Archives

June - Sep 2006

FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#RfC: LASIK MD and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#RfC: Which way to redirect?. Cheers! - AED 08:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for bringing the points to my attention. I have noted the input there. LasikMD is an advertorial, no doubt about that. And oculoplastics is definitely more suited. I see that you have been copyediting my contributions, apart from the extensive work that you do around here, and I appreciate both :-) EyeMD 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for formatting the Archives on my Talk page. I thought you might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Kwitko. - AED 16:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Here's another one, if you're interested: Talk:Gustavo Tamayo. - AED 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Did it myself for this one, however the image I could capture from NIH are much smaller, the larger NIH photos are not in a compatible format, so someone more involved with these subjects should do this... (I have my own pet subjects that devour all my wiki time... ;-) -- Janke | Talk 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI: There is a comment from another ophthalmologist regarding one of your photos in Talk:Eye surgery#Eye muscle surgery photo. Cheers! - AED 05:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help with the strabismus photos! I've looked at some of your posts -- good work! Bticho 04:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Good idea! I don't know if there are yet a sufficient number of experts to start a separate WikiProject, but it might be worthwhile to start some sort of bulletin board under Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Cheers! - AED 17:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Per Portal talk:Medicine#Ophthalmology missing from the portal, the reason that ophthalmology does not appear on the main Portal page is because it does not yet have a Project of its own and as a Category it is already listed under "Medical specialties". If you think there is enough interest, I'll try to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology up and running this afternoon! Cheers! - AED 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Iridodialysis

In order to get more exposure for the Project, I would like to propose an article you created, Iridodialysis, for the Did you know section of the Main Page. Per the guidelines at Template talk:Did you know, it might qualify if we could expand it over the next two days or so. Do you have an images that might make it more interesting to casual observers? - AED 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Next one?

Good job on Iridodialysis! Would you like to try for another? Suggestions? - AED 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Would you like to nominate either Ocular ischemic syndrome or Pseudomyopia for "Did you know?" If you let me know your preference, I'll do my best to help build it before we nominate it. Cheers! - AED 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ocular ischemic syndrome sounds good! If you have any images to contribute, that would be great. I think it's easier to get article in DYK if we add them at a slower pace, but it doesn't really matter to me. There are plenty of topics out there. - AED 20:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

On 15 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iridodialysis, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

SoLando ( Talk) 13:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Welcome back! Great job with the DYK, BTW -- Samir धर्म 20:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Kudos to both you and AED. Both of you are greatly improving ophthalmology content here -- Samir धर्म 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

From my experience there is no consistent pattern of notification used when an article is selected for DYK. The most likely reason for the variations is that performing an update is somewhat tedious and may take 30 minutes or more to perform. I personally place a notification only on the article talk pages with the assumption that anyone interested in the article will have the page watchlisted. -- Allen3  ^talk 12:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, the edit summary for your recent edit to Ocular ischemic syndrome is somewhat offensive, at least to me. >> (A dog does not "refer to" an animal that barks (unless the dog speaks).) << Out of place and totally unnecessary for such a small edit, I would say. EyeMD ^{T| C} 12:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It explains my edit. I keep coming across articles like that one that say things like "A dog is a term that is used to describe an animal that barks" instead of "A dog is an animal that barks". What is it that offends you about it? I could have omitted any edit summary, but that offends some people; several have said so. Why is it out of place if it simple says what I did and why? Michael Hardy 05:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think there is a difference between famous and notable. The standards for each depends on the context of readership. In my opinion, someone who is well-known within the profession is not necessarily famous to the average Wikipedia reader. Perhaps there needs to be some discussion in the general Medicine WikiProject regarding this point. - AED 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I haven't reviewed the edit histories of the two article, but feel free to revert my move. It's possible that I wasn't paying careful attention and thought I was moving info about PC IOLs. Regarding the content of Lens (anatomy), Cataract, Cataract surgery, Phacoemulsification, and Intraocular lens: I think a certain amount of redundant or overlapping information is OK within these articles, however, I also think we need to be careful that we don't provide excessive detail in one article that really belongs in another. - AED 23:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Someone has been doing a good job with Keratoconjunctivitis sicca. Do you have an images to "loan"? Cheers! - AED 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, indeed it was replaced by the French name. Because It's much more faster and efficient if we have 1 image (if the licence is free) on commons which can be used on all Wiki projects. If we want to have 1 Insertion Du Muscle CO.jpg for each language, first of all, no one has the time to upload a pic for dozens of languages on wiki. So it is a much wiser idea to upload all free licence image on commons for access of all projects. The french name is not a big problem either. I hope i had answered your question. -- Arad 13:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I see you've been involved in Ophthalmology articles. I've created [[Category:WikiProject Ophthalmology articles]] to generate more interest and edits in Ophthalmology related articles. Btw, why does laser eye surgery/treatment not have an article of its own? frummer 01:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

please also see Automated lamellar keratoplasty, just created it, please copyedit. Thanks. frummer 02:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Thanks for your message. I am currently busy in real life, preparing for upcoming exams, interviews and trips. It may take me quite a while to start contributing again - I am estimating 6 months at least. Keep up the good work. EyeMD ^{T| C} 05:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I have been working on expanding the Amaurosis fugax article. It is still extremely inadequate/incomplete, and I will continue to work on it in the coming days; but, I wanted to get feedback on the work I have done. Would you be willing to give me some feedback? This is my first article. Kilbad 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Kilbad, Nice to see the tremendous effort put in by you in the article on Amaurosis fugax. Keep up the good work!! EyeMD ^{T| C} 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I take your points, but I presume "fellowship trained corneal surgeons" is a US qualification and would mean little to readers outside of the US. Here in the UK I'm not aware of any specific qualifications that would distinguish between Ophthalmologists - i.e. there either is no such thing or I am just ignorant of this :-) So having refered a patient to a particular hospital's ophthalmology team, I would expect selection for outpatient attendence to the more appropriate surgeon or, where none at that hospital, then having been assessed (i.e. had my "merely a GP" diagnosis assessed) then tertiary referal to colleagues elsewhere. This is true for all UK specialist referals (eg within a hospital's orthopaedic team there will be those that have the greater expertese in hand or knee problems). David Ruben ^Talk 09:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

In case you miss it on the WikiProject talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ophthalmology#Appeal for new articles. Carcharoth 09:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I would appreciate guidance from you or one of your colleagues on this article (see Talk:Accommodation (eye) and Wikipedia:Help desk#Undeleting a Deleted Article for background). The balance between the classic Helmholtz theory and the Schachar has been upset with the last edit "Ronaldaaron" edits, and one of the admins is discussing adding a COI flag. I am an IT professional not an Ophthalmologist, so I whilst I can suggest a set of edits to fix this, these would be considered major and therefore should be made or at least peer reviewed by a domain expert. TerryE 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Terson syndrome, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.emedicine.com/oph/topic753.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

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 ( talk) 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

There's a dispute brought on by changes in titles, already done or planned, by a user who I suspect does not have a close command of the language. Most urgently, I wonder whether you agree with the change from "Eye movement" to "Eye movement (sensory)"?

Talk:Eye_movement_(sensory)#Third_opinion TONY (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Tony, I did read the article. The talk page is however, full of accusations and counter accusations, which does not make for a good reading. I would like to reseve my comments on the nuances of the language and what each author would like to convey in the title. Wiki authors, writing and editing the articles, have actually done a pretty neat job, illustrating many aspects of Eye movements and their relation with neuro-anatomy and elucidated the finer aspects. I congratulate all of them. EyeMD ^{T| C} 18:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Have we developed the technology to make a new eye for someone thats blind of lost an eye, have you developed an eye thats like a perfect eye like the one your born with, that can see in 20/20 or less or better and in color? Mickman1234 ( talk) 07:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Currently, the research is under progress to give some vision back to patients with defects in individual parts of the eye. However at this time, a "Bionic implantable eye", "starting from scratch - the one we are born with" is not commercially available. That said, many patients with different conditions can definitely be helped, depending on the individual problem. If you have such a patient, please do contact a qualified eye specialist for possible options. EyeMD ^{T| C} 17:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi EyeMD, I'm glad you recieved my email.

There was a post on the talk page for WikiProject Medicine for a review of a topic. I think it was recurrent corneal erosion. You may view the post here.

Thanks for your swift reply! — Cyclonenim ^T@lk? 18:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear EyeMD,If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : Elwin Marg was an optometrist  ! appreciate your comment, Discussion is about whether or not the profession of Elwin Marg should be mentioned in the external link section. Seeyou ( talk) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you know what Floaters are? My mom has them. Mickman1234 ( talk) 07:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Mickman, Please see the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater

If the problem continues, please show her to an eye specialist. EyeMD ^{T| C} 20:54, 5 January 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!)

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

Maen. K. A. (
talk) 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
reply

Any new eye technology like a lens transplant? Mickman1234 ( talk) 20:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

RE:Lens transplant is called cataract surgery done by phacoemulsification. Check those out. There are videos on the net floating around also, in case you want to see how its done. EyeMD ^{T| C} 16:56, 15 April 2010 (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) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (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 13:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. reply

Kindly visit WP:ICTF and WP:ICTFFAQ for more information on how to identify reliable sources for Indian film/actor related articles. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 15:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Why do you keep reverting the edits that I made on the DOB, despite providing multiple reliable sources, including Times of India - which is listed as a reliable source. EyeMD ^{T| C} 22:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

That's why I asked you to visit WP:ICTF and you should also visit WP:RS. Sources like https://www.noovie.com/people/pooja-batra-12714 are not considered reliable. News sources like The Times of India, The Hindu, etc are generally considered reliable but sources like https://m.timesofindia.com/topic/Pooja-Batra are not since these are not verified and not attribnuted to agencies like PTI, ANI or to editors. See the discussion at Talk:Udita Goswami where I had a discussion with an admin experienced in this field. Similarly, see Ratna Pathak article. Initially her DoB was sourced from a similar profile from TOI here, which listed her year of birth as 1963, which is wrong since that would make her younger than Supriya Pathak. Then I changed it with here with two reliable sources [1], [2]. These new sources point to a 1957 birth. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 10:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Two new review articles might help to source and expand Pseudomyopia. [3] [4] PseudoReview ( talk) 08:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply