User talk:Ksheka

Previous content is visible in archive 1. Ksheka 15:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If one uses a "ref name" that identifies the reference itself, rather than trying to specify its numerical number in the article, then it is much easier to duplicate references. The < reference / > markup at the end generates the reference numbers for one automatcally. For example see the talk page of your example (use Edit to view its mark-up): User talk:Ksheba/Staging where I try to show how your example can be reworked.

I quite agree < ref... > makes viewing the page in edit mode somewhat clumsy, but it is so useful at removing the need to get references or duplicated-references into order, that I am being won over. In particular with an article with a large number of existing references, adding a new one only requires adding the details in the main text where one is adding information - the whole of the rest of the article & its references takes care of itself (eg see this edit for acne where a reference perviously had no mark-up at all). David Ruben ^Talk 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik, please stick around. Your hard work from the past has led to some great articles, and we still need you. I was hoping we'd have your presence at WP:MCOTW. JFW | T@lk 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to be back. :-) I just get frustrated at times by the wiki process (People making cosmetic changes to pages without adding real content. I understand the need for editors. I'm talking about those that just seem to want to increase the number of edits under their belts.), and hanging on the website just as I'm in the middle of an edit session. I am also hampered a bit my the crude way references are being handled on the wiki pages. But that seems to be being addressed, at least. I have a lot on my plate at work and home (a pretty busy job, a new house, and a 2 1/2 year old daughter all vieing for time). Maybe I'll eventually submit more. At the very least, I always keep interesting tracings around, ready to scan and add to various pages. Ksheka 12:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you've agreed to share your contrast media expertise with us! Welcome back. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've put the link back in the cardiology article - I thought just reverting my own edit was the easiest way to go about it. I was a bit worried about histopathology-india.net because it claims to be written by just one author, and I can't believe a single person could write so much. Also it doesn't seem to be aligned to a university or other medical institution like most other medical links on wikipedia. Having said that, feel free to put any links back that you need. I've said some more about the site at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Graham87 13:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this message sent to my talk page. ~Should I follow the instructions completely or doesn't it matter? Graham87 01:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time someone awarded you a barnstar.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Ksheka, for numerous medical articles. Axl 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ksheka 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ksheka,

I'm thrilled to see someone of your competence has taken an interest in this article -someone with the experience to out: "How can we have an article on MI without mentioning ISIS-2? ;-)" However, I think the sentence you added isn't really proven by the paper: it says nothing about nitrates for example. Also, the study is with months of enteric coated aspirin, whereas you've put it into the first line-section. Are my remarks just plain stupid or am I making sense here?

Anyway, thanks, also for the many other articles you've improved so much, and hope to work together to further improve the article!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS-2 is one of the pivotal MI trials for one reason alone: It showed that when given promptly, aspirin is as good as thrombolytic therapy. Not bad for a drug that costs $5 per year. :-)

