This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mikael Häggström. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
The article Aldose reductase, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.
If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Dry cough, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. – Tivedshambo(talk)18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Signal transduction pathways.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Signal transduction pathways.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you'd been putting some work into the one - but I'd like to combine efforts if possible. We can debate the final article title later. You may want to combine the information at [1] with the current information in the latter. --JohnDBuell21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Are you going to add a link to Wikiquote on Scientific skepticism? You removed the quotations, and I tried to follow-up with the link you gave in the edit summary, but I don't see the new wikiquote page. —Viriditas | Talk21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see you made a page specifically for benzodiazepine withdrawal. I think that this is a good idea. However I think you chose the wrong wording. I think "Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Syndrome" would be better. Withdrawal of Benzodiazepine, just doesn't sound right, sorry. It kind of sounds like benzodiazepines are being taken off the market or something. What do you think about changing the wiki entry to Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Syndrome? Carpetman200717:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I want to say that, first of all, I have no objection to the way the article 2000s looks after your edits. It's very neat, organized, and concise. However, I am going to go ahead and revert it, and want to explain why.
Prior to around February 1st of this year, the article had been similarly organized. It started off, a long, long time ago, with only a few general categories, but as time went on, it turned into this, the single worst article in Wikipedia.
Many editors engaged in discussion as to how to fix it. We realized that the heart of the problem was that everyone alive today felt like they had something—no matter how trivial—to contribute to the article, because, hey, everyone is living through the decade.
Think about it. An article on this decade would be the only article that every Wikipedian, no matter what there age or background, could say they know something about it. No other article confronted the prospect of having every human on the earth as a "knowledgeable" editor. The result was that the article became a huge morass of graffiti.
Additionally, an article on the decade currently going on will naturally lack perspective. It's easy to look back on the 1960s and recognize what was important and noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Not so for the decade currently going on. Some editors have suggested that sufficient perspective can't be had on the current decade until 10 years after it's conclusion, in 2020. I don't personally agree with that, but I understand the point.
So it was decided to trim the article back, way, back, to the bare bones. Now you have actually done nothing to expand the article, which is why I say it looks fine. But I will tell you what will happen next. First, people will start adding in their own personal, unsourced observations about the daily trivialities of life. In the economic section, someone will post the specific gasoline prices in their town one day, and then later, someone will post (in another part of the same section) the prices in their town. Someone will include a table that will list which countries allow gay marriage, which don't, and the years that the status changed. Someone will give us details on every little battle that occurs in every war, no matter how large or how small. And so it begins. More categories will be added. Eventually the article will become total garbage, with information that is so unconnected that, without the title "2000s", it would have nothing in common.
And that's the problem with the way the article was until back in January or February. People were arguing about which Australian football players should be included in the article on the decades, for heaven's sake. Those editors missed the point. Australian football players should be listed in an article on Australian football , or maybe football in general. Gay marriage tables are important, but should be in their respective articles. That gas prices are going up might be one of the big stories of the decade (though I'm not necessarily convinced of that), but specific info should be in specific articles. And allowing this article to be subdivided like this, will, inevitably in my opinion, send us down that path. So that's my take. Please feel free to respond, but first, please take a look at the article where I have it linked above. I know you don't want to see that again.
I get your point, and I agree that I don't want the article to look like it has before. Therefore I agree with you reverting it back to a little bit simpler version. Mikael Häggström17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Osteoporosis
Well done on updating that article. It still needs some work (e.g. evidence for different treatments, hip protectors etc). I fixed the reference that you added; {{cite journal}} is a very useful template.
Would you mind trying to turn some of the bulletted lists into readable prose? The manual of style expects us to make content readable rather than outlined. JFW | T@lk20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hehe! I'm on a non-scandinavian keyboard and can type your name correctly : Mikael Häggström
For your information, it's a French Canadian keyboard. (it's an almost generic int'l (non-asian) keyboard. I truly have no idea why it is called "french-canadian")
--Sébastien Leblanc( Talk | E-mail )06:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Follicle histology1.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Follicle histology1.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Fair use rationale for Image:Follicle histology2.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Follicle histology2.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Fair use rationale for Image:Follicle histology3.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Follicle histology3.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Fair use rationale for Image:Follicle histology4.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Follicle histology4.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Robot robot on the wall; wasn't the consensus enough, seen for [[Image:Follicle histology.gif]]? [[User:Mortsggah|Mikael Häggström]] 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Population parameter
Hi, Concerning your question (a little bit long): What is population parameter?
Population characteristics
For the description of an individual object (element) it is necessary to list its properties (attributes)—weight, size, shape, color. In order to describe a set of similar elements we will need a new characteristic—number of elements, and the list of attributes turns to the list of distributions (dispersions) on each attribute.
Distribution of an attribute in a population of individuals can be described by the average value of an attribute and its dispersion, scatter around this average. Hence, for the description of any set of elements on each attribute, as a first glance, three parameters should be enough: number of elements ( N ), average value of an attribute ( Δx ) and it’s dispersion ( σ ).
The basic characteristics of asexual or hermaphrodite populations are: number of individuals, average values of attributes and their dispersions.
If the system has two subsystems (a population divided into two genders) for their description 6 characteristics are necessary. However it is possible not to consider the characteristics of subsets itself, but their combinations in pairs. Then it’s possible to reduce the description of a two-component system to three main characteristics: concentration of one kind of elements, ratio of average values and variations by the given attribute.
The basic characteristics of dioecious populations: sex ratio (usually concentration of males), a dispersion of sexes (variation of an attribute at both sexes) and sexual dimorphism (a difference of average values of an attribute for males and a females). These parameters are closely connected and can be derived from each other. For example, the sex ratio can be expressed as sexual dimorphism on quantity, and a dispersion of sexes—as sexual dimorphism on variation. Or, vice versa, sexual dimorphism on an attribute can be presented as a sex ratio among individuals having the given value of this attribute, and a dispersion of sexes—as a sex ratio of individuals with an equal deviation from norm. Therefore it is possible to speak about a degree of gender differentiation, which is the total contribution of all three parameters, but for the purposes of analysis it is convenient to distinguish three above-mentioned characteristics of a dioecious population.Sashag22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Robot rights, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Targeman18:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I can not disagree to such a procedure. The subject is ahead of its time, and therefore I understand if it is regarded as hoax and unimportant for the time being. It is better to rewrite the article when the matter has become important. Mikael Häggström11:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! It's an interesting subject. However, summer vacation is over, so there's less time for pleasue (= Wikipedia) now, but I'll sure look into it sooner or later. Mikael Häggström17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Massage
Thanks for improving the massage article, you did a great job, I am looking on expanding on info related to regulation and research pertaining to Europe in particular at this point, if you can be of any help please stop over again..ThanksBronayur17:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Anteroposterior discrepancy, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.CSDWarnBot09:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, I could not be bothered to write out the full title of the page you have recently created. I propse that it be either renamed or have have numerous redirects to the page. It is a very good starting article and there is no case for deletion but my point is that nobody is going to search for that title. Thanks. Hackboy111:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - the article needs a proper name. Do you have any suggestions? Omni-evolution perhaps? I'll ask RichardDawkins.net for advice. They must know about it. Mikael Häggström11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pervasive Refusal Syndrome, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/10/2/153. 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. CorenSearchBot09:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you're overhauling the content on cholesterol, blood fats/lipids and related content. I'm puzzled that you have not tried to get consensus for such an operation, which pervades a series of >100 articles. Could you outline your plans, and explain why each move is necessary? For instance, the splitting of material out of cholesterol will not benefit the reader who wants to know why his doctor wants to treat his cholesterol of 6.3 with statins. You have not added any new references (there are quite a few good ones out there), and you have not tried to add categories to your new article. JFW | T@lk11:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my edits. I'm aware of that it is a major subject with many articles involved. In short, my edits are just as any; to try to give a sense of order in all those articles. And it needs a lot of work, therefore I rather edit and let it be reverted if it's wrong, compared to just discussing - which results in nothing. I'm sorry if that method went a little too far this time. However, the material which better should have been left in Cholesterol is now reinserted. Regarding my new article, I think it's motivated to have an article about a subject which reappears over and over again in many occasions. There are many people not really having hyperlipidemia or hypercholesterolemia, but yet worries about their blood fats. Thank you for notifying that categories was missing in it. Mikael Häggström11:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the relevant content is distributed over quite a few articles. I wouldn't be opposed to having cholesterol just mention the physiology (e.g. regulation by SREBP & role of the LDL receptor), with subarticles addressing the pathological states and pharmacotherapy. Shame the term "dyslipidemia" has gone into disuse, because it describes the realities much better than black&white names with hyper- and hypo- in them. JFW | T@lk13:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick reply to your recent edit of AGTR1 (well, actually to your edit comment). Don't worry at all about changing the bot content. Check out this edit, for example, of how to play nicely with the bot. But human contributions are much more valuable than bot contributions, so we will definitely defer to humans. In case you haven't seen it, the ProteinBoxBot aims to create several thousand of these gene stubs, so you may see these ugly-looking (but hopefully highly-informative) bot templates more widely. Cheers, AndrewGNF17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Great. I was worrying the edits would be lost the next update, but now I know how to avoid that. Thanks! Good bot anyhow. Nice to have a place where humans and machines work together peacefully. Mikael Häggström17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I noticed you recently created some articles on drug suffixes, such as -osin and -terol. You may also have noticed they were Transwikied to Wiktionary and put up for deletion; I've just speedily deleted-osin and -idine. While I personally think it's not a bad idea to have them, I'd like to recommend two things:
That they be made as redirects to the drug class (as I've done with -terol);
That some redirects also be made according to the WHO's official INN stems. Since Wikipedia uses INNs in the naming of drug articles, I think it's reasonable that we have redirects from INN stems as well?
