Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Despite your awesome contributions nobody has bothered to welcome you! I'll refrain from posting my long welcoming message (can be seen at User:Jfdwolff/Welcome) as you appear to be well versed in the technicalities of Misplaced Pages.
Oh shoot. Trust JF to beat me to this. I was planning on blue-linking his page today </grumble>. Anyway, welcome, InvictaHOG, your contributions are spectacular, and if it is any indication of things to come the medical folk at WP are fortunate indeed! Keep it up (but don't burn out, ok!) :) See you around the wiki! encephalon20:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Howdy, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. I nominated the article "Multiple Solutions" for Deletion, and later I saw that you had questions about it. Feel free to visit its nomination for deletion page if you want to understand more of Misplaced Pages policy Runnerupnj03:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
InvictaHOG, thank you for fixing Cabot, Arkansas. I was pretty sure it was just a matter of time before someone would fix it. Sadly, I've found that the small community pages are really prone to all sorts of things like this.
I actually visited your user page before you sent me a note. I work for Goodyear. When I saw the name, I wondered if you had a Goodyear connection; there is a Goodyear Invicta tire. I did a Google search and found there are other users of the name, so maybe not.
Pneumonia article is very nice. Good feature. I added three sentences in prevention section that I hope can stay since pneumonia is over represented in infants. I added an image to the treatment section that can stay or go.--FloNight01:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello, good work on Lisker's sign, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Misplaced Pages accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Lisker's sign? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP04:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
DYK
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Gleason score, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Please slow down a bit on eliminating Wikilinks from see also sections. Your pov is already plenty well represented in the Wiki's many biased and misleading medical articles, and simply wiping out untold numbers of Wikilinks to add further bias does little to enhance the Wiki. While it is to be expected that orthodox views hold sway on articles on mainstream topics, it makes no sense to sanitize and corrupt other articles that counter the overwhelming extant bias. Narrowing see also Wikilinks down to a single laundry list link is disingenuous at best, and clearly dubious by any standard. Ombudsman01:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The medical articles are not "biased and misleading", but your vaccine pages certainly are. Your abuse of the "see also" section to create some sort of a daisy chain of your cherished topics is noticable on every page you've edited. I believe the list of vaccine topics was your creation and you should be proud it is serving its purpose! JFW | T@lk01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You would say that, as they are allopathic biased, especially the vaccine pages, and vaccine disease pages. john22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Deleted "See Also" on Vaccine Controversy
Please reinsert the See Also links in the Vaccine Controversy article. Deleting them amounts to censorship. --Leifern23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
No it does not. Ombudsman added these to push a POV, and removing them is completely legitimate. And I think your use of the term "censorship" sours the debate and is completely unwarranted. JFW | T@lk09:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
No, you're mistaken; until there is a policy banning see also links on vaccine articles, it is their suppression that is illegitimate. The same goes for Whale.to links. Resorting to terminology like pov pushing is simply a distraction from the matter of the content deletion campaign being waged, which inherently violates the spirit and intent of the Wiki. Add balancing content, if you wish to further compound the bias favoring medical orthodoxy, but please desist with the gratuitous deletions. Oh, and by the way, happy new year. Ombudsman19:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
InvicatHog main job is suppressing links critical to allopathy. It diminishes Wiki integrity when one group of doctors attempts to control medical thinking here. It is bad enough that they control all of the text on the vaccine pages (at least) but removing external links just shows the Wiki pledge "anyone can edit" is false, a lie. What it means is "anyone can edit the vaccine pages as long as they conform to allopathic beliefs". Censorship is a long tradition in medicine. john20:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Please stop mis-representing the MMR RfC, which you started after the discussion had reached an impasse and degraded. There was nothing to add, as the comments regarding hazing within the medical field have now been proven to manifest right here at the Wiki. Mentioning the muddled RfC over and over is just a distraction; you have failed to secure a mandate, and proceeded to wage an unfriendly campaign to enforce silence in the see also and external links sections. Please refrain from using diversionary tactics to draw attention away from your deletion campaign. You should show some respect for the passing of a Safe Minds principal by contributing to articles, rather than deleting content just because you don't like its implications. It is time to adopt a more professional demeanor for the new year. Ombudsman04:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You're almost right, but not really, as the particular example used above the MMR RfC postdated your professed lack of understanding. You responded to an explanation of the suppressive hierarchical influences upon the medical field (initially using the Whitehall Studies as an example; the hazing rituals example came afterwards), by saying "I fail to see how the Whitehall Studies or French economists relate to the Misplaced Pages article on MMR." For your edification, a second example was provided for you, outlining an anthropologist's observations about hazing rituals (as a primary means by which orthodoxy is enforced in the medical field); you never indicated that you grasped the point, regardless of the sequence of examples.