As for the line I added about no other first line therapy proven to have mortality benefit, I stand by it. I'll fill in a few references, though. The definitive paper about myocardial infarctions is the ACC guidelines (which I happen to have read cover-to-cover a couple months ago). According to the guidelines (page e89 in the pdf version), nitroglycerine is a class I indication for persistent ischemia, chf, and hypertension in the first 48 hours post-MI, with the caveat that it shouldn't interfere with beta blockers or ACE inhibitors. This is level of evidence B (Derived from a single randomized trial or from non-randomized studies). Not exactly the best form of proof. Morphine is the only indicated medication for pain relief (with level of evidence C), by the way. :-) Ksheka 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for ISIS-2 using 1 month of ASA while I mentioned it in the first line agents portion, the trial randomized people within 24 hours of presentation (median 5 hours), meaning it was started early. Also, the trial showed such a clear benefit that no one will ever do another trial comparing placebo to ASA for first line therapy. ASA is now considered the standard of care. Ksheka 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. I really think we're improving it massively, btw, and I enjoy working together.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's nice to work on this article when there are other eyes on it as well. I was thinking about other first line agents not impacting on mortality. My statement still holds true. The problem is, it's hard to prove since it's hard to prove a negative. It's just one of the things they mention during fellowship training. Ksheka 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, I'll hope you agree that I only removed things from the reperfusion section that were already mentioned elsewhere. I think a better strategy than writing first and splitting into new articles later, is just write stubs in the individual sections now, with the essentials, and expand on those in new articles later -but that's just my opinion.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that you said you're going to "leave the article again for a while, until edits settle down.". Are the numerous edits a problem? If I did anything wrong or something, please say, if my edits are driving you away I would feel really uncomfortable, and I'd change my attitude if that's what's keeping you away.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read User_talk:Jfdwolff#Myocardial_infarction; if I have offended you in any way, I'd like to apologise. I know it can be frustrating for experts to collaborate on a wiki. Also, I was just trying to prevent comments about article length when this would ever reach FA-status (which should be the case). Again sorry, I'm really open to suggestions if I contributed to your frustrations.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can live with that! I'll refrain from shortening sections you write, thus somewhat destroying work that could be incorporated in new articles, again sorry for that. Maybe we can start a "therapies for MI" article right now? Take a wikibreak if you need one, but as a matter of fact I'm gonna be gone soon myself cause of exams... so, hope no hard feelings, 'cause that article really needs your great contributions!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes open on the MI page, Pinochet puts us on the mainpage...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. To avoid confusion, I wont edit anything on the page until it gets off the main page. By the way, I took a picture of some thrombus I removed from a coronary artery on Friday. I should get the digital image in a couple days. :-) Ksheka 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence or not, here in the UK bisoprolol is somehow much more popular than carvedilol. I'm really not quite sure on what grounds, but it's nice & easy to dose... JFW | T@lk 15:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference: [1]. Ksheka 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive! -- Samir धर्म 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Boy, you're fast. I thought the image was still being uploaded. :-) Ksheka 01:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some major changes to the Tachycardia article. Please review and share your thoughts. There's a lot of work left to be done. It also wouldn't hurt my feelings if you'd weigh in on the risk stratification discussion on the myocardial infarction talk page. Best, MoodyGroove 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Hey Karthik, just dropping a note to inform you that Eddievos (talk · contribs) has decided that cholesterol is not bad for arteries. I've left a gentle note on his talkpage. JFW | T@lk 16:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I actually saw that edit on Coronary heart disease and wasn't sure if it was vandalism or just an alternative view point. I knew a dermatologist (that was into alternative medicine) that was convinced that smoking was not associated with CAD. I really should get to merging Coronary heart disease and Ischaemic heart disease at some point... Ksheka 16:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's one of Ravnskov's lot and has a habit of reinterpreting study results without having seen (or contributed to) the original data. He propagates anti-homocysteine stuff on his website. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know you people are so vigilant and proactive regarding the accuracy of information in Wikipedia. —KetanPanchal^taLK 13:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm writing to you from the Arrhythmia Alliance. You appear to have removed us from several arrhythmia related articles on the grounds that you consider us to be a small support group. This is not the case and we are actually larger than some of the groups left on the page.

The Arrhythmia Alliance is a coalition of individuals, patient groups, professional medical groups and industry allies. These groups work together under the Arrhythmia Alliance umbrella to promote timely and effective diagnosis and treatment of arrhythmias. We have over 420,000 members. Our president is Cardiologist and Electrophysiologist, Professor A. John Camm.

Amongst our members are several large companies that you may have heard of, as well as numerous patient groups, medical professional groups and carers groups. Though we may not be large in The United States of America (yet), I do not believe that this warrants the systematic removal of our organisation from the pages of Wikipedia.

Arrhythmia Alliance

"Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines." Source: WP:EL MoodyGroove 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Hi,

