User talk:Dr-G

Welcome!

Hello, Dr-G, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  David Ruben ^Talk 01:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you would like to help in other dental related articles, please let me know! The large portion of dental-related articles on here have been either added by me or are being monitored by me, and it would be great to have someone else in the field help me with this great task. Additionally, there is a project we just started, though very quiet at the moment since there are not many members at this time, called Wikiproject Dentistry. We would love to have some participation there if you are interested. And welcome to wikipedia! - Dozenist talk 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be great to have your help in the Project. We will keep in touch then, as we work on increasing the number and improving the quality of articles on here. - Dozenist talk 10:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are a lot of people who disagree with Pat, as you may have seen at his RfC and the recent request for arbitration. Honestly, I wouldn't even try to reason with him. He is a pain in the .... (fill in the blank with your favorite profanity). He does not even have a background in dentistry. There is no use in arguing with him because he will just try to his best to argue his point and not listen to reason. Enough about him. Concerning the actual article, I think wikipedia can take a reasonable and factual approach mentioning how there may not be clear way about doing things and how there is great difficulty in treating the disorder (which of course, as we both know, is extremely complex and can be the result of many different causes). Listing facts and relying heavily on references will help adding to the article easier. At least, that is what I think. We do not have to say a certain treatment is the *best* way, but we could discuss the possible treatments and how there is still not broad consensus on the issue. - Dozenist talk 03:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity (because I think I remember seeing somewhere that you practice or graduated from a school in Ireland or Scotland or somewhere over there), do ya'll use the term "dental handpiece" or "drill"? I mean, is there a preferred way of calling that among dentists? - Dozenist talk 03:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you know? Maybe there are not so many differences. Dental handpiece is used here. Prep design may be slightly different, but we also try to avoid undermined enamel (at least, we should). 330 burs are very common in initial prep design. Well, we do use the Universal system. I have not heard of much "disdain" for other oral med specialists around the world, but maybe that is just localized in my area??? I would hope not. And, currently, orthodontists frequently prescribe extractions. I think I heard them saying about 20 years ago, there was a different sentiment, but currently extractions are common. It is really interesting to see any similarties/differences. Keep up the good work on wikipedia. - Dozenist talk 12:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, man. It is really good to hear from you. I know you are all busy and stuff doing dentistry out in the "real world", but you had been so quiet I thought you had forgotten about us for a while. ;) Yeah, actually, the example you pointed out stood out like broad daylight to me. Even though caries can be plural or singular, we definitely should make certain the article is grammatically correct, and for some reason my mind was on holiday when making those additions. I will try to take time to fix those up, but I would love the help if you have time! I want to try to eventually get the article to featured status, though that may take some more effort. - Dozenist talk 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr-G. Please enable your email. -- Fyslee 23:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realise that there was a revert I was just tagging categories that I was asked to for that project. This might be a catigorazation issue, or it could be under both projects. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS that page you gave me doesnt exist. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to have an assessment of articles in the project. If we can find a good way to rate them and organize the effort, then we may be able to start this up really well. You definitely in? - Dozenist talk 21:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The review is up and running. I've gone ahead and tagged some articles as unassessed. The main page for the article review is here. - Dozenist talk 02:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Prognathism, may benefit from some of us who know a little about the subject. Apparently, there is a heated debate (you can see the talk page), so it may be a good idea to stay cool and beware stepping on other's toes. Anyways, any insight you have may help. I have not personally responded yet with anything substantive, but that is because I would like to put in some effort to see how common mandibular prognathism is in blacks. - Dozenist talk 20:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there could be separate articles for the individual terms, prognathism and retrognathism (spelling may just have been butchered)? And I think the dental aspect on the topic of retrognathism (i'm referring mostly to retrognathic mandible) is really lacking in the article, and we can help bring that in. The anthropology stuff is fine, as long as it is placed in context. This topic is clearly an anatomy/health topic, and anthropologic findings can help support the information of the article. Oh, and seeing the heated debate, you may want to bring up ideas for your proposed changes on the talk page before making changes to the article... just in case! ;) - Dozenist talk 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for watching and participating in the prognathism article and talk page. I have seen your comments to the users there, and they are well written. Hopefully, this will lead to improving the article. If there is anything I can do, just let me know. - Dozenist talk 17:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I see you have been editing recently. Long time no see. I thought you would be interested in the work I did today: we have a Dentistry Portal!!!!! Hopefully, all the kinks will be worked out soon so the portal functions smoothly. See ya around. - Dozenist talk 00:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new intro is clearly not acceptable, so I'll revert and ask the anon to tone it down, but I really don't want to get too involved in another ongoing dispute on that article - I find the whole topic incredibly tedious, to be honest, and while I know it's better to edit controversial topics that you don't hold a strong opinion on than ones that you do, the thought of spending that much time talking about teeth (again) kind of makes me cringe.

