User talk:Dozenist/archive3

This is an archive of old discussions. You may edit this page to fix malformed signatures or to update links, but please direct new comments to my talk page.

In re

Thanks for the compliment. It's a particularly long and involving case, and it happened to be one that I was assigned to read for class tomorrow, plus the facts are really interesting, so i decided to write an article about it.

Ok, about in re: in re is used in a case name when designating the opposing parties by name might be counterintuitive or even impossible. The phrase is often used in guardianship proceedings and cases involving wills. I think it might be impossible to designate two parties if an executor of a will merely petitions a court to construe an ambiguous portion of a will. Since there aren't any opposing parties, and the executor is merely asking the court a question about ___'s will, the best way to name the case is "In re the estate of ___." I guess the thinking in other cases that do have opposing parties (like a will contest by an omitted child) is that because cases like those deal primarily with one person (their rights if it's a guardianship proceeding and their estate if it involves a will), it still makes more sense to simply refer to the case by the last name of the person. - Jersyko talk 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Is your rollback button working? Mine hasn't been since the most recent update to firefox . . . but now it's not working on IE either. - Jersyko talk 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, mine is working now, check my monobook.js page for the script. Remember to hold down shift and refresh mozilla after you add the script to your page. - Jersyko talk 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City hall

I was thinking of going one day when i'm downtown already for work at lunch. If you're interested, give me a call and we can work out a date. I doubt I'll go this week, though. - Jersyko talk 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - "Mr. Jersyko"? I like it.

I reverted your most recent edit to the Memphis talk page. No reason to antagonize the editor any further, especially now that his/her most recent comment tacitly admits that he/she is the same editor as the one who posted the previous comment when both have voted in the Afd for the David Saks article ("I stand by my previous comment", but YOU didn't make the previous comment!!!!). This is a violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and should get at least some (if not all) of the alter-egos blocked soon enough. - Jersyko talk 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't bother

If you keep responding, he'll keep posting incoherent rants. Just let him be. At least he's not editing the article. - Jersyko·talk 19:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgam friend

Unfortunately, it appears that he's using a non-static dial up service in Canada, so there's probably not much we can do in the way of blocking him if it keeps up. I suppose, however, that we could request semi-protection for the article if it continues (preventing only new or anonymous editors from editing it). Isn't it humorous that because I point out flaws in his argument that I'm automatically an ADA secret agent? - Jersyko·talk 14:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nomenclature problems

It's nice to hear from you again. Actually, I had not previously seen those articles but they are quite impressive! Good work! It is a difficult situation, but most of it predates me (I've only been on Wikipedia for a year or so). Most new articles these days are written by those in healthcare I'd imagine, who will use the more precise term, and most have no lay term. I would agree with moving it to "Dental handpiece"; perhaps you might consider re=suggesting it after some time has passed. Often it must be decided on a case-by-case basis; the only issue I can recall recently was when someone proposed moving Flatulence to "Farting" (the proposal failed). For the most part, even if the laity are familiar with any medical equipment, there aren't other lay terms for them. It's too bad that there aren't more dentists on Wikipedia—if you encounter enough, you should consider starting a WikiProject for it as well. Don't feel you bother me; I always enjoy interacting with my dental colleagues. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amyloblast

I really don't know much of anything about the subject. I just came across the page on Special:Uncategorizedpages. From the evidence you have presented, it seems likely that Amyloblast is a misspelling for Ameloblast and I would suggest simply redirecting Amyloblast. - SimonP 04:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind . . .

. . . but I've ripped one of the images in your gallery (Nathan Bedford Forrest Park) and stuck it in the appropriate article. Because even Klan leaders would have boring lives without a little color. (pun intended) - Jersyko·talk 04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? Huh?

Because it's silly that you don't have an E=MC² barnstar by now, I figure you must have already had one, and it's just gone missing . . . hopefully another editor will find it soon. - Jersyko·talk 15:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluoridation and court cases

Hey, I noticed you have a question in your sandbox about verifying some information related to fluoridation court cases. If you would like me to, I would be happy to do some research about fluoridation in court either tonight or this weekend (spring break is next week :)). Actually, I'm going to do it whether you want me to or not, I guess I'm just asking whether you want me to add whatever I find to your sandbox ;). - Jersyko·talk 18:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do it. I imagine that I'll do it tonight sometime if I don't have anything else come up. I don't have any plans, so hopefully I'll be able to. Westlaw should give us any relevant information on the cases, provided there there is any. - Jersyko·talk 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm shocked, shocked, i say, that you were able to find so many good pictures relevant to fluoride. Question, though, do you have access to a fluorosis picture or something similar? Having a picture of tooth decay is great, but if there's not an accompanying picture for the other side, we're going to hear shouts of POV. - Jersyko·talk 21:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no idea where to look, but that's a good idea. Any U.S. government picture would be copyright-free, though, fair use wouldn't be necessary. - Jersyko·talk 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panama