I'd like to follow up on your edit re Chagovetc et al in artificial pacemaker history. Canot find any reference on-line. Could you tell me more about the source of the info please so that I might be able to put-in a citation. RegardsGeoffrey Wickham 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that was me? I haven't touched that article (except for punctuation) in quite some time. Ksheka 11:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Ksheka, I didn't go back far enough in the history. The reference to Chagovetc has been there for a long time with the fact tag. No user has come forward with a citation while in my long experience with pacing have not encountered the name -- there are no references on-line so I shall delete it. Kind regards Geoffrey Wickham 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ksheka, I'm trying to put more substance into the "History" on the article page and note that in Talk [Timeline]12.23 6 April 2004 you wrote " 1959/May/19 First long term transvenous pacing wire used.....". As the introduction of transvenous or pervenous pacing was a most important step forward the fact should be recorded in the article's 'history' section. Could you kindly give me some information as to the source of your knowledge so that I might try to follow-up with an edit and reference. I recall that the first commercial availability of transvenous electrodes in Australia was from Elema-Schonander in early 1965. Kind regards Geoffrey Wickham 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took a little digging, but this is where I got it. Ksheka 12:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(NASPE was renamed to the Heart Rhythm Society a year or two ago and (I guess) they decided not to bother keeping up the old website.)Ksheka 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Geoffrey Wickham 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Myocardial infarction, to which you contributed a lot, is now a featured article candidate! Cheers, WS 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your User:Ksheka/Staging you note that Sones' patient did not have VF after injection of contrast into the coronary. This is countered by a report by Connolly (PMID 11995842) who reports an oral report from Shirey that the patient briefly arrested. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you the truth, what you said also goes along with what I was told. (The way I had heard it is that Dr. Sones' next words were something along the lines of "I just killed him".) But at least you have a reference for it. At some point I would like to write up a bit of the history of coronary angiography and PCI. Not only is it amazing, but it puts the things that are in the news now in perspective. (Imagine having to call the operating room and letting them know that you were about to start a PCI, and to keep the room "hot" in case of complications.) Ksheka 21:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, were you ever able to dig up any legal ads threatening to sue for not using drug-eluting stents? Just curious. MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Too bad. It would make a nice addition to the article. I'll move the article out of my user page in the next week, I think. Ksheka 09:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksheka, I'd like to change first, second, and third degree heart block to first, second, and third degree AV block. Do you have any objections? Hope all is well! Best, MoodyGroove 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Not much of an objection. There is such a thing as SA node block, which is described as (I believe) first, second, and third degree as well, however. SA nodal blocks are not nearly as well described in the literature, however, and I agree that the vast majority of the time when people are talking about the heart blocks they are talking about AV nodal blocks. Maybe a separate (short) article about the SA nodal blocks can be put together eventually. Go ahead and change the current articles to AV block and I'll worry about SA nodal block some other time. Ksheka 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that SA nodal block is mentioned in heart block. I don't think any more needs to be said on the subject. :-) Ksheka 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You've been busy! :) Thanks, Ksheka. MoodyGroove 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Yeah. I bumped into trifascicular block and cleaned it up a bit. Myocardial infarction still needs a lot of cleaning, but I made a small start at the references, at least. Ksheka 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of invasive and interventional cardiology, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. As someone involved in this industry, it was well written and informative. Orangemarlin 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was a little nervous about the article in general and especially about the controversies portion. I'm an interventionalist and I didn't want to be too biased. On the other hand, I wanted to give the impression that things are not as bad as what is reported on in the popular press. Ksheka 22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional! I greatly enjoyed the read. Well written. Samir 04:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am very happy with how the article came out as well. Ksheka 09:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across your contributions and you have taken genuine effort to update the most relevant cardiology pages. Great Work. James convey 09:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Awarded to Ksheka for an incredibly prolific month and outstanding editorial work on a number of cardiac related articles, especially Myocardial infarction. Great job! MoodyGroove 16:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Thanks. Nice to get some recognition at times. :-) Ksheka 10:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksheka, I'd appreciate some peer review on this article whenever you have time. Thanks! MoodyGroove 00:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Karthik, could you have a look at Mitral valve prolapse dysautonomia and decide whether it is original research? It looks somewhat speculative to me, but is well outside my professional interest. Let me know what you think. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly wierd. Last I looked into the topic (admittedly, a couple years ago), there was a debate on whether "mitral valve prolapse syndrome" really existed at all. I'll look into the topic a bit more. However, I am likely to redirect the entire page to mitral valve prolapse, and add a section about the "syndrome".Ksheka 23:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - I am a little hesitant about this topic in general. There are a number of smart cardiologists in practice that have labeled a large number of individuals with mitral valve prolapse syndrome. I inherited a practice a couple years ago and over the past two years with a number of MVP syndrome patients. Since seeing them over the past two years, I have not run into a single individual with "true" MVP syndrome. Ksheka 23:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I merged the article back into Mitral valve prolapse. Now I'm not sure if I jumped the gun, since there may be more to it. I guess we can always split it out again. :-) Ksheka 02:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was wondering if you could review atrial fibrillation. Badgettrg (talk · contribs) and myself have been chipping away at this, and we may reach the point where we can make this a WP:GA or even take it to WP:FAR. I would like your input on the electrophyiology - is that section accurate, and could you recommend a reliable source to support it?

Would be immensely grateful. Hoping all else is well. JFW | T@lk 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously minimal time to look at it in the near future. Work & home have both been really busy. I'll try to give it a shot tonight or tomorrow AM. I do have a 130 slide powerpoint presentation on the subject (I gave a Grand Rounds presentation in July on the subject) that I can email to you (based on the 2006 guidelines, but easier to digest). I will send it to your email (still <at> doctors.org.uk?).Ksheka 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your email. Will definitely use material stated! JFW | T@lk 23:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFW | T@lk 12:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papillary fibroelastoma, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 13:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ksheka!

Congratulations on your excellent article--aortic dissection. I really liked the echocardiographic figures, but I had a doubt, in what direction and where was the USG probe placed?

Thanks in advance.

Regards.