Getting back to the matter at hand: you keep stating that long lists are being reinserted into see also sections, but the fact is that only a few especially pertinent links are being reintroduced; you have systematically deleted all the see also links from an array of vaccine articles, repeatedly, without a mandate, without any real consensus, leaving a virtual desert in your wake; and you have repeatedly complained about pov pushing, which is nothing more than a diversionary tactic. If you want to have the merits of your concerns taken seriously, please try a little harder to be accurate with your representations, and please try to show a little more affinity to the collaborative spirit that should be fostered within the Wiki. Ombudsman07:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
In recognition of the incredible work you've done for Misplaced Pages's medical articles, especially in producing featured articles, I hereby award you this barnstar. — Knowledge Seekerদ07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
InvictaHOG, you've done some incredible work while you've been here and have been the major driving force behind the featured medical articles. Your contribution has been invaluable. — Knowledge Seekerদ07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
'Medical' is a pseudonym for allopathic, and he sure has done a good job suppressing links and text critical to allopathy, I will be putting up a page to his efforts in due course under my 'suppression' section , it also will bring into question the integrity of Misplaced Pages by allowing biased editors to suppress information they don't like. john22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
RE: "and is sometimes referred to as a triple-jab."
The idea is not to limit Misplaced Pages to what you know but to bring it up to represent the sum.
No disrespect to a harried housewife and busy mother but can you really imagine a doctor using the term trivalent to her? Hells bells, clinicians use triple jab when talking to each other.
Stick it in Google and see for yourself. Do please check first -before deleting.--Aspro20:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That was a textbook example of biased editing to make him, a vaccine critic, appear (Beddow Bayly) an idiot, well done! I love collecting those. And I have a great example of your other ones
Keep up the good work! I was keen to get examples of allopaths suppressing drug criticism and truth. john10:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to laugh that after you spent some time deleting whale links, Midgley has put up a page highlighting whale.to. Funny old world! I do suspect it will all come back to haunt him. john00:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments on possibly improved scanned page management per John's concerns, storage limits for Whale's potential uploaded images to WikiSource and any of the others storage options that you are familiar with. Thank you for your calm and constructive comments in this RfC. --66.58.130.2618:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
“Medicine” on MCOTW
After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Misplaced Pages 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seekerদ02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that there's a heck of a lot of discussion of cite.php, including discussion of limitations and feature requests, over at Misplaced Pages talk:Footnotes. Might have more leads on the issue you asked me about the other day. (I'm leaving this note here just in case you got bored with watching my own user talk page :) Bryan01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Live "hybrid references"
I saw you comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Footnotes. Since I posted my note on the "hidden refs", I figured out how to properly hide them, and implemented "live" versions at Cuba and Shoshone National Forest. I'm still waiting on the code changes to let us move those reference blocks to a later section of the page; but if the code change is made, it should be a simple cut-and-paste to move the identical reference block down, where used. LotLE×talk03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
In thanks for your incredible contributions to the Cystic fibrosis article I would like to give you this barnstar. I doubt the article would have shapped up this well without you. --ImmortalGoddezz04:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
In recognition of the incredible work you've done for Misplaced Pages's Cystic fibrosis article and bringing your knowledge to the wikipedia community I present to you this barnstar. --ImmortalGoddezz04:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across as rude. I took out a bunch of "in the park" comments, restructured some wording and almost completely rewrote the intro...let me know there what other enhancements you feel are needed. Thanks.--MONGO06:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not delink dates, in the text, of the month day year format. This is required for the date preference feature of Misplaced Pages. Dates in official names don't need to be linked and references don't matter as much (although some will still link them for the same reasons behind linking in-text occurances.) Rmhermen14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I notcied that you participated in the Michael Woodruff featured article discussion, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in the Rfa for Cool3, the creator at WP:RFA. ShortJason15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
We all strive to improve the articles. Our discussion seems to have initiated a healthy larger discussion about the medical clinical template: should it be “popularity-driven” or “progression-driven”? It is my opinion that a “progression-driven” template makes a more logical, ergo better read. But let us see what others have to say.- Regarding the introduction, I noticed you reversed it. I admire all the great work you put into this very extensive and important article. My point is simply this: What should the introduction do? In my view, it should offer a definition, it should not be too wordy, and it should not “steal the thunder”, rather it should seduce the reader to go on to an interesting and informative article. The body of the article is very informative, but I do not feel that an introduction that attempts to be summary or an abstract is the optimal way to lead the reader to it. – Just on the side: I would think that animals may have CF, too. Ekem00:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. My interpretation of WP:LEAD is not that it is a directive to write a summary or an abstract. But no need to belabor the point. – Please take a look at the CF articles in other languages. The French article has a beautiful, logical structure and contains information that may be useful for the English article, such as a listing of common gene mutations. The German article has a great definition, very specific and to the point, also the Dutch and the Danish articles have more specific definitions that the current English version. I hope that will help.Ekem17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't think why you deleted all the "foreign" CF links (including one to CF Australia which is in our national tongue ie. English) but left all the Seppo sites in Albatross214703:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks
InvictaHOG, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again!