Okay, I'm actually late for an appointment now because I've spent so long composing my reply on the talk page. Good luck! Sorry I couldn't be more help! -- Vary | Talk 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This what I think we should do. We do not have to read every crap they spam on the talk page. Just revert their changes when they do, saying that it is clearly an NPOV violation, but if we must respond on the talk page just tersely reply that the POV crap does not get to stay in the article. Eventually, these guys will go away. As you can see, I have kept my responses on the talk page few and far between because they are clearly unreasonable. So, I would not be so concerned with actually trying to talk to them. Just watch the article and make sure that any NPOV violations are reverted. Maybe, at some point, we could collaborate on tidying up the article. - Dozenist talk 18:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the anon's postings have amounted to personal attacks, and nearly all of them have been at least uncivil. The problem, however, is that the anon is using non-static IP addresses registered to Bell Canada which tend to change almost daily. Aside from implementing a range block on Bell Canada IPs, which isn't something that is done very often and usually only when absolutely necessary because of the potential to prevent legitimate users from editing, there's probably little that can be done to stop the anon from posting on the talk page. I've tried to give official warnings about WP:NPOV, civility, and personal attacks on some of the anon's talk pages, but it obviously hasn't helped much. You are within your right to remove portions of comments posted by the anon that amount to personal attacks (though the line isn't always clear between incivility and personal attacks) and attempts by the anon to use the talk page as a soapbox. Frankly, though, given the mass of comments that the anon has posted, the inappropriate tone of many of the comments, and the continued assumptions of bad faith on his/her part, he/she cannot expect any reasonable person to read them, and neither do I. Thus, my suggestion is to ignore the anon's comments as if the anon were blocked, as he/she surely would be if the IP was static, unless the comments demonstrate a clear willingness and desire to actually improve the article. Don't let the bastards get you down. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response on Talk:Bridge (dentistry). Good evening :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) just wondering what you thought of the recent changes? please read the Talk:Bridge (dentistry) (Bouncingmolar 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have added my proposal here. I would appreciate your response. - Dozenist talk 15:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you may be interested in the conversation about what to do with the information in the tooth article, as most of it refers to the human teeth. Should the content be moved out to an article called, human teeth (or some variant of that), or should there be a new article called, teeth in animals (or some variant of that). The discussion is taking place here. - Dozenist talk 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present though, there is inadequate research evidence to claim that periodic pre-emptive scaling reduces periodontal disease.

Perhaps you meant to say that there is little evidence to support that periodic pre-emtive scaling reduces the incidence of periodontal disease. To reduce the disease may suggest that you refer to active disease in a patient, in which case there is thorough research to support that scaling prevents further damage, thus reducing the effects of the periodontal disease. Pre-emptive here may refer to further periodontal destruction, in that scaling prior to further destruction will prevent such destruction; there is much evidence to suggest that this, in fact, is true. I suppose this is very pedantic as well. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here and offer your thoughts; thanx! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Particularly with mucous membrane disorders? kilbad (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that may be of some concern to you, Nankali Post-system, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nankali Post-system. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Over the past year or so, the WikiProject Dentistry has fallen into disrepair. Dozenist hasn't been around in nearly 2 years, and after some email communication, he's indicated that he's no longer interested in heading the project. In fact, the project has been labeled inactive since November 2010!

My plan is to focus less on internal bureaucratic policy and more on article creation, article clean-up and article maintenance. That's why people use Wikipedia to search for dental topics -- because it contains wonderfully explained, wonderfully formatted information on relevant topics, not because there are 5 dental articles featured as GA or 7 articles featured as such. So if that's what you like, don't let me stop you, but I think the focus should be on, as I said, article creation and article maintenance.

I welcome all comments, questions and suggestions. If you're new and you'd like help, I'll try to guide you. You can check out my latest few articles: Underwood's septa, platform switching, Bone remodeling period, Cone beam computed tomography, C-terminal telopeptide and furcation defect. You cannot imagine how many dental students I come across at Columbia who tell me they utilize Wikipedia on a weekly basis, but find that there are not enough articles on dental subjects. So let's get out there are create well written, well sourced articles on dental topics. Have a great day! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]