Let me know what you think. A loftier project could be creating redirects for all INN stems—I've been thinking of leaving a note on WT:PHARM asking for opinions. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It was rather an experiment, and I agree with their deletion as articles. Either have them all or have none. Although they do no harm in existence, perhaps they don't do any good either. However, it's not a bad idea having them as redirects where possible. Mikael Häggström14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
adopt a protein family?
Hello Mikael, I see you've made lots of edits on genes and gene families. I wonder, would you be interested in adopting a gene family in our PBB effort? GPCRs (or some subfamily)? CYPs? Whatever else you might be interested in? If yes, then we would fish out all the genes in that protein family and create stubs for them en masse. Rather than dealing with these stubs as they come up (e.g., [2]), we could handle everything at once. Let me know if you're interested... AndrewGNF21:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds likea great idea to let the bot create stubs for all those genes. GPCRs and CYPs could need that, and perhaps the rest of the Adrenergic receptors. Is there anything I should do manually first, like any preparation of these articles? Mikael Häggström06:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to do anything manually first. PBB will first try to see if there are any namespace conflicts with each gene name and symbol. If not, it will automatically create the page at the gene symbol. If so, it will flag that gene for manual input (but create all the wikicode necessary for a human to easily place the content in the appropriate place, e.g., User:ProteinBoxBot/PBB_Log_Wiki_10-29-2007_A_Rerun#EGR1). After the stubs are created, then it would be up to the hard work of human experts like you to supplement content and wikilink with existing articles. Anyway, what I would need from you is the gene family you'd like to work on first. Easiest on our end if you have Entrez Gene IDs, but we can also translate Ensembl IDs, gene symbols, interpro IDs, etc. without too much problem. AndrewGNF17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an expert on genes - I've rather been working on the function of their final proteins. However, I could at least adapt and wikilind with to the articles of their proteins, e.g. the genes of the Adrenergic receptors. It would be nice to have info about their genes, so I could give them a try. Mikael Häggström19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think there is consensus at WP:MCB that for the vast majority of gene/proteins in WP, the genes and proteins can be treated on the same page. For example, "gene function" could be used interchangeably with "protein function" (while recognizing of course, that it's actually the protein doing the work). So, for example, that might mean that the annotation at Adrenergic_receptor#.CE.B22_receptor could also be moved/expanded at ADRB2.
I'll go ahead and create the gene/protein stubs for all the individual receptors at Adrenergic_receptor. I'll post here when they're done, and you can do with them as you see fit... (Oh, would you also be interested in the beta receptor kinases ADRBK1 and ADRBK2?) AndrewGNF19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've wikilinked the new gene/protein-specific pages at Adrenergic_receptor#Comparison (all were created under their gene symbol). A couple of the human genome mappings were troublesome in our database and I'll need to check those out. You can leave them as-is and they will be updated on the next run of PBB, or you can just fill them in by hand. Let me know if you have any suggestions! AndrewGNF (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks great! I've gone through it and integrated it with the Adrenergic receptor article, and it has really reached a new dimension with the update. I'm busy with other projects now, but I let you hear if I'd like to do the same with other genes. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hej! I think you are doing a great job editing the GPCR articles. I do have a suggestion however that might save you a significant amount of work and would help standardize the citation format in these articles. If you haven't already done so, I suggest that you take a look at User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool. Given a PubMed ID, this tool generates a filled in wikipedia in-line citation template which you can copy and paste into a Wikipedia article. This tool will also generate book citations and a couple of other useful WP templates. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed that tool actually. Thanks for informing me! It didn't take very long time just copying and pasting the URL and name, but nevertheless it looks much better and more standardized with that one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that one edit was against that discouragement. Thank you for fixing it. However, there is no clear link to Transhumanism from that article any longer, but there sure are other ways to fix such a detail. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I commented on your proposed merge at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Drug_abuse_mess. I removed the merge tags because as I make clear in my response, the intent of both articles has little to do with addiction. It would help if you could read the proposed outline for drug abuse that I linked in the comment. Substance abuse has more to do with psychology, management, and tretment, and does not particularly concern the intricate details of addiction. I undertsand your motivation for wanting to merge all the information into one place, but each article has a separate focus. There are real, pharmacological, toxicological, and neuropsychological effects from drug abuse, and that article exists to discuss those issues, not addiction. The article on substance abuse should describe the behavioral and social issues associated with drug abuse, and the management and treatment options available. Drug addiction is already at 40kb and does not need to have this information merged into it as these two articles are likely to grow. I agree that any overlap should be watched carefully. —Viriditas | Talk13:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I just thought I'd let you know you created a lot of Wikipedia:Double redirects recently—basically, when creating several redirects to a same article, they must all be made directly to the target page; one can't redirect to a redirect because it won't work :) It's certainly not a big deal, but rather something to be aware of and avoid. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for notification. I'm well aware of that double redirects don't work well. On the other hand, there are many bots there that do that work much more efficiently than I do, so I'm letting them continue with that. Mikael Häggström18:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, all right then. Bots do usually work more efficiently then people :), although I haven't seen a bot-assisted double redir fix in a while. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they seem a bit lazy sometimes. Still, I think they'll do the work in just a matter of time, letting humans do what they still can do better. Mikael Häggström18:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Consensus?
I was just curious when you think consensus has been reached for my proposed edits on Transhumanism? I'll leave that "antagonists"-section without any such header for now, and you may fine-tune it as much as you want afterwards. After all, that's what Wikipedia is about - everybody making their contribution. Mikael Häggström05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Thin segment, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.llu.edu/llu/medicine/anatomy/glossary/syllabus/urin.html. 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) 11:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Drag-n-drop image requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ridernyc (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawal syndrome
I'm puzzled why you reinserted "withdrawal syndrome" in syndrome.[3] Withdrawal syndrome is nothing but the groups of symptoms that occur on withdrawal of a substance (alcohol, benzos, opiates, cocaine). In that sense withdrawal is no different from other collections of symptoms; I have relegated the mention of withdrawal to the "see also" section, and added the related concept of toxidrome. Hope you're okay with the solution. JFW | T@lk19:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm okay with the solution. My point was that withdrawal syndrome, although a collection of symptoms of different causes, still may be regarded as a syndrome (hence its name). However, I agree it might not be worth having a whole section dedicated to it, so I find it all right to keep it to the See also section. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Embryology
Hej, Mikael!
I'm just curious about your shift of the template Developmental biology to Embryology. In the resulting navigation box, the article with the box seems to be concerned mainly with a subfield of "Developmental biology", namely "Human embryogenesis". This is a bit of a surprise in articles like Developmental biology itself. (Are you absolutely sure that you were not just a little influenced by your own field of study, human medicin:-)?) If you or someone else explained why somewhere, then I'll be happy with a link; else, I wouldn't mind you explaining your reasons here.
I notice that you descriebe yourself more as a "doer" than a "discusser", and also declares yourself quite ready to be reverted. That's not unreasonable; but it's a bother to revert your re-linkings from {{Developmental biology}} to {{embryology}}, and I personnally would prefer to know the "why's" first (anyhow being a "1RR-ist").
You're right. It is confusing with the template rather concerning a subfield. Thanks for notifying me! The reason I fused them was that the template Developmental biology still didn't really contain anything new. However, since such a template still is needed I reinstated it, but tried to fill it with rather original articles instead of duplicates. I'd be glad to hear further suggestions.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mikael Häggström. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk·contribs). Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.
A tag has been placed on Methylsergide maleate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ferdia O'Brien(T)/(C)07:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ref ranges
Hi - I'm a big fan of your work in general, but I'm concerned about this edit, which adds a reference that isn't published or available on the web. In my opinion, if it can't be validated by other editors, then it isn't a reference. --Arcadian (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right. It isn't good as a reference. I thought it was better than just writing without any reference at all, but perhaps I better do the latter after all. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, when you cite PubMed, this tool allows you to paste in the PumMed ID (PMID) and retrieve a fully-formatted reference. Makes life much easier! All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I'm not always bothering with finding that PMID all the times, so sometimes I find it easier just copying and pasting the header and author text.Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you created this image and added it to the Immune system article. I have to be honest, this image doesn't really make much sense to me, nor, IMO, does it add much here (it could be of some in the helper T cell article) and I've removed it. The problem is that the diagram is really too simplistic. I think I understand what it is trying to say, but I'm pretty sure it will be very confusing to the uniformed reader. Here is a hypothetical thought process: "What do the arrows mean?, does it mean that the helper T cell becomes a macrophage and a B cell?? Why are some of the lines green?" You'll note that the Killer T-cell image above it is also very simple, but that it maintains a high degree of precision. I can offer you a few pointers if you'd like to improve the image. I'd be happy to discuss it otherwise.
Best--DO11.10 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right, the image was hard for an uninformed reader to understand. I explained the green arrows and made it easier to correlate with the text, so I hope it's clear enough to remain in the article now. I'll also, sooner or later, explain the non-simplified image further. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
edit check
Hi Mikael, I'm sure it's on your watchlist, but just to be absolutely sure you saw it, can you sanity check this edit? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me, but I figure I'd defer to the more knowledgeable. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Your picture "CT of brain of Mikael Häggström.png" is up for consideration for FP status. However, as such, it is too small. Do you have a larger version? If so, please upload it over the old one. Bästa hälsningar, --Janke | Talk08:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
A comment on FPC: "I wish the uploader would remove those 'copyright free' notes from all images, composite and individual, as that really deters me from supporting." I agree... --Janke | Talk08:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic article titles
Hi, thanks for all the work on all the hormone/mediator receptors and the cells that express them. I must mention my concern about hard belly and constantly fast dividing cells. Neither of these are particularly encyclopedic article titles, as they are not the accepted terms for the concepts they aim to describe. I have added a {{PROD}} to hard belly because I think the term is vague and non-standard; abdominal distension is much more suitable (and may be a good target for a redirect) because it is a widely recognised term. I have not taken action about constantly fast dividing cells, but I think the relevant information can easily be merged with mitosis, with all incoming links referring to the relevant section on the mitosis page. Let me know what you think about this. JFW | T@lk11:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Compliments on creating this! ROFL. It is striking how people matching that description can also give a constant headache :-). JFW | T@lk11:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the Hard belly article is vague and non standard. Nevertheless, the symptom deserves mentioning, and I'm not sure if it's enough with the appearances in each cause-article, as abdominal distension is one of many causes. As to Constantly fast dividing cells, I find it hard to choose if really Mitosis, or perhaps Cell division or Cell cycle is the most proper one. When specifically searching for the cells with this characteristic then it might be more complicated to find the way to it, since it looks strange having a See also link of e.g. Mitosis#Constantly fast dividing cells. But perhaps it's worth it. (As to that, I have no further comments!) Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Featured images candidates, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Future wikia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to have it completely Swedish POV, and I'm sorry if my statement could be interpreted that way. I rather want it international, and in that sense, the disambiguation page is a more suitable target. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
27% of what?
In Peacekeeping - Assessments there was the following comment on the peacekeeping scale:
and was projected to be near 27% in 2003
I moved that here, because it doesn't make any sense for anybody who doesn't know how the scale works, which also is the case for most readers, since there is no such article. Before reinsertion - what is this totality that the scale is 27% of? Mikael Häggström12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? THere should be no article for the following because the figure just represents a percentage. Nevertheless I'll check it again and get back to you...LOTRrules (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Facultative requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
When moving pages, please remember to fix any double redirects. These can create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. Thank you. Redfarmer (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mikael, I see you were one of the last non-IP contributors to this list, so I'm asking you some questions. I've wanted for a long time to see the list of all 210 human cell types and finally found it. I went through the list and added wiki-links where possible, for instance, I changed "Lacrimal gland cell" to "Lacrimal gland cell". My reasoning was that it was more useful to provide a link to a relevant article than show a red-link.
However in doing so, I have also taken away the red-link which shows that we still need an article on the specific cell-type in addition to the article on the gland or organ which contains the cell, and this is now bothering me. Which do you think is more important for this list, showing the articles not yet created, or providing a link to the closest alernative? Would another alternative be:
Lacrimal gland -- Lacrimal gland cell ? or Lacrimal glandcell ?
Hi. I just wanted to apologize in advance for some of my edit summaries etc. When I first saw your line about a solar lens at Lens (optics), I took it as either patent nonsense designed to mislead, or as original research. I was mostly misled by the lack of citations, and the gross exaggeration in the image. It's hard to look at the image and not be led to believe the whole concept is ridiculous. The lens shown is larger in diameter than the Earth (and clearly much larger than necessary) and would probably weigh more than the Moon. By the time we can fabricate something like that, global warming will no longer be a problem (one way or another). A more realistic image would be beneficial. Leaving the Sun out of the picture would greatly simplify this. Then the lens and the Earth could be shown in reasonable scale. I'm not sure the current image is worthwhile. Its negatives may outweigh the benefits.
I agree with the deletion of this from Lens (optics). Including it there violates WP:CRYSTAL. This application is not likely enough to occur, to merit mention in a general article. Even where it is appropriate (like in Solar shade), speculative material such as this needs to be very rigidly tied to its sources. Wikipedia can't discuss the possibility of producing a solar lens, it can only discuss what other people have said or written on the subject. --Srleffler (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Very well, it may not be appropriate in Lens (optics). I thought it as a very interesting example for high school kids who didn't see any point of learning what a concave lens would be good for, but sure it might be a little too much of a crystal ball there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have no source to that such people generally support population control etc., and on second thought I think it's better to leave that fact out. Therefore I did some rewording, keping it to the words and not the people. I hope there is consensus about linking antinatalism with population control and family planning - else I can accept removing the whole contribution. Anyhow, thanks for notification! Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It is interpretation, but it is not controversial or in bad faith, so unless someone else objects to it, I am happy with your latest version. Best, Skomorokh18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated World development, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World development. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- BlastOButter42SeeHearSpeak19:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Revision history of Angiotensin receptor
I was wondering if you could explain why you removed the Gq/11 under mechanism in your 16:07, 17 December 2007 edit. The way it reads now it seems factually incorrect as Gi would not activate PLC.
VanillaIcee (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Mr Häggström. As a result of this edit, the coccyx is no longer visible in Template:Bones of torso. I should normally replace it to its prior position in the last class (with sacrum), but, uneducated in anatomy, I am unsure of whether I ought to proceed thus. Could you please advise as to the proper course of action? Regards, Waltham, The Duke of02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I must admit that it looks a little unusual (a group without items), but it is certainly a great improvement to have the coccyx back. Thank you, sir, for your prompt and efficient response. Waltham, The Duke of10:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on ERB1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. EE22:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It's nice every time to see that my brain can be useful. I think the entry looks very good already. I'm looking forward to seeing it in the context of the main page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
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.
I hereby award you, Mikael Häggström, the Photographer's Barnstar for your invaluably encyclopaedic contribution of freely licensed medical images to Wikipedia and the Commons, particularly those of the human body and your brain. The featured status of the latter and hopefully prospective future status of the former serve to indicate how much we truly appreciate these contributions, which would be hard to find elsewhere. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Featured Picture nomination
I don't mean to be difficult, but you really need to state your age in that nomination as soon as possible, because you aren't quite old enough for photographic evidence alone to show you to be definitely of legal age. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to say thank you for the bravest featured picture candidacy I've yet seen. My hat goes off to you (but everything else stays on). :) Cheers, DurovaCharge!04:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice to hear superlatives of it! Yet, it's only the surface, and not seeing right through me, like in that brain picture. I wouldn't normally expose my meninges even in a sauna with no girls around. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mikael. On 11 October you made an edit to Static pressure to indicate total pressure is an alternative expression for stagnation pressure. I reverted your edit for the following reason. Total pressure is defined at every point in a fluid flow. Stagnation pressure is the static pressure at stagnation points - points where the fluid is at rest relative to a solid body immersed in the flow field, or at rest relative to the chosen frame of reference. So stagnation pressure is a static pressure, not a total pressure.
In incompressible flows in which there is a stagnation point, the stagnation pressure is numerically equal to the total pressure. That is consistent with Bernoulli's principle. However, the two are not one and the same.
In compressible flows, stagnation pressure is not necessarily numerically equal to total pressure. It depends on how the fluid is brought to rest. If the fluid comes to rest isentropically then stagnation pressure is numerically equal to total pressure, but if the fluid does not come to rest isentropically then the two pressures are not numerically equal.
Thanks for explanation! When feeling I really have the hang of it, then I might write about Total pressure. You are very welcome to start it too. It actually gets less confusing when every distinct thing has its own article and not just redirections to others. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
On cirrhosis you added {{Cirrhosis essentials}}. As I have indicated on the talk page, there is no precedent for using this functionality, and I really think you need to get a bit more community support before rolling this out. JFW | T@lk20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Mikael: Those abbreviations that you added in the Standard conditions of temperature and pressure article and referenced to IUPAC ... are those your own abbreviations or where did they come from? I have not been able to find those abbereviations in the IUPAC Gold Book. Please let me know where you got them. I will watch this page for your response. Regards, mbeychok (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I have added this post "I think illustration are a good idea. They add some color to the pages. Frank Netter is famous for similar medical pictures. http://www.netterimages.com/ I must say I spend may hours looking at them and if someone want to generate something similar to them for wikipedia I think they deserve a barn star.--Doc James (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)"--Doc James (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you saying on your user page that you get a million views with your images is seriously uncool, however true it may be and however much we kick on being behind the some of the most viewed pages on the web... I suggest you remove that. I've posted this to WT:MED, I suggest you say something there too. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that most people seem to appreciate your images, they're really nice but I didn't think they were useful at first, but now I'm convinced. To provide some feedback on your recent additions, I'd like to ask you to remove the eye on Image:Symptoms of AIDS.png, it looks creepy, imho.
Thanks for your feedback! The eye looks more natural now. I've even figured out how to successfully upload them as vector images, which I may do with the others as well if they need an update or correction of some sort.Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
When adding citations to Robbins Basic Pathology[4], which is an excellent source, could you be careful to format the title of the book in such a way that the promotional blurb ("with STUDENT CONSULT") is not displayed?
And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!
Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...
New Organs
Hi i created the following organs, Kidney with ureters, Female uterus vagina and ovaries without round ligament, and with round ligament Madhero88 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the new organs! The kidneys fit perfectly, look below.
I haven't tried the uterus or vagina yet, though. Not really my style I guess. However, they are all added to the collection. Again, thanks! I suggested on the main page what other organs may be very useful, if you want to make more of them. Sure there are others that should be on that list too, but I can't think of them now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi i create one of the organs you asked for on your main page
Hi, can you help me by supporting me to start the task force as the cardiology articles needs allot of working, and many articles are missing, please if you are interested to support me or help, do that on the proposal pageMaen. K. A. (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I Really like what you did with the diagram! You changed it from just another diagram into a proper illustration. Congratulations! If you nominate it as a featured picture, I'll definitely support. I understand about using a temporary png, considering the rendering issues, and I don't mind that you changed it on my page. Keep up the good work! --Slashme (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Everything, 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.
Thank you for the work on your extensive gallery of diagrams, for making sure that each is well referenced (it's not often enough that I see a "References" section on an image page), and for including all the parts so anybody can make one. Your efforts are commendable and make a difference at many articles. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»15:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, if you look through PMID 16253889 and PMID 15728170 you'll see that diarrhea is not mentioned as a symptom. Could you fix the diagram? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It's true, diarrhea is mainly a symptom in children and may be better left out. Good these svg images are easy to change. Thanks for the review! Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you take requests? Sphingolipidoses.svg is a recently generated diagram that covers some important concepts, but it could use some Häggström magic. --Arcadian (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I do, if it interests me. And indeed, this one smells delicious. It's really good already, though, even has colors. But I think it can be even better, and I'll be able to look into it further once the exam period is over. Thanks for the notification! Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Motion Blindness joining with Akinetopsia
Based on reading both articles, they seem to be reffering to the same thing. I agree with the merger, although I think whatever they merge into needs to be an improvement over the current state of both articles. Having said that, I am no expert, so I hope there are no subtle differences between the two terms (one being a subset of the other for example??!) and would hence need to seperate articles. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it has been long enough and no one else has decided to make an opposition. I say go ahead and merge them! I would do it myself, but I am aftaid I might do a poor job at it (I am having trouble judging what to include/not include in the merger, what should be merged into what as in which term is more common, what refs to keep etc...) Kind regards. :)Calaka (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
All right, so be it. However, it is uncertain when that task reaches the top of my to-do-list, so you're very welcome to try to do it too. After all, any errors can easily be corrected afterward - I can have a look if you drop a message. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of List of extraordinary diseases and conditions
Too bad most of the diagnoses in that series are actually relatively ordinary, although the process to getting to the proper diagnosis is far from so. I admire your effort. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn whether the conditions have been featured in the House series or not. And it wouldn't work as a reliable source for inclusion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of extraordinary diseases and conditions
Hi Mikael, hope there's no hard feelings about this. You do some good stuff here. I've had stuff AfD'd and it isn't fun but perhaps ultimately educational to see what other people think. See you around... Colin°Talk18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of School age
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article School age, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
This phrase is too broad to "belong" to a single psychological theory.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here [5].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I made some further contributions to that article, and I would enjoy continuing that in the future as well, if it is permitted to remain. However, I think I actually better refrain from participating in further discussions regarding any deletion, because my creation of the article in the first place probably gives me some inherent bias towards wanting to keep it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I was scanning the recent wikiproject proposals and your Project Haystack caught my eye. It occurred to me that you might be interested in the Outline of Knowledge WikiProject. We aim to create outlines of all the major areas of knowledge on Wikipedia so that users can easily and quickly find the basic articles about a topic and more in depth articles, while getting an idea of how they are related. The "final" goal skeleton outline can be found here and a specific outline that's reasonably far along can be found at outline of biology. To address one of the particular scenarios you raise in your introduction, if you had 2 minutes to learn about AIDS, at some point in a few months you could go to the Outline of AIDS and find out where you needed to go quickly. The user who is coordinating the project is The Transhumanist and they are very enthusiastic. I'm sorry that the project didn't work out; it looked like you put a lot of effort into it.
On an entirely unrelated note, I love your photographs from Tibet. Made me nostalgic for bod-ja and yak dung fire. :-) --Gimme danger (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Just found Michael's diagrams in SVG. Cool! I will be using them in my Human Biology class. still need tobacco side effects and MDMA side effects. Anything in the works?
Linda Baney
I'm glad you liked them! Right now I'm working on making a better tutorial to avail anybody to help themselves to whatever they want. But at least tobacco side effects is a likely candidate for another diagram, so you may well come back later and see if any is added. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Good to hear! I've actually made a recent update and expansion of it, and the caption is all right, so I think it's ready to serve. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Monochorionic twins
On July 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monochorionic twins, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monoamniotic twins, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On August 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Immune tolerance in pregnancy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On August 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Savior sibling, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey Mikael. How would one go about scanning a X-ray on a photobed scanner? If not, is there some sort of special equipment necessary for the job? Thanks, –blurpeace(talk)18:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I've already seen that website, sadly. I'm going to try and get in touch with my physician. Hopefully he can give me the digital file and copyright. –blurpeace(talk)20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Mikael Häggström. Since you have participated in the Adolescence article before, as well as ones relating to it, will you respond here? I need a sufficient number of opinions about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed many of your great contributions to wikipedia and thought it was about time you got a barnstar. The alcohol and cancer page really needed some work done and I have tried a couple of times to find some help on wiki med to no avail. Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?01:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
One more message: I did not replace the pictures in the articles with this newly-promoted one. It's already in a few. I leave it up to you to decide if you'd like all the articles where there are 2 separate pictures to instead have the combined picture. I'll gladly make the change if this is the case. I just wanted to make sure first. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Done I ended up changing some of the colors in the captions. Maybe it was a rendering problem on my part, but they didn't match what was in the image. Also, I found that Creatine kinase, Serum total protein, and Globulin only appear in the mass part. I changed those images anyway, but I thought you might like to know in case you wanted to add them. By the way, the more I looked at this image, the more amazed I was. Great work! Makeemlighter (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! It's true I've changed the colors on some boxes, so extra thanks for correcting those. It's also true that some values only appear in the mass part, but I'll perhaps derive the molar values for those as well later. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Pregnancy table
Dear Mikael, I would like to create a Hungarian version of this picture: File:Prenatal development table.svg. Can you please possibly send me a version that has text layers in it? Alternatively, I can send you the Hungarian text and you can insert it into the picture. Many thanks in advance! Viktorhauk (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure a Hungarian version would be really useful! I'm not sure, however, about the text layer function, but the text is completely editable in Inkscape in that .svg version, so you could try that first. If downloaded incorrectly, Firefox sometimes want to save it as a non-editable .png-version. Still, if it fails, you could send me the Hungarian text. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Where did you get the information for all the side-effects you list in your pictures on psychoactive drugs. The information is false 90% of the time and focuses on negative without positive effects. These images function as scare tactics.
The effects are the most common ones, which means that not everyone of them necessarily appears after each dose. The information, when not specified by any other reference in the image caption or information page, was reflecting the information in the article. If there is a picture that seems unacceptably incorrect, I could improve the references for it. Also, bodily effects of psychoactive drugs tend to be side effects. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well for example, the picture on the Oxycodone page cites side-effects that are not mentioned in the text, and that are not known in medical literature. For example, the image cites "Seizures" as a side effect, but seizures are not listed anywhere in the text, nor are they known to occur in medical literature with regards to oxycodone. The images also don't have citations or sources at all. I don't know if you're aware of this either, but I have personally seen these images around my university, and if you are indeed the creator of these images, I would be upset with whomever is distributing your work for profit.
You may probably find references by clicking on the image to see their page in Wikimedia Commons. Still, I added the reference to the image caption in the Oxycodone article to make it easier to find. If you show any other reference that gives a different picture, then I'll gladly make the necessary corrections. I'd be upset if unacceptably inaccurate pictures were distributed out there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I was having a look at the reference values pages
In my opinion the international recommendations on establishng reference intervals (and the correct vocabulary) are not indicated
I could provide input on this subject
and would appreciate your opinion as the main contributor to these pages
sincerely
Jpbraun (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:SNG, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:SNG and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:SNG during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Grutness...wha?23:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If it's not too much trouble, would you change "Smoking" in File:Preventable causes of death.png to "Smoking tobacco" in recognition of, e.g., the David Nutt#Sacking controversy? I hope you still have the source file handy. There seem to be a fairly large chunk of population who can displace nicotine cravings with much less frequent and vastly lower quantities of cannabis inhaled. And deleterious effects of typical amounts of smoked cannabis are few and far between in the primary lit and still negligible in the secondaries. I am in correspondence with someone who has a review in the works, and the benefits (in places where medical marijuana is legal, at least) are probably substantial. 99.27.203.165 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Would just "Tobacco" be even better? There are a lot of throat and mouth cancers from chewing tobacco ("Chewing tobacco is a newly recognized risk factor of great public health concern." -- 2009's "Recent changes in the epidemiology of head and neck cancer," PMID 19363341, Review) so I don't think it would be misleading. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Genetic code/GA1. I have de-listed the article as the referencing is so poor. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have just created this image, which I then added it to the cystic fibrosis article, so if you would like to add it to your gallery, and feel free to modify any thing you dont like about it, I made 2 version, one SVG and one PNG, take care MaenK.A.Talk12:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent work! It's really an improvement to that article. I think the intestines are turned 90 degrees counter-clockwise, but only people who have been working with that image will probably ever notice =-) Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your image File:Health benefits of apples.png (and File:Health benefits of apples.svg), I'm wondering if the header for "prevention of dementia" should be something other than "Psychological". I'm not an expert in this area, but I believe dementia is considered to be caused by neurodegeneration (i.e., it's a neurological/biological thing), whereas the heading "Psychological benefits" to me suggests something more like nice emotions, better cognition, stuff like that. Perhaps "Neurological" would be a better header?
I'm not sure how difficult it is to change this text now that it's already in the image, though, and it's not a serious issue anyway; just thought I'd run it by you. Best, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification! It's not that hard to change, so I can correct it in the next revision. Indeed, Neurological seems a bit more specific in this case. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This IP editor is Gameboy1947 (talk·contribs) trying to get around their block. Unfortunately mass-spamming other editors is part of their standard operating procedure since being blocked - the fact that it doesn't actually work doesn't appear to have sunk in yet. Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello my name is kerol and i am a father of three kids which one of the she is a girl of 8 years old and she had that sick(lupus). How can i help her to steblize her conditions to make her fill better.