Cool3talk20:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
G Patrick Maxwell
I saw your 'keep' vote on this. Did you really look at the article on him? There is precious little to differentiate him from many thousands of academics. By the way, I liked the work you did on the MS article. It's an outstanding article.MollyBloom03:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your civility, which is more than I can say for the editor of the article in question. Please go back and look at it. I agree with you that I might just sit back for awhile and watch. It is true I feel strongly about this, because I simply can't see what makes this individual so unusually notable as to be included in a Wiki entry. I also know the history of the author of the article. I read the court case against that surgeon, and frankly was repulsed. You should read it. Rob and Midgely both misrepresented the issues and rulings of that case. Well, it is possible that Midgley simply can't read legal cases, so I will give him the benefit of a doubt. However, Rob is astutely aware of what happened. IF that article stays, then this should stay in the discussion. It goes to the essence of one of the major complaints about plastic surgeons who advocate silicone implants.
Your assessment on my talk page of the case is very benign. The facts in evidence included his alcoholism (and most recent 'rehab' about the same time as the filing of the lawsuit), as well as his failure to keep proper records (at best). I have no doubt that what was stated was true. But even if it was more 'benign', he still violated ethics (and the law) in his failure to keep records of the (supposed) informed consent. He has a legal duty to keep all medical records. His failure to do so, combined with her assertions, speaks volumes, and goes beyond the 'he said she said' that you suggested. That most likely is the reason he did not appeal his loss in the appeals court. It is very likely he would have lost.MollyBloom05:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
A doctor has a legal duty to maintain medical records. This is not optional. In fact, a plastic surgeon who did my implantation had his licensed revoke, in part because of sloppy record keeping - and that was in the late 80s. I am shocked that you would say keeping records is not necessary. It may not be a medical ethics rule (I wonder if there are there any) but it most certainly is a legal requirement. It is an ethics requirement for lawyers. It is also practical. Can you remember every detail of every patient? Would you be willing to base your treatment of a patient based solely on your memory? That does not pass the smell test. And why did he suddently want her to sign one then, after the fact?
The uncontested facts and facts which were consistent with the evidence are as follows:
1. Silicone was placed in the patient by Maxwell,
2. Maxwell told the patient about the hazards of silicone,
3. The testimony of the staff that the patient was shocked and upset (i.e. visibly upset) upon learning she already had silicone implants.
All things considered, since Maxwell informed her of the silicone hazard issues at the time of the initial implant, it's not logical that she would agree to silicone. Couple this logical point with the testimony of the staff regarding her refusal to sign a silicone consent form when she came back for later surgery, and the fact that the patient was visibly upset when she learned she "already had silicone"- and its hard not to draw the conclusion that Maxwell violated informed consent and breached his patient's trust. Neither one can produce a consent form for the use of silicone. Again hard not to draw the conclusion that Maxwell violated informed consent.MollyBloom06:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you a plastic surgeon? Just curious, based on your statement that you saw a trans-flap or Maxwells work? You are indeed correct, that there is no reason to continue this discussion. You have made your position and your attitudes very clear. If it is a doctor with a few publications, include 'em, regardless of how unethical he may be. Or maybe ethics, as you implied, is not a concern for doctors. MollyBloom 07:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC
The Rfd turned into a personal attack forum, focusing on people and not the merits of the Rfd. Please tell your friend Midgley to stop hurling insults. I am sick of a senseless war that is nothing but fighting off insults. What I do not understand is why any doctor would support any other doctor who uses Wikopedia as a forum to harass, insult and disparage. That does not seem very professional. MollyBloom03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't look entirely compatible with a continuing professional practice, but no, I don't think it is fake. Actually, based on this and a colleague whose postings to a UK mailing list progressed, there is probably a paper to be written, on what doctors should or may say or do in the line of description of behaviour and advice to moderators and the like. A very touchy subject though. I don't suppose I'll be thanked for either. Midgley02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you - U.S. FAC
Hi,
Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05t15:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Rfa thanks
Dear InvictaHOG, I can't thank you enough for your support during my recent request for adminship. I look forward to collaborating on many more medical articles! Your kind words were greatly appreciated. Take care -- Samirधर्म04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello InvictaHOG! As stated on the talk page, I think you did a splendid job on the Kell page. I just realised that blood types were the MCTOW project, and assume that this fact attracted your attention to the blood type page. As I'm leaving for holidays I won't be able to contribute now, but if you have the time, I would appreciate greatly any other blood type system subpage. I think it's maybe because I'm a specialist working in the field that I've been procrastinating about creating these subpages, making myself busy on the reference desk instead. It's like I feel it has to be perfect. I'll get back to it later this summer. Best regards, vibo5614:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for editing the article Transfusion-associated graft versus host disease. I will look at the main article later, my interest shifted to something else right now (started working on a separate article for Abdominal aortic aneurysm). Can you tell me how to join the wikiproject clinical medicine? Just adding my nick to the list would work? Could you also look at the Orthomolecular medicine article? I think I will withdraw from discussing with those two guys coz it makes no sense to argue with them. ackoz14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
After you come back from vacation
I would like to nominate you for adminship. You have an outstanding record of edits and you could use the administrator priviledges in editing wikipedia. Would you accept the nomination? ackoz11:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the CF article. I'm glad it made FA status so others can learn more about it. I used to have a friend with CF in college (she is still alive).whicky197806:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