--KetanPanchal ^{talk-TO-me>>>} 15:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from a trans-esophageal echocariogram study. The probe is likely in the stomach. The color is predominately yellow-orange, suggesting that the flow of blood is relatively towards the probe. This means that it is going from the lower left portion of the photo towards the upper right portion of the photo. Ksheka (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your prompt reply. Since, I was out of town for some time, and had not placed this page on my watchlist, didn't realize you had replied to my query. Sorry about that. Yes, somehow never thought that the probe used could be transesophageal. By the way, a transesophageal probe does enter the stomach?

Very much moving from the issue, I had a doubt about the cellular level pathogenesis of arrhythmias, meaning—what changes occur that change the conducting properties of the conducting tissue like the refractory period and velocity of conduction?

I understand that you might be not having much time to explain, so even if you could direct me to some free articles or just give me a hint, I would find it very helpful. Thanks again.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 16:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just a bit curious about your user name, if you don't mind that, that is. Well, to be honest, I did kind of eavesdrop on your one of the conversations with JFW, from which I did gather that your name is Karthik. I also saw one of your comments about people making cosmetic changes on Wikipedia. I really don't know if I would qualify as one of them. I do make many formatting-related edits, but of late, have concentrated all my energies to an article that I created—polyclonal response. Since that's my first and one of the only two articles that I created, may be I'm getting a bit obsessed with it. Hope to get over with it (obsession) in some time. I'd be happy, if and when you find some time off your busy schedule, and go through it.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 13:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ksheka, I am interested in volumetric data applied to physiologic terms in cardiac performance. Submit [Adolph Fick] first described [Cardiac Output] now better clinically and technologically appreciated as [Ejection Fraction] EF. EF = [End Systolic Volume] ESV/ [End Diastolic Volume] EDV. EF is perhaps better appreciated as [LVEF] and [RVEF]. Ejection Fraction remains an important determinant of classification in [systolic heart failure]. Given EF is an important determinant of [Systolic Heart Failure], I posit the mathematical inversion of terms for [Cardiac Input] CI or [Injection Fraction] IF. IF = EDV/ESV. Mathematically derived left and right, the terms RVIF and LVIF become useful and begins to illustrate required calculation of terms suggesting [Diastolic Heart Failure]. Inversion of terms for diastole requires no technological breakthroughs beyond a chalkboard and software inversion. Discussion of theory solicited.--Lbeben (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

err.... No. Wikipedia is not for original research. Also, my guess is that your IF will not correlate to other widely used indicators of diastolic function, such as E/A and E/E'.

Ksheka (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against original research. All named terms are already inversely published in Wikipedia and remain within public domain. Simply stated, diastole is a mirror mathematical image of systole. E/A shift in mitral inflow time ratios between systole and diastole are probably best characterized and limited to LV performance rather than global cardiac performance. Time ratios and volumetric ratios are an agreeably difficult match. Eastmans' photographs led to negatives. Recommend Injection Fraction as a readily applied but opposed term to Ejection Fraction subject to public domain.--Lbeben (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ksheka I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active here on wikipedia. With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

could you contact me via e-mail (steven_fruitsmaak AT___ hotmailcom)? I have a private message for you (I'm leaving on holiday, so ignore the vacation response).

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was reading some of your articles and saw some of your pictures and had a double-take to see you were a surgeon. You are one tough badass and its great to have proper experts on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtlloyd (talk • contribs) 06:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

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} 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Common Flutter.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Common Flutter-Zoom.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure if I'm right, but i think theres a mistake on the description here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WPW_EKG_leadV2.png

Caption/ description:

"Characteristic EKG finding in WPW syndrome. The red bar represents the PR interval of 0.1 seconds (100 miliseconds). The blue bar represents the slurred upstroke in the QRS complex that is found in WPW syndrome, known as the delta wave. The combination of the blue bar and the green bar make up the QRS complex, which is prolonged (160 miliseconds)"

This suggests R occurs before the tallest peak (and I thought that R was the tallest peak), Should it read: "The red and blue bar represent the PR interval of 0.1 seconds (100 miliseconds)." or "The red bar represents the PQ interval of 0.1 seconds (100 miliseconds).)

I apologize for bothering you if I am wrong, just a first year vet student with the most basic ECG knowledge, and haven't covered WPWS yet, just of personal interest, and sorry if this is not the way you like people to contact you either. :)

Rvcvettobe (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as {{own}}, amending the {{information}} added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{Media by uploader}} or {{Presumed self}} tag(s) if present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

Diptanshu^Talk 14:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

The file File:Aortic Dissection - Illustration.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned graph/chart/diagram.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]