Dozenist

Hi Dozenist. I just noticed your note on my Talk page. Sorry it has taken so long to respond. I am willing to help, but would like to talk to you prior. Please email me when you return from your honeymoon. Best wishes – Drschmitt 12:15, 5 June 2007

Hi Dozenist. It's none of my business, but I think your article is ready for FAC now, rather than doing the Good Article thing first—that is, if you intend to try for featured status. I'd support it. –Outriggr § 01:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reviewed! –Outriggr § 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nice work. You should get one of those barnstar things. When are your exams? You must be final year at this stage. If you need any help (I seriously doubt it), let me know. I didn't do American boards, but I know something about some things. I think. I've forgotten most of it, and I'm only out 6 months. Anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr-G (talk • contribs).

Oh your quite welcome, thats what were all here for. The portal is looking great by the way. — WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 08:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I wanted to commend you on the new layout of the topics section I never really like the old format but the new one looks incredible. — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 02:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you nominate Dental caries for FA status? And thank you for your kind comment on my talk page regarding Tooth_enamel. --Parker007 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your message. I realize the time and effort that you have been putting into this project - it is commendable. I will try to help out as time allows. Best regards, Nazli 02:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to personally thank you for reviewing the article, maxillary central incisor, and your subsequent feedback. Hopefully, I can address your concerns to improve the article. Thanks again. - Dozenist talk 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the note. That was appreciated. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dentistry/Article_rating could be changed to for example:

MCB articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	9	4	3	5			21
FL		1					1
GA	16	16	16	13			61
B	53	208	271	303		2	837
C	66	253	597	1,142		51	2,109
Start	20	293	906	5,714		65	6,998
Stub		4	242	17,907		33	18,186
List	4	7	34	54	240	20	359
Category					897		897
Disambig				1	40		41
File					22		22
Project		1			7		8
Redirect	2	19	81	974	895		1,971
Template					307		307
NA				5	23		28
Draft					2		2
Assessed	170	806	2,150	26,118	2,433	171	31,848
Unassessed			7	22	3	195	227
Total	170	806	2,157	26,140	2,436	366	32,075
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 155,181			Ω = 5.50

from: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology

used in almost all wikiprojects nowadays. --Parker007 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok here is a brief explaination on how you can edit you dentistry project to make it look fancy and neater, to recruit more users:

{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/MCB articles by quality statistics}}

The above template is where they have placed all their rated articles.

Therefore if you go to:Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/MCB_articles_by_quality_statistics

you will be able to edit their template, (or copy the source in our case).

--Parker007 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You see I have copied and paste their script here: (click edit to view script); and I have made some changes to reflect our project.

Dentistry articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Class
	FA	5	2	6	1		14
	A			1			1
	GA	11	4	4	3		22
	B	14	34	51	13		112
	Start	17	48	128	61		254
	Stub		6	63	159		228
	Unassessed					35	35
	Total	47	94	253	237	35	666

Would there be an easy way to fill in the chart information accurately, or should I just do it by hand? I placed the chart within this page for now until it is finalized. Clearly, the numbers on the chart are currently inaccurate.- Dozenist talk 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

@ WP:INCOTW it states the bot updates their article rating box, though I am not sure which one. --Parker007 00:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dozenist you may not remember but I helped out out on your portal when it went up for peer review. Anyway yes you can automate it but it entails several different things. I'm going to reference a few things but it may take a second I'm going to remove the helpme request so it will stop beeping me and I'll start posting some more information.— WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok I hope you don't mind but it will take me two hours to explain it and 20 minutes to do it so I'm going to create it and hand it over to you.— WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok after further research I have found that this template is already set up you can add the template by adding {{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Dentistry articles by quality statistics}} to any page. The Mathbot is updating this daily when there is a change and the numbers are correct, I counted them but looking at each of your class categories. You can edit the layout by going here Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Dentistry articles by quality statistics here is the template :

Dentistry articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		1					1
GA	2	2		1		1	6
B	17	17	17	22		8	81
C	9	26	43	112		15	205
Start	9	52	104	352	2	59	578
Stub		5	33	312	1	23	374
List	2	2	5	6			15
NA	2	2	3	24	404		435
Assessed	41	107	205	829	407	106	1,695
Unassessed				1		32	33
Total	41	107	205	830	407	138	1,728
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 6,209			Ω = 4.99

— WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 01:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not a problem I'm glad I could help. I have years experence with advanced HTML, CSS and about a year of wiki markup. so if you have any questions please don't hessitate to ask. Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 03:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi- thank you so much for your quick response. Irene Wolf 17:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Man am I getting sick of listening to the accusations of uneducated conspiracy peddlers on the discussion page here. Thankfully the admins have kept a close eye on this in order to keep it fairly neutral, because I am about ready to pack it in. I should probably just stay away from all 'controversy' pages. They just irritate me - no-one on these pages is willing to reach consensus.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 18:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Dozenist! Since it has almost been a month since you nominated the Dentistry portal for peer review, I hope you received good feedback on how the portal could be improved. If you would like, you could keep the portal listed at the portal peer review for more suggestions for improvement and ask the Wikipedians here for feedback. Also, if you think the portal is ready, you could nominate the portal for featured status. Either way, I hope you've received helpful reviews! Cheers, S.D. ¿п? § 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you just tagged tooth abscess for the Dentistry wikiproject. I was just editing that article to remove some strange edits by Alesnormales. I think that you might want to review this editor's contributions: many are good, but some are a little odd, to say the least. Keep up the good work... +Fenevad 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was a bit surprised by your reponse to Plugwash on the Talk:Crown (dentistry) page, in that it didn't occur to you that this person could have been and was probably talking about a post, being that he/she said a "pin inserted into the root canal." From the way the question was asked, it sure seemed like he/she is a lay person, and this could easily have been a misunderstanding on their part. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, perhaps so? No telling. Maybe a post is what they meant, but then again "even down into the jaw to support a crown"? The only thing I could think of is an implant. No post would be used for that sort of thing. - Dozenist talk 00:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but I figured that if someone doesn't know what they are talking about, they often say things that may or may not be even nearly accurate. However, a post is within a root, and the root is within bone, and prosthodontically speaking, we really are only interested in length of post within root within bone, so this guy actually did make an excellent statement, albeit he probably didn't even realize it. :)

I see that you are 25, unless your page is not updated. I'm also 25. Where are you in dental school, unless you have already graduated? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Senior at NJDS. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I'm at shatnes551@yahoo.com. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Listen boys, mistake easily made. Patients don't know half the time what they are on about. Get used to it. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a dental patient, I'm insulted. Now get all these amalgam fillings out of my mouth before the aliens eat my brain. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gday dozenist ;) can you please comment on the Talk:Bridge (dentistry) regarding the most recent changes. Bouncingmolar 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I dunno how to answer your question... but I have wondered the same. So, I did posted a message at the doctors' mess --> Human vs. animal. Check there in a few days... and there will probably be some advice. Nephron  T|C 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I've reviewed maxillary central incisor and placed it on hold momentarily: my comments are on the article's Talk page. If you have any questions or if you disagree with any of my remarks, please feel free to drop me a line. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. It's a good article :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Only nine participants? What do you say we find some more members...there has to be more dentists out there. Any suggestions? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm...perhaps I didn't follow protocol properly. I put the article up for peer review, and no one made any comments. I figured that, with its extremely narrow focus in terms of subject content, and there being only 7 or so dentists on Wikipedia, that this article will never get loooked at that that rate. How do you think it can ever be promoted if no one ever checks it? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up...I'll see what I can do with those. What do I do after I fix these things up? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I promise I haven't forgotten about my copyedit. It's just that work has been, well, very work-like this week, and I haven't had much time to edit away from work because of someone's week-long birthday celebration. That plus Wii = not much copyediting. Then again, I am editing right now from work . . . · jersyko talk 14:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is my 12,000th (!) edit to Wikipedia. I assumed you would like to be the beneficiary. I thought about letting this be your wedding present but decided against it in favor of tupperware and/or spoons. Regardless, here it is :) Please enjoy. · jersyko talk 13:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Awesome. I feel very honored!!!!! - Dozenist talk 01:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's hilarious that you're editing from your honeymoon.  :) · jersyko talk 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

