User talk:Cyclonenim/Archive Feb09

Thanks for the twitter invite, I'm probably going to hold off on that one for now as I have to get my head round these new buttons and might try IRC. WereSpielChequers 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look at a thread for me, someone expressing concern about some recent edits: User_talk:Kilbad#Nickcoop.2C_the_GP_from_New_Zealand_is_attacking_the_Mohs_surgery_article_again kilbad (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickcoop did it again. If you review his history, he did it in the past to Basal Cell carcinoma and Mohs surgery multiple times.--Northerncedar (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyclonenim,

the article on Mohs surgery is not neutral.

There has only ever been one randomized control trial done on this technique and that shows no benefit over standard surgical excision. (Lancet 2004 Nov 13-19;364(9447):1732). There isn't much else to say about the technique and yet the entry in Wikipedia is huge.

I talked this through with Northerncedar last year. Northernceder was unable to produce any randomized control trial that showed any advantage to Mohs surgery. The editing that I had done last year was deleted by Northernceder and others. I haven't had a chance to review what had been done to the entry until now.

I know that the Mohs surgeons who have written this page believe that what they do is great but the evidence is that is no better than traditional standard surgical excision, and much more expensive.

This fact is crucial and needs to be prominent in the Wikipedia entry.

What concerns me most is that this entry is going to be used for some shroud waving by Northernceder. People with skin cancer need to know what are the most effective treatments, and then of those which is the most cost effective.

Nicholas Cooper FRNZCGP Auckland New Zealand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcoop (talk • contribs) 04:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in at my RFA and for your nice comment about my answers to the standard questions. I spent a lot of time on them, so I'm glad they were good! :) Best of luck with your own RFA when you decide to run again. Somno (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (prev) 12:38, 15 February 2009 Stevenfruitsmaak (Talk | contribs) m (19,041 bytes) (wow, this article really needs cleanup) (undo) (cur) (prev) 12:37, 15 February 2009 Stevenfruitsmaak (Talk | contribs) (19,032 bytes) (Undid revision 270813729 by Nickcoop (talk) unexplained removal of large chuncks of good text) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:19, 15 February 2009 Nickcoop (Talk | contribs) (16,732 bytes) (Most bcc's are treated with surgical excision. It is extremely effective and relatively cheap. It should be listed first in the treatments.) (undo)

Please remind him again. And yes, his article was well discussed in both the body of the Mohs surgery article, and on the talk page. And on HIS talk page too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.205.138 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickcoop is editing basal cell carcinoma page to make his point. But his edit is not making sense: (cur) (prev) 19:25, 16 February 2009 Nickcoop (Talk | contribs) (19,433 bytes) (I have shifted the material about Mohs from the standard surgical entry to the Mohs entry) (undo)--Northerncedar (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 5, Issue 7

Weekly Delivery

2009-02-16

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted an updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if avaliable, would appreciate your feedback. kilbad (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate his inputs, but he is trying to push his personal belief by misquoting the randomized study I presented, and quoting his own opinion as the authors (they said MMS is recommended for the face, he said they recommended standard excision for bccs of the face).

Then he is trying to move content explaining how standard excision is done compared to margin controlled surgery (which Mohs is one method) to the Mohs section. And claimingg it to be Mohs propaganda.

We really need the input of a pathologist here - so that he doesn't feel that we are badgering him. --Northerncedar (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral Cheers! Nja247 19:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you run again for adminship, let me know and I will support your nomination. kilbad (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at his third attempt to edit this article in the last few weeks on the article basal cell cancer: --Northerncedar (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (cur) (prev) 22:40, 25 February 2009 Nickcoop (Talk | contribs) (23,265 bytes) (I have moved the Mohs advertisment to the Mohs section.) (undo)[reply]

Hi Cyclonemin, the section on the treatment of BCC's doesn't need to be very long. Almost all are treated with a straight forward surgical excision. The speciman is sent for histology and margins. Every so often the diagnosis is not what you expected. A melanoma can mimic a BCC. The only way to distinguish them is with special stains. For this reason a frozen section is rarely done in the treatment of BCC's. The material on the examination of tumour margin in the laboratory is factually wrong. All of the slides are examined, not just 3 or 4. The entry on the treatment of BCC's by Northernceder is way off the reality of clinical practice. I haven't deleted Northernceders entry, just shifted of to the Mohs entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcoop (talk • contribs) 10:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Dr. Cooper has not participate on the talk page before or after his edits. He does not participate in my discussion on the subjects with him on his talk page.

Second, as noted in the last edit I reverted, the clinical guideline confirm the recommendations on standard excision on page 7 of the NCCN guidelines. The definition of CCPDMA is on page 6 - which is complete margin evaluatio to include the periphery and deep (which Mohs is simply one of the CCPDMA methods): http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/nmsc.pdf

Third, his understanding of margins is wrong, as standard pathology is random sampling of the margin using 3 to 5 standard cross sections. All pathologists understand this, and most dermatologists trained in the US do - as we are required to work in histology sectioning. Of course, all slides cut, and all sections cut are read, but they are only representative of the surgical margins.

Melanomas are not diagnosed with special stain, except in difficult cases. Most are diagnosed with H&E stain. It is irrelevance to the discussion of basal cell cancer and Mohs surgery.

He has not deleted the entry, but simply shifting it to an area where it does not belong. All the discussion have bearing only with standard excision. All the guidelines referenced (british columbia, NCCN, AAFP - while north american sources) all point to the same referenced guideline that Dr. Cooper has repeated deleted or paste in the inappropriate section.

I would not have minded having an open discussion with him on the talk page, the articles or his - but so far, he has not participated--Northerncedar (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as locking down the pages - not a bad idea. The issue here is not that I am unwilling to discuss, but Dr. Cooper's refusal to participate in discussion. Numerous references have been quoted in the past, but he is sticking to his own opinion with his deletions, cut and paste, and one line comments on the edits. Immediately after you intervened in basal cell cancer, he repeated the delete and paste --Northerncedar (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bring this discussion to my talk page again, content disputes should be worked over at the talk page of the article. There are plenty of methods of resolving content disputes, as laid out at WP:DISPUTE. Please follow one of the methods listed there if you feel discussion between the two of you has not worked out. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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!)

-- MifterBot I ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]