User talk:Vitreology

	The Original Barnstar
	A barnstar for you significant work in expanding the Smooth Island (Tasmania) article. Thanks for your work to improve the encyclopedia. Also, be sure to check-in at WikiProject Islands from time-to-time! NORTH AMERICA1000 16:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your message. The article Smooth Island (Tasmania) already looks pretty good. As I have no experience of assessing A-class articles I can only suggest that you study the A-Class criteria and look at the history of A-class articles in the WP Islands and WP Australia.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm probably contacting you the wrong way - I looked for a link that would let me contact you but there wasn't. You mentioned that I had introduced errors by editing that thing about phakia. I was just curious as to what you thought I said was wrong. The only reason I'm asking is because I thought the article looked perfect after I did my editing, and my Step 3 exam is in 2 days, so now I'm being paranoid and starting to think that there might be some concept I don't understand.

I know this is random, but I stumbled upon that wikipedia article because I was doing a uWorld question where an HIV+ pt presented with disseminated candidiasis that had spread to his eye. I chose the option "Vitrectomy + Ketoconazole". I got it wrong. Uworld didn't really explain why my answer was incorrect. According to uworld, the treatment should have been "Vitrectomy + Amphotericin". Would you happen to know why I was wrong by any chance? Thanks in advance (and thanks for catching my mistake on that article) Boonshofter (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi, the issue was that excluding any mention of 'phakia' (or another plain english variation) does not stress that nuclear sclerosis can only occur in the crystalline lens. A layperson isn't expected to realise this, but at least I allowed them to find out what 'phakia' means by clicking on the link. Anyway, no biggie. - Short answer to your question is that Ketoconazole is not available as an intravitreal injection. (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/754887_5) (http://www.eophtha.com/eophtha/Pharmacology/Ketoconazole.html#.Vb9bt26qoSV) - In a HIV patient with disseminated candidiasis, you're probably want a systemic antifungal (ie, something like oral ketoconazole) and in addition you'd want to do a vitrectomy and add amphotericin intra-operatively (an antifungal which comes as an intravitreal preparation). In case they ask, liposomal amphotericin is better that standard amphotericin (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19275278). - Please see this link for why ketaconazole may not be suitable for intravitreal injection: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Eybg7fbs65MC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=azole+intravitreal+toxicity&source=bl&ots=gES6LDndxv&sig=SseEVgeFjTkVqIzPQf1yJ2j5138&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCWoVChMI5s_n9fOMxwIVxyOmCh2X5Qnb#v=onepage&q=azole%20intravitreal%20toxicity&f=false

- Hope that helps! Cheers, Jkokavec (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much for both explanations - you rock! makes a lot of sense. Also, the links you gave me are perfect. thank you! :)

Boonshofter (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jkokavec just wondered what the category Reference intervals you added means? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Iztwoz. It means that it is a page which specifies a Reference_range, or an approximately 'normal' or 'expected' value, for a biological substance. As reference ranges are so important in science and medicine, I'm planning on going through the various fluid types (eg, serum, CSF, urine, synovial fluid, etc) and making sure all the reference intervals (ie, reference ranges) are up to date. Cheers, Jkokavec (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that --Iztwoz (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jkokavec. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removing a prod notice means you are going to add refs and create a proper stub (which it is not) - thank your for your effort to improve the stub - the refs WP:RS are needed as WP:V is taken seriously on wikipedia JarrahTree 12:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

some admins would have deleted it long ago with no discussion on the basis of the tags - Orphan since (March 2016) and This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. (March 2016) JarrahTree 12:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done a quick fix-up. It's now more useful to those unfamiliar with the subject. Cheers, Jkokavec (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• NP - appreciate you making the effort, thanks JarrahTree 12:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, happy to contribute Jkokavec (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logistically there are some thinking issues in a wider frame about

Sampaolesi_line

Schwalbe's_line

It is something about the array of information and where some subjective, non scientific things come into play, say like, how perception and opinion play as an important part to things. Sampaolesi is like a telegram, while Schwalbe's is a little more discursive for the reader who has nix understanding of eye anatomy, bit like when I had my aticotomy some years back, my knowledge of ear anatomy (nix).

It would be really good to balance the difference out with a bit more verbiage for sampaolesi - with some generosity of text. But hey, your style of creating highly enigmatic stubs in the past has encouraged others either to rush in and fill the various missing bits, or criticise with tags and notices and things.

If we could come to a compromise, where you are able to provide some more text in relation to either context or procedures, it would be much appreciated - cheers JarrahTree 00:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that - it does make a difference - appreciate the response - JarrahTree 03:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @JarrahTree, my apologies. It is not my intention the make my new articles seem enigmatic. Most of the time I'm creating articles very quickly while studying form exams. I would love to have the time to write very eloquent introductions to each page that I create. I always try to make sure that I provide enough contextual links within the new article to other established wikipedia pages to point the reader in the right direction if they want to learn the basic principles of the topic. Many of the articles I've created are important articles for the field of Ophthalmology which nobody has gotten around to creating. I guess, philosophically, I believe that some information (which requires consulting other sources to get-up-to-speed) is better than there being no information on the topic at all. What are your thoughts on this? Is this reasonable, or should I just not create the article at all if I don't have time to make it polished? Cheers Jkokavec (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep editing - always add to the jungle, never consider any alternative...

But first basics - never apologise to me (from my perspective of watching the fate of some of your Tasmanian locality stubs, perhaps an inherent bias on my part there)

To answer your question - always better a scrappy stub than nothing - imho If it wasnt too much to ask it would be good to see:

• category or categories (if opth - the eye stub thingo too)
• project tag on talk page (if opth is the subject area - sampaolesi has the correct weight)
• minimum 3 refs (again how it works with the smoke and mirror thing with fierce taggers and deletionists - an ornery lot that mob)
• at least a sufficiently comprehendable lead sentence
• definite link to other arts
• definite link/mention in other arts (otherwise orphan tag)

If you are ever stuck, only too pleased to help - very important - a missing article - please add!

If you ever have literally bones only - and some reasonable links and refs - consider asking for help

cheers JarrahTree 04:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Will do. Thanks very much for the thoughtful reply, JarrahTree. Cheers Jkokavec (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wink, my late father before he retired as a veterinary surgeon, was continually on the look out, and often considering buying an island (a good friend of his from university days in Canada had done so in Scotland), and so on... he never did in the end JarrahTree 04:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • When compared to the property prices in Sydney, buying an island is rather cheap. You'd better get in quick, Chinese nationals are buying up the good ones in Tassie Jkokavec (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha when I was living in Sydney in xxxx the property prices then seemed crazy then, the thing is over here in Western Australia we have very few that can be brought (ie no freehold only leases), my father was viewing south australian ones in the 1960s JarrahTree 08:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your email to me, Jkokavec, regarding Graball nets. You're an experienced editor, so I know you know I tagged the link for graball because there's no wikilink I can find for the word. If you can find one, please adjust my edit at your discretion. Cheers! PKT(alk) 23:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Smooth Island Painting - The Mercury 07-01-2002 ('Garden Island makes a winning work').jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]