User talk:Michael Benjamin

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun!

Robert Tito | Talk 18:52, 7 February 2007 (CST)

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started and our help system for other introductory pages. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. Announcements are also available via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. --Bernard Haisch 13:28, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Image

Michael, please you have to include the copyright information in the images that you upload. Thanks. --Versuri 12:35, 12 February 2007 (CST)

reply

Yes, the de-fork hurt a lot of good medical articles but some, like Lead poisoning at wikipedia are only mediocre. It would be cool to have lead poisoned gums, and a blood smear in the article. Also, if you really want a hard core medicine person who edits a ton, start working with http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Nancy_Sculerati_MD . She is really good. I guess what they want to do is make each article better when they bring it over. I think the anemia article can be improved but I really don't have time to add details right now. I'd like to see more molecular physiology added and more pathophysio mechanisms. Also, almost sadly, medical students reference wikipedia all the time when learning / relearning the basics about a subject. It'd be nice to have a differential approach in mind when writing medical articles. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 01:54, 12 February 2007 (CST)

I think DNA is the next big science article they are working on. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 01:55, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Also, check out the forums. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 02:10, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Dr. Mike, when you take content from wikipedia, just check the "from wikipedia box" on the editing page. We don't want the information at the bottom box about the license to say wikipedia, but it should say from wikipedia. The license stuff is getting worked out but I think the check box in the edit page is the proper policy for now - not sure though. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 22:45, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Nevermind, I'm obviously blind from studying around the clock. They changed the box on me and I didn't know which one was which. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 22:48, 12 February 2007 (CST)

some "medical" articles

Michael, I have been writing a series of article sthat will all refer to each other (eventually):Nose, Cosmetic Surgery,Reconstructive Surgery, Rhinoplasty. Also Christo has written Pain. Perhaps you might take a look at any or all of them and add/edit/ or comment on talk page where you will. Thanks, Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 16:46, 23 February 2007 (CST)

I'll be happy to take a look. I have been focusing on my specialties of hematology and oncology so far, but I am also boarded in internal medicine. Do you know of any tips in importing Wikipedia pages? I have been using cut and paste so far, but it's kind of slow.--Michael Benjamin 17:15, 23 February 2007 (CST)

I don't know how to do that. To be honest, I think it's better that we do no more than cut and paste from there and essentially write our articles fresh-even entirely fresh. We just had to go through and delete many article that got imported "by hand" and were not then not modified. It's true that at first we were thinking we would be a fork of Wikipedia, but no longer. Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 17:29, 23 February 2007 (CST)

As I said in my bulletin board post, I prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants than reinvent the wheel. A lot of the scholarship on Wikipedia is junk, ok, but it is at least a good starting point. The main problem with wikipedia isn't that the content is awful--it's that there are too many cranks and it's anticredentialist. Citizendium solves that from the "get-go" by instituting a system of editors. The text isn't the problem in and of itself--it's the perspective of the people editing the text. You get someone like you and me even looking at wikipedia text, it's going to get a lot better, just from our life experiences and education. As Woody Allen says, 99% of life is just showing up. Anyway, enough procrastinating--time to edit!--Michael Benjamin 12:50, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Also, sounds like you need an ENT to edit those surgical pages. My knowledge of those areas is pedestrian at best. I grabbed a few images for nose off Gray's Anatomy, but it's slow going. I have been working on some articles in my arena of expertise: Anemia, Monoclonal gammopathy, thrombocytopenia, Medicare. Have a look and see what you think.

please read my remark at the talk:healing arts page Robert Tito | Talk 18:16, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Critical views of chiropractic

If you are interested, I would appreciate your input on Critical views of chiropractic. It's an endless discussion (2 archives!!) to read through, and I don't blame you if you are not interested. But I have done as much there as I can, and would really appreciate another physician with clinical expertise lending his authorship and editorship. It will require reading through all that discussion though, and commenting on the talk page. Nancy Sculerati 09:06, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

I started. I wonder whether the article is noteworthy in the first place. I got into a battle at Wikipedia over criticism of the FDA last month, and it was really time consuming over a topic that might not rightly deserve to be there in the first place...BTW, me and three other medically minded people were able to defeat a sockpuppet crackpot.--Michael Benjamin 15:18, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

It may not be worthwhile. It's fine to take it or leave it. Nancy Sculerati 16:29, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

Contraception

I have been the primary author of an article on the medical methods of contraception - Contraception (medical methods). It has just been nominated for approval by Gareth Leng. Could you kindly read it? As a physician, I encourage you to edit as needed. put your comments on the talk page, if you support the nomination-please add your name to the template. If you believe that the article should not be approved, please remove the template for nomination. Obviously I hope that you support it, but I want to make it clear that you do have that option. Thanks, Nancy Sculerati 06:13, 17 May 2007 (CDT)