wasn't very clear. Instead of twisting myself into a knot... I figured I'd just modify the picture to illustrate my point. (Apologies for mangling the nice drawing. Ignore the modification to the duodenum-- focus on the distal anastomosis.)

Compare the following:

Does the meeting angle matter?

Nephron T|C 06:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably no consequence of the orientation of the two limbs of bowel at the distal Y. The drawings are relatively schematic, but the orientation shown in my drawing is the way I lined it up before making the connection, for technical reasons related to the insertion of the linear stapler into the bowel laparoscopically. However, the insertion of the pancreato-duodenal limb, while anatomically side-to-side, is functionally end-to-side, and is isoperistaltic.

Topnife (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose a note could be added to the article to clarify... just as one could clarify that the transverse colon is removed to show the distal anastomosis. :) Nephron T|C 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad my clarification helped your technical understanding, but remember that your background internal medical database is huge. Regarding your suggestion: Wikipedia is for general knowledge, and is not a technical treatise. I think that an attempt to explain the concepts we have discussed, and to elucidate the surgical anatomy and physiology, would probably introduce more confusion than clarity, for the general reader.

Topnife (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force[edit]

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- Addbot (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Med[edit]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

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} 20:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch[edit]

I've been researching the culture of Arabia/Islam for several years. I recently conceived a question about the practice of creating Eunuchs (based upon my surgical background). I found that the article is actually less informative than what I have already learned, particularly with respect to the nature of Eunuchs. There were actually two degrees of Eunuchism, the one mentioned in the article as "castration", meaning the removal of the testicles and scrotum. This was the lesser form practiced, but the one not mentioned, for the Eunuchs used to guard harems, for example, was the more extreme form, where the penis, testicles and scrotum were all removed, a small tube of bamboo (mentioned in the article without purpose) being inserted into the urethra, around which a scar would form, providing an outlet for urine. Such a eunuch would squat to urinate, and would obviously be no threat to the master of the harem, with regard to unwanted sexual activity, having no penis (although not ruling out pleasurable sexual stimulation of the female inmates). I also note in passing, that Eunuchism is treated with reference to many societies, from several Chinese dynasties, thru Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and Burma, while no mention of the Muslim dynasties other than the later Ottoman is included, despite these being the source of hundreds of thousands of Eunuchs from the earliest centuries of the Islamic slave trade, which was the dominant source of black slaves imported from both East and West Africa, for several centuries (before the Atlantic Slave Trade even existed). Why is that? I learned very little from this page.

Topnife

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate[edit]

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. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

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.
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 15:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

Impressive page, impressive person![edit]

Just wanted you to know I happened across your page in my constant browsing of them and enjoyed reading it. You almost seem like you're a celebrity among others in your field. Very respectable job and history/education. :) Thank you for all the years of research and teaching and help you have done, no doubt. ChrisLeeNeal (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]