I can imagine it must be hard for all of you with such a worrisome condition. Sad to say, however, I can't help here as a mere writer. I can only suggest that you ask your health care provider for advice. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD I started an AFD on septic abortion. In retrospect, maybe this wasn't a good idea. My first thought was that this was a complication and complications can be dealt with in the main article. On the other hand, there is no policy or guideline prohibiting it. Some feel that everything is permitted if not forbidden. (Others feel that everything is prohibited unless a policy or guideline allows it). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Is another cause endogenous seeding of bacteria? Or not? How about bacterial translocation? I am way over my head talking about this. I am just an idiot. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have visited your birth city of Göteborg. You are lucky to have been born there. I have also visited Linköping but not Uppsala. Perhaps the AFD should be withdrawn? I don't want to have a dispute with someone from Göteborg, unless absolutely necessary! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, although I don't see the advantage in discussions by coming from Göteborg =-)
peer review
Wikipedia medical articles are bad because there is no peer review. Yet, Wikipedia culture likes the "anyone can edit" philosophy. What do you think about having some sort of peer review for medical articles? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the corrections made by good-faithed readers can be regarded as a kind of peer review. What additional kind of system for peer review did you have in mind? Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is violently opposed, to the point of harrassment by some editors, if anyone ever proposed that doctors review the information. I am not making such suggestion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
On May 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Limb infarction, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. I just saw your comment on this FPC nom. I usually try to say "no quorum" when the image doesn't get the requisite number of supports. I closed it at 7:31 UTC, though, and that's 3:31 AM my time. I think you can see the problem!! For what it's worth, I think the image definitely stands a chance of promotion. All the alternates probably scared voters off. I'd definitely make a new nomination once you improve the image. Anyway, sorry again. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to see your RfA isn't going too well. Might I respectfully suggest you withdraw it before it gets even more unpleasant? I know the feeling- I failed my first RfA, but it's not the end of the world. I have to say, you don't seem to have a frequent need for the tools, so you're welcome to come and bug me if you need something simple doing like zapping a redirect. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd actually suggest letting it go for another day or so at least, were I you. I've seen things like this turn around...good chance it will still fail, frankly, but you never know. If it's still hanging around 50% after a day or two then it's probably time to withdraw. Anyway, although I don't think we've spoken before, you seem like a great editor and I hope you don't take it too personally if it fails in the end. Think of it like getting to a job interview 10 minutes late and without a tie...you might deserve the job, but the way the world is you might not get it. If it does fail, just keep on doing what you've been doing and run another one in 6 months or so. I'll nominate you if you want at that time. AlexiusHoratius02:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your advices. Perhaps I should have read the modern Hippocratic Oath as well: I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed. As said in my last comment there, as long as you continue to be there for me to perform those occasional edits that I do not have the ability to perform myself, then it will work out acceptably for now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought that some of the oppose "!votes" were reasoned and that all were polite. But some comments were odd. If I didn't happen to be an admin already, I might myself say, as you did:
"I do not engage very much in situations requiring adminship. Yet, in those (yet relatively few) cases, adminship is of help, resulting in a (yet relatively small) positive effect of adminship. I will still ask for consensus in controversial changes, so I see no negative effect of it to the project. I made this request because I thought that small plus and no minus would still, summed together, be a plus."
After all, this is close to how I view my activity as an admin. (I rarely embark on any ambitious venture of administration, although it does happen from time to time.)
Now, if I were to say that, I can imagine all sorts of retorts, including incredulity. But the retort
If you don't need them a lot, then why subject yourself to an RfA for only the occasional use?
invites the counter-retorts (i) My reason why? But I explained this just a few lines above and (ii) Your use of "subject yourself" suggests some sort of grilling or unpleasant experience. The grilling will be as intense and the experience will be as unpleasant as you and others choose to make it.
Thanks to you too for all the comments for improving the picture! Even if featured, it will likely continue being updated now and then - perhaps next time with black font color for GAGAergic as well for example. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I do still have interest in adminship, but yet I agree with the last nomination that I need some more study in Wikipedia guidelines and be more certain about what admin-like tasks I really want to perform before reconsidering the responsibility of the mop. On the latter point, I'm thinking of joining the Reproductive medicine task force once the spring semester is over. I'll probably notice by time what admin-tasks I could help with. I'd appreciate if you could come back here in 6 months or so and ask again if you still think I could be of use. A new nomination soon feels too hasty. Still, thanks for the suggestion! Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Hey Mikael, I was meaning to message you after your failed request for adminship. I think where you went wrong was that you were not familar with the type of answers the community was looking for. Perhaps if you watch list the request for adminship project page and periodically review other people's answers will help as well for next time. As they say better luck next time. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k?22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you edited the image on the philtrum article by adding an oval. I think the dog's philtrum, as a matter of anatomy, actually includes the crease in the nose and runs all the way to the mouth. The oval you added is just around the bottom part. If you feel that an edited image there is needed, perhaps you could add a bracket (as in the human philtrum image) covering the entire philtrum. Thanks. (I don't know how to do such an edit). Ecphora (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hej Mikael! I know Prenatal development is seriously lacking in references, but please do not add yet more unsourced content. Also, if you would have sources to some of the other unsourced content, it would be great if you could add them. Tack! Lova Falktalk17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it needs more references - I'll not make it worse. Those details I added were from USMLE World Qbank, which should be very reliable, yet make an unusual reference note, so I decided not use it that way. Tack själv! Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Down syndrome
Hi Mikael.
I seem to have reverted your edit to Down Syndrome accidentally. I'm not sure how I did it but some keyboard/mouse trouble perhaps. I've re-reverted it. Colin.
No harm done then. =-) Cheers. Mikael
Secondary somatosensory cortex
Hello Mikael. We haven't met, but I was wondering if I could ask you a favour. I've recently rewritten secondary somatosensory cortex to the best of my understanding, and would really appreciate your opinion. I'm not an expert of any kind, but I have an interest in pain theory, so when I come across an article that Pain relies on, I try to improve it. Anthony (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to inform as member of the task group that there is another CASA supplier www.androexpert.com which could be added to the Wikipedia listing.
I have noticed that different labs have different reference ranges, presumably from different lab techniques and assay methods. Does your table take this into account?
Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ray William Johnson was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)03:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources and generalisation
I seem to recall that I have reminded you a few times about WP:MEDRS. Ideally no fact in medical articles should be sourced to primary research studies, because they remain vulnerable to all sorts of bias, and only the "implicit approval" of a secondary source makes such a study worth including.
Therefore I cannot imagine how you make an edit like this. Uncritical reading of your addition suggests that all women are rendered infertile by chemotherapy. You can imagine the reaction of a young female cancer patient reading this. You cited a study with 17 patients which used surrogate markers for fertility. How can you justify this? Where are the options for fertility preservation? Ovarian cryopreservation?
If you wish to discuss fertility after cancer treatment, PMID 11727861 sounds good but is from 2001. PMID 18574217 is more recent but technical. Or consider PMID 18790328 or PMID 17497315. I count at least 6 reviews a year on PubMed. Please make an effort to use appropriate sources and to present them in context. JFW | T@lk19:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for those references. I made a new subsection in that article from two of them. I realize that my addition from that original article was inappropriate. My justification for using primary sources rather than secondary ones is actually mainly that I currently have more access to such through the journal Infertility and Sterility. Also, I admit that I simply take pleasure from adding them for the time being - and right now I think I'd only have the desire to contribute with a mere fraction of it if I would restrict myself to only secondary sources. Indeed it would be ideal if everyone used secondary sources instead of primary ones, but I still think addition of primary sources generally is better than no addition at all. Still, I'll seriously chew over how to get access to more reviews.Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes we do. I remember that access point to be complicated, but I noticed it has become much easier now. Not perfect, but working. Thanks for the advice! Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Exercise Intolerance
I notice that a while ago you added the sentence "Exercise intolerance is primarily found in organic brain diseases, mitochondrial disease and neuromuscular disease." to the exercise intolerance page with the edit comment "+info from Fatigue (medical))". Any ideas where this info came from (I don't see it in the Fatigue article)? Doing a few quick searches I can't find any info about exercise intolerance being a symptom of OBS or neuromuscular disease. When I do a search for "exercise intolerance" on google scholar most of the results are for chronic heart failure which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article. If you could shed some light on this article, that would be useful. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Good detective work. =-) I didn't remember right away what that was about, but when going back in history, I found that I moved that sentence from Fatigue (medical) to exercise intolerance in this revision: [7]. Apparently, it originally stated that post-exertional exercise intolerance primarily is found in organic brain diseases, mitochondrial disease and neuromuscular disease, while general exercise intolerance has more common causes. However, the optimal would be to remove all that previous unreferenced material and replace with whatever is found on google scholar. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
MVP
Hello. When you changed the target of MVP from Most Valuable Player to the disambiguation page, you may have overlooked the fact that over 700 other Wikipedia articles contain links to "MVP". Each of those links now needs to be reviewed and fixed to take readers to the correct article. Your assistance in this effort would be appreciated. As WP:FIXDABLINKS says, "A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links." The same applies when redirecting an existing title to a disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi I have just deleted this page you created per WP:CSD#G8, as it was a redirect to a non-existent page Combined epithelium. Now I look, I see that target has never existed, so I guess you maybe plan to create it; if you do, by all means re-create the redirect. Regards, JohnCD (talk)
I intended to target it to an article that describes combined epitelium, but I didn't find any among the epithelium articles, so it is correct to have those deleted until there is one. Thanks for your help. Regards. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Interspecific pregnancy
On 17 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Interspecific pregnancy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Mikael Häggström has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Mikael Häggström's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Mikael Häggström!