School calls me at 4:30 a.m. in this time zone, and since that is 9:00 a.m. in memphis I end up staying awake! Of course, now, I am trying to email people at the school so hopefully everything will be all set for me next week when I get back. A little bit of wikipedia will not hurt. Oh yeah, and I am sure I am probably the only person that has some dental articles on my watchlist. If I do not keep up with them, they will fall apart to vandals. All of them. I am sure of it. - Dozenist talk 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is your definition of vandalism? Why would dental articles be the target of vandals?--Fahrenheit451 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi...long time no speaky. I was working on some articles lately, and in my quest to establish more coverage for the new Template:Periodontology, came across the gingival hyperplasia article, which for some reason, is written by some dog owner and not by a dentist. I made a comment on the talk page as well as asked a friendly admin about it. I was wondering if you'd perhaps weigh in on it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Haha...I was wondering where they went!! I just thought its convention to not allow article links to cross the end of the margin. No problemo...let's leave them out. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

As the leader of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dentistry I, in the kindest manner, insist that you look into the current situation of the aforementioned articles and their related content. Whatever has been said or done in the past doesn't matter, because it's over and we are where we are. But the articles were put together after much debate, and then split once again after more debate. Now the bridge article is in disrepair, as indicated by its cleanup tag. As leader, I feel that you should and could persuade others, with a much less aggresive tone than I, to do what you feel is right for this project. I worked hard to complete the crown article as much as I could, adding a lot of info as well as multiple photographs. While others sit back and complain about what is and what should be, and I complained about this before to no avail, articles are merged and split at their request, but they don't then get to work to make these articles work. They just sit gleefully over their split/merge debate skills, ignoring the currently half-baked articles. I recommend re-merging bridge and crown, because that was the most comprehensive explanation provided, until such time as someone or ones take upon themselves to properly author a bridge article. This is so frustrating, after so much work was done to bring the joint article to proper form, to have it split and one of the constituents to sit in disrepair. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Slashdot? Whachoo talkin' about, Willis? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

hi Dozenist

My name is Hagen Kluge. I was wondering whether I might be able to use the image Image:Crosssectiontooth11-24-05.jpg in my Master's thesis (being completed at McMaster University in Hamilton, Onatrio, Canada) in order to illustrate the difference between mantle and circumpulpal dentine. My thesis concerns the use of root dentine transparency as a means of adult age estimation.

I can be reached at klugehf@mcmaster.ca

Cheers,

≈Hagen

Hi Dozenist,

I created my first wikipedia article about Recaldent, a compound that helps rebuild the enamel and as you did an excellent job on the tooth enamel and dental caries, I was wondering if you would agree in linking the Recaldent article to tooth decay/enamel/caries ones?

Recaldent is not the only technology to help rebuild decay spots. I have read about Novamin, but haven't had the time to gather enough information yet/create a new article.

If you have any more informations about those two technologies, I would be grateful if you could share them, or if you know anybody who could improve the article. I started this article because of a decay spot I've had for 3 years now, and all the dentists I have seen alwayss told me it wasn't a carie, but it kept growing. I realised by myself that it was demineralisation by reading your article ! And then I learnt that by changing my habits (consumption of sugar, use of gum during the day to help salivation) I could try to slow down the process, until I discovered Recaldent, which invert the process and remineralises the enamel on small decay spots ! And I think that it is an important piece of information that should be featured in wikipedia (not as an advert of course), when people like me search information about demineralisation/caries.

I also think that giving availability of the marketed products by countries could help people around the world in quickly finding the right product.

Thx for reading me and for your helpful articles !

Disc303

Who decides who can include which articles in their projects? If gingival enlargement is within all of those many projects, why aren't teeth? Dogs have teeth. Dogs have eyes also...how come its not in the dog project? And what about the cat project? Who has jurisdiction over articles that arbitrarily "fall," and I use that term loosely, into many projects? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am new to Wikipedia so please bear with me. When I edited the section on treatment in Periodontitis, it was removed with an explanation that “there is nothing that replaces tooth brushing and flossing.” There is a new device that does replace tooth brushing and flossing. It’s called Dental Air Force®. It has been approved by the FDA. Here are the device listings for tooth brush (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/listing.cfm?&ID=71406) and oral irrigator (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/listing.cfm?&ID=71405). These device listings are referenced in the FDA Notification for Approval for Marketing. (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k001493.pdf) I believe that these three items give the validation necessary to be included in Wikipedia. However, I do not know how to place the validation in the text. I would like to include a statement in the Periodontitis page, treatment section that reads: There is also a new technology available for the home that takes the place of tooth brushing and flossing. It is brushless, uses air, water and dental cleaner and is similar to a power washer. I have not included the name of the product or its web site so as not to be an advertisement. However, since there is only one product of this kind on the market, there is really no generic name like “tooth brush” or “oral irrigator”. Let me know what to do. Thanks. Piabrown 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response.