Can you explain why you keep changing the editorials added on the Panama Page ? I will lodge a formal complaint against you soon. The additions in no way changed any of your editorials. Play fare or leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucegirl (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States (1918–1945) and the KKK

Thanks for the note. My activities on Wikipedia have been sporadic, so I may not get to the other article. Another U.S. historian on Wikipedia is User:Rjensen. He's online more often than I am. I recommend getting him to take a look. Best regards, 172 | Talk 18:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar - much appreciated. MarcoTolo 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was also once a dental student....

Dear Dozenist;

I also once was a dental student.... I have learned a thing or two since...

Please keep and open mind and look beyond the obvious and beyond your basic training in dental school...

Regards;

Dr. Imbeau

Can you . . .

help here? Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 13:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water fluoridation controversy

Hey, do you think we should go ahead and post what you've done so far in the article? We can always clean it up and smooth out the rough edges later. Ok, time for my second exam . . . - Jersyko·talk 17:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. You deserved it.

		The E=MC² Barnstar
		Dozenist earned this barnstar for his extraordinary work on dental-related articles. (^'-')^ Covington 04:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bout time :) Yay - Jersyko·talk 13:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TMD

I am not terribly offended, but I feel the need to express this to you. When it comes to facts about specialized fields, I understand that some knowledge taken for granted by the professionals may sound completely foreign to the general public. Since you are unaware of arthrocentesis, I am assuming you do not have close ties to the dental profession. If you have seen my user page, you would note that my main objective here is in the dental field, and I guess I take for granted that flushing out the TMJ as one avenue of treatment just makes sense. Nonetheless, I feel it would have been considerate to keep a "citation needed" tag to the sentence so that us dental-minded wikipedians would have noted that there was a request for a reference for the information. Otherwise, it would be more difficult to notice that the information was missing from the article, and thus more difficult to add a reference to that specific piece of information. Again, I realize you may not know much about the dental profession, but it may be easier next time there is info you want verified to leave a message on a talk page of someone who is a dentist. Thanks. - Dozenist talk 01:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumptions are all wrong. Of course I am "aware of arthrocentesis". Your mention of it in the article lacked context, and still does, and will have to be fixed. I hope, since you added it, you will make the time to place your addition into context. As to sources, you will see I was held to provide a source on something pretty basic by one who represents himself as being a dentist. [[1]], and I promptly complied. It's really not a problem to add sources, and you shouldn't feel insulted when you are held to providing one, particularly on a topic with as many contradictions and contraindications as this one. pat8722 02:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand, I am saying that next time using the "citation needed" tag may be more beneficial for the article since the correct information can be included in the article while at the same time bring up the need for a citation. Otherwise, the information may be lost for a while until someone at a later date realizes the omission. This is even a more logical thing to do especially since you say that you ARE "aware of arthrocentesis"--- deleting something you know to be true only because there is no citation would be better handled by just adding a tag saying a citation is warranted. Further, I interpret Davidruben's talk page to say he is a physician, NOT a dentist. And for the record, I did not originally add the statement as you can see here. - Dozenist talk 03:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. I deleted it because it was entered both without source and without context. It survives only because you have added a source. Without either source or context the material is misleading/confusing to the reader, at best. It still is misleading, but the reader now has some protection in that they can view the source and assess its credibility. Context is still necessary in the article, and since you are a proponent of leaving it in, I hope you will make the time to add the context, and including opposing treatment philosophies. pat8722 03:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedforest Instrumental

I'm not seeing the copyvio, but I didn't look too hard either, mainly because I think maybe the article should be tagged Template:Db-band, but maybe not since they've supposedly won awards in Scotland . . . I dunno. Regardless, the article sucks, as is. Perhaps it should be wiped clean aside from a couple pictures, an intro sentence, and a sentence or two on their makeup/awards? - Jersyko·talk 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard that one before, though there are a lot of google hits . . . I'm not sure i understand it, in any event. - Jersyko·talk 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dentistry

Looking good. I think you should go ahead and send out the probe at the projects page, see if others agree that it's a good idea. - Jersyko·talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a worthy project. Although I have limited time to contribute to this effort right now, I would support its implementation, and will help as I can in the future. Good luck!--Mark Bornfeld DDS 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should just go ahead and move everything to a project page. People will join up. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting user-conduct rfc

Dozenist, I thought you might like to see this. Perhaps you could consider adding your interactions at a certain article to the "outside views" section? Just a thought. - · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]