A discussion has begun about whether the article Cyclomethicon, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Leyo09:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
On 11 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Potential person, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that philosophers differ in opinion as to whether potential future persons have value or not? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
A discussion has begun about whether the article Causing death, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PowersT12:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I noticed that the age range 65-74 was missing. Perhaps the magenta bars 75-84 should have been labeled 65-84, or perhaps there should be a separate bar for the 65-74 age group. I take a particular interest in that group because it is the one to which I currently belong.CharlesHBennett (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I made it from the description and references found in the dengue fever article. I hope it's helpful. Feel free to comment on it. Also, thanks for your contributions to the article! Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 17:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for working on Smooth Muscle. As you may note I've expanded the article from the orginal stub, but haven't added references. Parts maybe too technical for an encyclopedic article or too long. I did start adding references to the Talk page, but I have a lot more to add. I would like to reorganize and expand the whole article, and I made a few notes on the Talk page in that regard. Anything you can do to improve the article would be great. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to that article too. Surely, the article needs more referenced information, so I'm sure a further reorganization and expansion is for the better. Cheers. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOT cancellation test until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JFW | T@lk20:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hola, me dirigo con el fin, de pedirle permiso para publicar una imagen de los efectos fisicos del cannabis, basicamente es su imagen pero traducí el texto al español, me gustaria que me dijera si no hay ningun tipo de inconveniente para que la suba obviamente usted tendra el credito como creador User:zetaalberto
Good job there! It turned out an image there that demonstrates the sites is from a government source, and, as nothing seems to indicate anything else, it can be used directly. I made an adaption of it in Scabies#Rash. I hope it works well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Location of CGG repeats
Just want to let you know that Fragile X syndrome is caused by CGG repeats, but the CGG repeat is located in the 5' untranslated region.
Following up on the blood test ranges, graphics, etc.
Fantastic infographics! Really outstanding. Love the SVG charts in the blood test ranges. Would love to know how you went from chart data (Excel?) to SVG (Inkscape?)
Was wondering with your medical background if there are any reliable reference ranges of sex hormones levels (perhaps others) as an infant grows and goes through the various stages of "Psycho-sexual development" (see chart below).
For instance, in the Phallic stage (age 3-6) some of the psychiatry theorists postulate a little girl starts out pretty much like a "tomboy". Has pretty much male like power/dominating traits with which she identifies with, and wants to possess in herself. She is postulated to be attracted to Mom "psycho-sexually" from pretty much a male prospective ("I go outside the home for conquering and adventure and you stay home and tend to the nurturing, homemaking and baby tending.") She competes with Dad for Mom's attentions on some sexual level. She then undergoes a very radical shift to "femininity". After that occures the little girl is strongly attracted to Dad psycho-sexually, and competes with Mom for his attention.
At the completion of her Electra complex she "forfeits" having Dad all to herself, and knows that Mom securely has him. She then starts the search outside the family for a possible mate. At that "resolved" point she somewhat returns to identifying with Mom, (birds of a feather gender wise) and relates / learns from her feminine charms how to attract someone like Dad. (After all, Mom's charms worked well in getting Dad as a mate...those can work for me too...)
O.K. I'll admit to the strictly scientific mind all the "Psycho-sexual development" theory can seem pretty crazy. However it would be interesting to start testing out some of those "age old" theories against real changes in sex hormones. I postulate you could not have the radical changes going on in "the mind" without corresponding radical changes in the sex hormones? It would be quite interesting to see VISUALLY how the various sex hormones changed through that period in particular. Would it be sharp and dramatic, as your SVG charts show of the female monthly cycle? Would the hormonal changes align with and support, or basically refute the psycho-sexual development theories?
My rough biological understanding is all humans start out basically female, however with the X chromosome at an early point in development get bathed in different hormones that cause sex differentiation over to the Male side. I further understand (at least from the psychiatrist's prospective) that all humans are to some extent bi-sexual That is, all males have at least some token "female" traits, and all females have at least some token "male" traits. This is pretty obvious, even when you look at gay and lesbian couples - one typically is more "male" and the other more "female". Can some of this be reliably traced to differential hormone levels? Would tracing the hormone levels through the "psycho-sexual development" stages perhaps illuminate errors or further complexities in that model?
I'll admit right now that general gender differences (or similarities) is a whole area subject to endless, heated social debate, so I'll state right up front I have no personal interest in that discussion. When I say "Male" or "Female" characteristic here I make no value judgment. I only mean to get at gender trait differences that can actually be reasonably measured and nearly universally agreed to as strongly statistically significant. Perhaps "male" and "female" trait descriptions themselves could be better informed by what differences are found in the base sexual hormones?
At any rate I thought some of your great visualization technology might be particularly useful to illustrate this. If there is the table data available for hormones reference levels by age and sex through the various development stages it would not be too hard to put together. I'm quite sure you could easily publish your findings.
Orally aggressive: chewing gum and the ends of pencils, etc. Orally Passive: smoking, eating, kissing, oral sexual practices[7] Oral stage fixation might result in a passive, gullible, immature, manipulative personality.
I'm glad you like the chart! As to the secret in "converting" all those values from table numbers to a diagram, I simply added them one by one - I know it would have been way faster with some kind of converter, but I've found none with that specific function.
That's a very interesting topic. Sex hormones, and possibly fluctuations in it, certainly must play a major role in psychological and psychosexual changes in childhood. I found no specific sex hormone values for these ages of interest in the articles gonadarche, Puberty#Major_hormones, estrogen or testosterone. I'm certain there are studies on it out there, and if any is found, then I'm sure each one of these articles would benefit from a note on this - perhaps Psychosexual development too. I'd probably add it to the blood values article as well and, if there's space for it in there, in the diagram. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
There is such a bot, User:PotatoBot. My redirections are mainly from its log of names that could not be redirected automatically. I think it's still running through a list from DrugBank, but another one may be needed later. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Human Body Diagrams Listing Side-effects of Caffeine
Someone else (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Caffeine#Effects_When_Taken_in_Moderation) noticed that the symptoms listed on this diagram aren't at all consonant with the symptoms listed anywhere else in the medical literature. I got to sleuthing around a bit, and I think I've discovered what the problem is. The cited reference doesn't cite any sources, so it's difficult to ascertain where they got the information for the monograph. However, this site has information that is similarly out-of-the-ordinary, and cites a source--namely, the product information insert for Cafcit (caffeine citrate) for intravenous administration. So I used Google to find the insert here, and it turns out that all these strange side-effects are from a study of its use for apnea of prematurity in preterm infants, not in adults. It looks like someone at Medline in 2000 made a rather glaring mistake, and the graphic has some rather glaring errors in it, as a result. This is a more accurate list from which you could generate a replacement graphic. Blahdenoma (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Just thought I'd take a minute to thank you for your image of the tracts of the spinal cord. I'm a med student at Washington University and our teachers and TAs have been using it a lot in our neuro class. mcs (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Non-cancer chemotherapy does not contain any useful information. It is not a topic that is independently notable under that name. I think it makes more sense to move the content back to chemotherapy but place it in the "history" section. The word "chemotherapy" without a modifier nowadays only refers to cancer treatment, but its historical meaning is broader. In the UK, the term "anti-tuberculosis chemotherapy" (ATC) is still in use, but more as a fossil to its original use. JFW | T@lk05:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mikael, I just want to bring many thanks from Chinese Wikipedia editors to you. We are translating medical articles, and your graphics are significantly helpful for explaining these. If possible, we also would like to translate your graphics into Chinese. Although most medical articles in Zh-wiki are in stub status, you and your contribution still provide us much courage for overcoming these difficulties. Thank you! --Walter Grassroot|talk21:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm honored by your cheering message. I wish you all the best with the continuing creation of the Chinese Wikipedia. If I knew more of the Chinese language, I would have been happy to contribute some myself You are welcome to ask for help if you need any formatting or editing of any image in order to be able to translate it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, Mikael, you've got to give me more than that. Standard & Poor's made a serious mistake this weekend. They've been making serious mistakes like this since at least 2008, when they ranked Lehman AAA right before its collapse. I care because a lot of peoples' money is at stake, and a lot of peoples' money is at stake starting later this afternoon (EST) when the Asian markets open. When the main page of Wikipedia says, without criticism, that Standard & Poor's downgraded the US credit rating, it's become part of this problem, and the solution isn't as easy as replacing my obvious bias with something that doesn't make any sense to most people.
Now I can, and will, edit the Standard & Poor's page to say more explicitly that they screwed up in '08, with a citation or two, even. But right now, if I've got money in Treasury bonds and I make my way to the Wikipedia home page, what I actually read is that the United States' ability to repay its debts has gone, which is incorrect. It would be dumb of me to then sell my bonds, because they will rebound. But, the New York Times headline this morning begins, "Amid Criticism, S&P," and someone else should have made this change before I did. We have to do better, and we will do better.
Thanks for your consideration; I am, after all, new at this.
Randnotell (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
And Mike, if I can call you Mike, I imagine that you are better at writing articles about Swedish medicine than I am, especially if the articles are in Swedish. Thanks for pointing me to the right talk page!
Randnotell (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Mike, I gotta ask, why the removal of the Playbook quotes? I would argue this issue is sufficiently complex enough to be added as a new article, you know, 2011 S&P downgrade, or something like that. And the Playbook quotes may use "weasel words" but no one else on the Web has told the story as well as Allen does. And I would further argue that I don't know how to make a new article, but rather than "nominating" it and waiting for permission from everybody, since this is a rapidly evolving topic, if you know how, you might want to go ahead and make it, and ask forgiveness, not permission. Be bold, as they say!
Randnotell (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the removal of the Playbook quotes, and I don't know the chances of such an article to remain in wiki-space, but I think you can give it a try to make one. There's the Wikipedia:Article wizard that gives a lot of help in how to do it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
And thank you for your contribution with that article Is it the first one you started? It looks very good Don't let any negative peer-review make you doubt your potential for writing. If I get some time I could make some additional edits to it, but I'm a bit busy now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
No, the first one I worked on was the Westminster article, you can see in my talk page. I suppose it was the first one I started, though. I appreciate your support, and good luck with medicine in Sweden! Sweden's a neat country.
Also, do you know how I can get the Wikipedia talk page to not send emails to my personal address? That is, when someone posts on my talk page, I would prefer that I not be notified by email.
Randnotell (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Right now, I'm studying all kinds of conventional medicine, but I hope to continue specializing in obstetrics and gynecology in the future. And you, what kind of subjects are you studying?
Dear Sir,
I read the article 'Pre- and post-test probability' on Wikipedia.
I am convinced that the negative predictive value never equals the pretest probability. In making abstraction of every other information than the test result (other test(s), history, questions, physical examination a.s.o.) the negative predictive value equals the complement of the negative predictive value. Under the same mentioned condition the positive posttest probability equals indeed the positive predictive value. So I suggest that the text should be changed taking in account this remark.
Moreover the text is written from a point of view that such a thing as an accurate pretest and posttest probability should exist but since such a notion is not defined in the text, the text ends up in some parts in being quite confusing.
I suggest that we rewrite the text in cooperation. My adress is: Soete Michel, Brugsesteenweg 68, 8420 Wenduine Belgium. I you write me a letter with your consent I wil send you a letter containing my e-mail adress. This should offer us the opportunity to discuss things without their remaining on internet wich makes it sometimes more comfortable to discuss.
Sincerely yours,
I'd be pleased if the article could be benefited with your thoughts. I'd gladly exchange letters with you if it makes you more comfortable. What kind of consent do you have in mind that I send to you?
Dear Sir,
The consent I meant was that you agree to allow to discuss the problem via e-mail. Without a first letter I cannot know your e-mail adress nor can I know if you allow to be contacted by e-mail. One letter will suffice, I guess. Further communication can happen by e-mail.
Sincerely yours,
I'm sorry, I can't, because the table was included in a lecture handout, and I traced it to the book by googling the text, which exactly matched text in that book - [11]. Do you think it's acceptable? Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
My library has it off-site, I can request it if needed. But I'm not sure how needle/haystack it will be to find the text. DMacks (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
My intent was that, without that tag, the long entry in that box pushes the cytogenics- and incidence-columns far to the right, so it may be difficult to track each subtype to its cytogenics and incidence. However, on second thought, it may not be necessary, so I reverted it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I just did what I thought was a good cleanup and I thought you may want to take a look or make some changes. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it looks all well. Good work! I think it was a good thing to keep only the most essential entries to avoid template creep. Surely, equipment and all that can still be found by clicking through the remaining links. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Your (truly energetic) help needed
Dear Dr Mikael Haggstrom,
Thanks for helping me edit the 'infertility in PCOS'.
However my contributions to the 'PCOS" page which patients frequently read has been changed (since august 11, 2011) by an obviously non-medical person. I am a 48 year old doctor (radiologist, in South India) and would like your help in that page too. In my daily practice I see alot of young women with PCOS, who get it simply by eating too much of trans fat containing fast food. Since many of of these women are computer savvy. I used to advise them to read 'trans fats' and 'PCOS' in Wikipedia.
In my experience asking infertile patients to avoid trans fats totally has been very successful in their treatment.
Do add the 'PCOS' page to your watchlist.
Thanking You
Dr William Fullinfaw MBBS, MD(RD) - username 'fullwill'; email-fullwill@gmail.com
Fullwill (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dr William Fullinfaw
Thank you for notifying me on this issue. I'm not a doctor myself, but by having a look at the article, it appears to me that the two sources ([12] and [13]) for the text that described a causative link between trans fats and PCOS actually had not studied on people with PCOS, so their conclusions wouldn't be valid for such people. Still, you are free to search for studies that target PCOS specifically.
Actually, all bacteria in the Class Mollicutes lack cell walls. Your source for bacterial morphology is rather dated, as the Mollicutes have been recognized since 1962. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Oops , that revision of mine was clearly a mistake, as the institute is obviously the primary topic, so I made a hatnote on that article instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a million for the article about the Mylohyoid muscle!
I've just been reading about the larynx and the laryngal muscles, when this name popped in. I couldnt find the danish equivalant, but your neat article was a great help - I can now get on with my reading. Thank you very much :)
A tag has been placed on Template:Old merge request requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Surely I can do that. Do you think the "Signs and symptoms"-section will change significantly in the near future, or is it appropriate to illustrate its content in its current state? Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll soon start working on an update. I think the major task is to prepare a concise list of the effects, which may take some time. Do you have any particular entries in mind that need to be changed? Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Community input required: lowering delist bar at FPC
You are receiving this because of your current or past association with the Featured Pictures project. Following on from several cases where closers did not observe the prescribed minimum votes required for a delisting, there is now a motion to entirely dismiss the requirement for a minimum. Please participate in the discussion as wide-ranging changes may arise.
Just so you know, I left some (late) comments and replies on the human anatomy illustration that you posted on the Human article. Since I know the comments have been coming in slowly, and since I'm about to start a new thread, I just want to make sure that you notice them. If you have any replies to my comments, I will watch for them there. – VisionHolder « talk »19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a further recent kerfuffle primarily at Talk:Human#Replacement of anatomy image relating to penis size. One of the editors has been blocked partially as a result (due to repeated accusations of racism). The general consensus is the complaints have no merit but as the photographer, if you have any comments perhaps they will help. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
However, I noticed that Almonds show almost no polyunsaturaed fat in your graph, but should show 21% according to the source you used. Is it possible there was an error in generating the Excel spreadsheet/graph? Borkborkbork6000 (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the brownie, and for noticing the error with the almonds I found that the number had been corrected in the table [16] but I've forgotten to update the image accordingly. I'll make sure to have it fixed soon. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to thank you for your nice Wiki-articles, and the excellent diagrams you have made. I know you have listed them as public domain, but as a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I may use some of them in a non-profit publication to demonstrate the basic endocrine functions in patients in the intensive care unit. Thank you.
Wondering, do you keep this on your radar? The articles still appear very similar superficially.. just wondering because I would want to link one of them into vagina and update to something post-1918. -- Richiez (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a good plan, and I've done some adjustments to the images now so that they are a bit more similar. The acute HIV infection image will have to be a bit wider than the AIDS image in order to have text of similar size. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe deckertalk to me16:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Per [18] sugar drinks are not recommended as they can worse diarrhea due to the high osmotic load. NICE recommends water over these but say they may be used if nothing else is available. See gastroenteritis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 03:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Have updated with this "Drinks especially high in simple sugars, such as soft drinks and fruit juices, are not recommended in children under 5 years of age as they may increase diarrhea.[8] Plain water may be used if more specific and effective ORT preparations are unavailable or are not palatable.[8] A nasogastric tube can be used in young children to administer fluids if warranted.[9]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 03:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages
Dear Author/ Mikael Häggström
My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Hormone Replacement Therapy.
I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.
Hydra Rain (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mikael. Can I just point you to m:Wikimedia Medicine? It's a non-profit corporation whose aim is to raise and disburse funds, and work with other organisations, to improve the coverage and quality of medical content, and coordinate the translation of such articles. If you're interested, add your name to the list on that page and we'll keep you informed. Your thoughts would be very welcome on the project's talk page, too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification I think this is a great idea, as the scope of contributing to the medical content of Wikipedia stretches far beyond mere editing of articles. I've added myself to the list of "People interested". Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm delighted to hear that you find the image useful for your paper You are very welcome to use it there. A citation may be something like "From Image:Basal ganglia.png in Wikipedia. By Mikael Häggström and Andrew Gillies. Published under cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL license." for example as text by the image, or with a number by the image corresponding to an entry with the text in a reference list at the end of the paper.Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi BBKurt. Actually, I was unable to edit that particular article. Perhaps it is under edit protection from users who haven't yet made a significant amount of edits to that wiki? Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You are right. The article was write-protected as a response to repeated vandalism. I switched the photos. Thank you for your support.
Use of two diagrams in a book regarding endocrine disorders in pediatric heart disease.
Dear Mikael-
Thank you for your very nice diagrams. I wanted to ask you whether we could use two of your diagrams in a published book regarding pediatric heart disease, chapter: endocrinological issues? If so, how would you like the figures to be cited/credit given? I very much appreciate your help. Here are the links to the two diagrams we are hoping to use:
I'm delighted to hear that you find them useful An example of a citation may be "From Image:Thyroid system.png (or Calcium regulation.png) in Wikipedia. By Mikael Häggström. Published in Public Domain."
I am sorry to bother you again, however, my publisher (Springer) is asking whether you would be okay with the images being only cited with your name, in public domain, without reference to Wikipedia? I guess as a rule they do not allow references to online unauthenticated sources. Thank you for considering this. happy new year!
Hi, I'm Darkness Shines. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Le Fort III, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, Darkness Shines
Thanks for the reminder. Certainly the discussion in en-wiki is nothing compared to any discussion on the topic in the wiki at hand. I just didn't find any on the local page, but I'm about to add one now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Permission needed to use tissue healing time period diagram
Dear Mikael.
I am second year student writing a literature review on tissue regeneration. I would like permission from you to include the "stages of wound repair" diagram in my literature review before submission. (Submission date is the 13/01/2013)
Hi. I noticed you reverted my change in Irregular menstruation. I understand that you changed it to reflect the wording in the reference. However, it's a badly structured sentence. Hope you don't mind if I try to restructure it so it makes some sense. --Farzaneh (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
You're very welcome to restructure the sentence. The gist of that source is that it's actually rather unusual to have very regular cycle intervals. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
That was my understanding as well, but the original sentence doesn't clearly convey this meaning. What do you think of the current wording? --Farzaneh (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The current wording was still a contradiction to the source text. However, I wasn't able to find that source text again, so it doesn't seem to have wp:verifiability. However, at least we can surely say that most women experience cycle length variations of up to eight days, so I think we can use that as a cutoff in this case. Still, you are welcome to search for additional sources for the topic. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Mikael, there has been a further review of your DYK nomination of this article. Please stop by to address the issues discussed. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Mikael, I'm afraid time has just about run out. :-( It will have been two weeks as of tomorrow; if there isn't any action by then, I will regretfully have to pull the plug. I hope you can find some time to at least respond there. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polymodality until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PuffinLet's talk!17:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
Something has gone horribly wrong with this template you created. Since I've never edited a template, I figured it would be best to inform somebody who knows what they're doing (i.e.: you). ;) ~Regards, Eric F74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You cannot label alveolus in the middle of the pancreatic acinus, especially if you refer Junquiera...they explain well the difference and also al alveolus is large open space...an acinus is not because it secretes soluble polypeptides or proteins, an alveolus is making apocrine and merocrine secretions and nedds spaces..i.e. mammary gland, prostate glands, apocrine sweat glands...etc please remove alveolus from the diagram explaining acinus, it is illogic
Dr J Gilloteaux
Member of the Federative International Committee for Anatomical Terminology
Hello, Mikael Häggström. Considering that you've worked on the Vagina article before, perhaps you'd be willing to comment in this section about the Human vaginal size article and/or this section about a new addition to the Vagina article and/or edit both of these articles to tackle these issues? I also realize that you may be watching the Vagina article and WP:MED, so forgive me if this message is redundant because of that. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer. I don't automatically watch WP:MED (just WP:REPRO) but make regular visits, so the most recent talk entries were actually new to me - thanks for the notification As I commented there, I think the most important parameter is the maximal size in order to let a baby pass during childbirth, rather than merely baseline measures, but I can't recall any study on that topic right now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I guess I have interesting news for you but my computer crashed, so I lost your e-mail address.
If you want to have it take contact with me on my e-mail address.
Sincerely Yours,
Updating abortion article to include preterm birth risk.
Hello Mikael,
You updated the Preterm Birth age a few months back, and reinserted updates I had made last year with your own (better) verbiage. After more than a week of battles on the talk page, I appear to have finally prevailed in insisting that it be added to the otherwise terrible current article on abortion. It reads as if Cecile Richards wrote it at present, and that seems fine with the folks who have the rights to update this protected/locked article.
Not surprisingly, those of us who have been going at it on the talk page have strong personal opinions on these topics. Your edit history shows no evidence of same, and your qualifications also seem to be impressive. Thus, I have asked on that talk page that you consider an update to the article (I suggest a new section and heading) concerning the preterm birth link, as well as placenta previa and placenta accreta.
I have provided a great deal of published science on the topic on the talk page. I can provide more at your request. Thank you for your consideration regarding this. Informed Consent is a very important issue, and avoidable preterm births could save a lot of children form a great deal of different birth defects as well as damage to their mothers.
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 :)
COPD is the next article I am working on getting to GA. Wondering if you could make me a drawing of symptoms? It will still be a few weeks I think before I get it there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
From the given information in the article I was able to put together the image at right. The condition is so focused at the lungs so I found it hard to find a place for any other organ, but feel free to suggest further inclusions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
REQUEST FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC CONSENT TO PUBLISH
Dr. Haggstrom:
My name is Ileana McCaigue, and I have been an Occupational Therapist for over 36 years. The main focus of my work is for management of sensory-based problem behaviors in children with Autism or sensory processing disorders. I have been researching the sleep problems of these children for the past 11 years, and have just completed the manuscript for a book on sensory sleep strategies. I am requesting permission to use your illustration describing the side effects of sleep deprivation to make it clear to parents how this impacts their children.
Please contact me at Ileana@HOTRxTools.com if any questions or concerns with the information you would like me to print under the PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS section of the book.
With appreciation,
Ileana McCaigue
Dear Ileana McCaigue,
I added the image I assume you refer to at left. I give you full permission to use the image in your book. An example of an image note is: "From the image "Effects of sleep deprivation" by Mikael Häggström, MD. The image is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication." If you want, you can also add "Image entries and references are available at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Effects_of_sleep_deprivation.svg#Summary".
I'm a member of a French community called ABULEDU-FR, which means association for free software in French schools ; we are interested in lots of pictures from you, for example about health.
Good work! You can use the translations wherever you like. For some inspiration, I recommend looking where the English versions are used, at either the .svg or .png versions (linked from each other) and checking the "File usage on other wikis", such as at the bottom of Commons:File:Health_effects_of_pollution.png. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mikael, I saw you commented at this discussion on commons regarding the proposed deletion File:Computed tomography of human brain - large.png, saying you were relieved the discussion seems resolved. As it turns out, it's not resolved. Were you able to find out more from your department if permissions were granted, or (even better!) if it even necessary to seek any permissions at all? Thanks... Zad6815:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I wanted the discussion to go a different direction. I posted some Swedish-language articles there and I am curious what kind of photo credits are given in these articles. In English, the technician for medical imaging is never credited in the way that a person taking photos would be and I wonder what the practice is in Sweden. Can you look at the articles I posted and - since I presume you know Swedish - state what photo credits seem to be assigned to the medical images in the article? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk)16:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I had a look at those articles, and made another comment in the discussion [19]. Frankly, I find the discussion TLDR for tonight, but if you need my help in the matter feel free to give me another message here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Hi Mikael! I guess you won't like this, but I would just like to tell you that I reversed your move of Environmental toxins and fetal development. I motivated my reversal on the talk page. Tomorrow I have a rather heavy day at work, so if you wish to discuss this, I'll probably won't answer before thursday. Kind regards! Lova Falktalk20:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Medicine: Reproductive Health task force
Tja! You seem to be the driving force behind the Repro Health task force right now, which seems to have been very inactive for a while.
What's your opinion of the current to-do list? It hasn't been edited in four years, but the progestogen-only contraception ADE standardization seems like it's still a good task.
I'm asking because I'm a fourth-year med student going into ob/gyn, and I'm spending this month editing Wikipedia (like UCSF's program). I'd love to hear your suggestions; I greatly admire your contributions!
I'm delighted to hear that you've also found interest in this specialty I've revised that to-do list at the WP:REPRO page. I think the centralization of information related to e.g. [[progesterone only pill]s remains an important task. Also, I've added a new section, Journal summarizing, because I think it's important to keep the Wikipedia articles up to date with recent research. I've been summarizing the articles in Human Reproduction Update for perhaps a year now (or at least about 80% of them, because some articles don't have a easily summarizable result or conclusion), and if I get more time I'll hopefully be able to subscribe to and summarize another journal as well, but there are so many publications only in OB/GYN so I don't have time to summarize all of them by myself, so it would be great if more people got involved in this activity. You are very welcome to participate!
This summarizing business looks interesting! But there's something pretty basic about it that I don't understand... where do you put the summary? Triacylglyceride (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I've got no simple answer to it, sorry. It's basically something that needs to be judged by each individual study. Often, journal articles have keywords listed that can help, if there is a corresponding Wikipedia article. If you find a journal in reproductive medicine that you find interesting for summarizing, I can give suggestions of where to put the summaries. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
LH at ovulation
Hello Mikael,
Hope the day finds you well!
Just a note, I think you posted the ovulation graphs and the one for LH at ovulation reads wrong....it should read that LH at surge during ovulation is 30 - 50.
Don't know if you can adjust, I am not sure how to go about that so will leave it with you.
Thanks,
Kelley
Hello Kelley
I hope the day finds you well too!
I think both values can be regarded as correct, but having different prediction intervals. I guess a 5% prediction interval may be approximately 40 - 45, and the current diagram shows the 90% prediction interval which is approximately 20 - 75. I also guess the interval you stated above is somewhere between the ones I mentioned. Let me know if you still feel certain that the diagram is incorrect.
In my understandig there is Irritant contact dermatitis and Allergic contact dermatitis. But only last one is due to Typ4 Hypersensitivity.
It's just confusing, that Contact Dermatitis is Typ IV, but nevertheless not.
Maybe it would be more proper, to link it to allergic contact dermatitis.
But maybe its nitpicking and the user can explore bei himself, that there are distinct Contact Dermatits.
Thanks for your immense contribution none the less.
I've added a reference to it now. The following sentence was pasted from type IV hypersensitivity, and it's just to introduce the concept for those who are completely unfamiliar with it, so for me it's not important to keep it as it is. Mikael Häggström (talk)
A tag has been placed on Template:Cross-reference requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Keφr10:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Mikael. If I remember correctly you speak Swedish? Am working with Translators Without Borders to translate content into as many other languages as possible as listed here [21]
Dengue fever is live here [22] Wonder if you can translate this image [23] Also if you wish to help add more of the translations as listed on the RTT page it would be much appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
When moving pages, please remember to fix any double redirects. These can create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. Thank you. Redfarmer (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of List of extraordinary diseases and conditions at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smallman12q (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Done I ended up changing some of the colors in the captions. Maybe it was a rendering problem on my part, but they didn't match what was in the image. Also, I found that Creatine kinase, Serum total protein, and Globulin only appear in the mass part. I changed those images anyway, but I thought you might like to know in case you wanted to add them. By the way, the more I looked at this image, the more amazed I was. Great work! Makeemlighter (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the caption looks all well. Good work! Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear you like it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Template:Evolution essentials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure you can call me Mike if you wish. Thank you for your contributions! Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
, that revision of mine was clearly a mistake, as the institute is obviously the primary topic, so I made a hatnote on that article instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
And I admire your tireless contributions, as well as your journal papers. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
...Support Open Access... 
![[15]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Effects_of_moderate_caffeine_consumption.svg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Computed_tomography_of_human_brain_-_large.png&diff=next&oldid=104550908){kind=link}
![[23]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dengue_fever_symptoms.svg){kind=link}