Unfortunately, the ADA is not the do all and end all in dentistry. It is a political institution that uses a great deal of money to fuel its existence. If you have ever used the professional Prophy-Jet by Densply in your practice you can appreciate the Dental Air Force efficacy to remove plaque off the facial, lingual and interproximal areas. The Dental Air Force was designed to safely be used in the home. It uses the same technology as the Prophy-Jet. It would costs millions of dollars and require significant political power to get endorsement from the American Dental Association (ADA). One reason you only see products from very large corporations with ADA approval. Listerine does not replace flossing and justifiably so, because it only affects planktonic organisms. It was not FDA approved to replace flossing.

Flossing is actually an inadequate plaque removal. According to the Journal Of Clinical Periodontology flossing only removes 18 – 35% of plaque. Oral irrigators have FDA approval and ADA approval to replace flossing. Electrical tooth brushes have FDA approval and ADA approval to replace manual tooth brushes. The FDA approved the Dental Air Force using university clinical studies showing that the Dental Air Force removed 60% more plaque between teeth than the electric tooth brush. (Since that study the Dental Air Force actually has increased its interproximal efficacy.) The approval (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k001493.pdf) was “the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure)” - the enclosure being the INDICATION FOR USE. The statement on this INDICATION FOR USE page, "Device is used by the general population in their daily home dental cleaning as part of a regimen for plaque removal for prevention of gingivitis.", is from the submission written by Dental Air Force and refers to a “regimen” as both home care and professional care, so as not to imply that it replaces the need for professional cleanings.

The “Device” is found in the “Device Listings” http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/listing.cfm?&ID=71405 and http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/listing.cfm?&ID=71406 which were for both a dental cleaner and an oral irrigator. Thus the FDA letter of approval that the Dental Air Force is “substantially equivalent” is indeed referring to tooth brushing and flossing.

The FDA is well aware of the Dental Air Force claims and would have us cease and desist our marketing if we did not comply. They actually guided us with a list of approved wording and marketing verbiage that we could use.

In addition, according to an ADA survey only 5% of the population flosses daily. Because the Dental Air Force simultaneously cleans all surfaces of the teeth it does not have the compliance issues that flossing obviously has.

This is a new device that requires a shift in the old way of thinking about how we clean our teeth. Like the personal computer 20 years ago, it requires a paradigm shift. Your reaction is very common and understandable. Piabrown 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a shame one of the first links in the dentistry page is to the dentistry article - which is poor. The page also seems subject to external link spamming. I'll cut out some of those links and keep an eye out. Would suggest a transfer of that big list of dental organizations out of the dentistry page - For a start I'll remove subheading ratings as they make the TOC useless. It would be nice as well to make the information more general - North America and Canada even with the addition of Australia are not the whole world... Revatim 16:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see footnote #4 and the information that it is sourcing. How can this be in the article -- it's contrary to the very basis of cenventional periodontal therapy! This looks to be a case of a bad source being worse than no source. The source cannot be viewed except by paying customers, and its not even a dental journal. What can we do about removing this alleged piece of "information." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK...I'll get right on it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

First off, I personally know two of the authors of this review, one of whom is the former president of the IADR and also former dean of my dental school. The other is an American trained periodontist. Apart from all that, Cochrane reviews are amongst the most respected of all sources. Second, I didn't insert the reference or the wording in the article. Thirdly, the wording states that there is insufficient evidence that pre-emptive scaling and root planing prevents periodontal disease. I'm sure this is to do with the theory that there is no direct link between gingivitis and periodontitis. Therefore scaling and root planing in the absence of periodontal disease may not prevent its development (it may not develop anyway). Mildly pedantic? Possibly. Is there a lot of unnecessary scaling going on? Possibly.Dr-G - Illegitimi non carborundum est. (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply