Citizendium - a community developing a quality, comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free.
Click here to join and contribute
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report

User talk:Tom Kelly

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search


Please leave your messages below. Tom Kelly 19:18, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Welcome back! Good to see your name show up blue and not red! I missed your enthusiasm. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:30, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Welcome again! Congrats! You made it through your med school year! Stephen Ewen 22:20, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Literature /Draft

Tom, I've left a comment for you at Talk:Literature/Draft. Regards, Russell Potter 09:51, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


for your contribution in the schizophrenia talk page. Richard Pettitt and I investigated on the topic of self medication. You will find a tentative summary of the research in the treament section.

And, also, PLEEEASE, if you have anything that could help me to investigate on this WHO study you mentioned ("I believe a WHO study showed that people who had less access to antipsychic meds had a higher quality of life than those who could afford the meds." Talk:Schizophrenia#WHO_study), tell me. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 13:25, 28 January 2008 (CST)

Oh, there we are. This lack of trust i have about Wikipedia. I wonder where it's coming from. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 13:31, 28 January 2008 (CST)
I did not get this data from wikipedia - I got it from lecture from an M.D. specialist in schizophrenia. I don't remember if he MD/PhD neurobiologist or MD psychiatrist since I've had multiple lectures on the subject so far. Anyway, keep digging and I'm sure you can find a better source than wikipedia since there is still doubt. Sorry I don't have more time to help. I'm drinking from a fire hydrant. Tom Kelly 14:18, 28 January 2008 (CST)
Oh, no, I wasn't implying that you had found that on WP. I was just noting that WP can provide useful references; I'm beginning my study of the references I found, on the talk page. Thanks for your response; I hope you get some free time, for yourself and perhaps CZ. Cheers, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 14:46, 28 January 2008 (CST)

Thanks for your help on the Economics Forum. Nick Gardner 03:30, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

English spellings

Thanks for your enthusiasm. You're welcome to edit. I'm writing to ask you if you see any American stuff missing to let me know, OK? (Or put it in...) Ro Thorpe 20:40, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

Pathogen vs. disease

While they aren't yet complete, you can see my test cases at User:Howard C. Berkowitz/Q fever and User:Howard C. Berkowitz/Coxiella burnetii. Comments are welcome. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:34, 1 June 2008 (CDT)


Hey Derek, I see that you are really involved with the Definitions project. When did the definition project begin and how is it going to be useful in the future? Tom Kelly 20:23, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Retrieved from ""

Well, here's a cut and paste from the Citizendium general announcement project list:

Why have definitions at all, you ask? Since Chris Day has added a definitions tab (but note, we've had definitions for a long time), many people have wondered. In short, it's because we use (and reuse!) these definitions on our "Related Articles" pages, which double as glossaries. For background, see:

For an example of a glossary in use, see:


_______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list -Derek Hodges 20:32, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Bio- logical warfare, -logical weapons, -terrorism

(copied on my page as well)There are also some good articles on Medscape, as well, of course, as a huge military as well as medical area. Before the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, I was the only person at Bunker-Ramo Defense Systems who knew anything about microbiology or toxicity, so I used to be the staff person monitoring it. In recent years, I did some designs of WMD detection labs as part of proposals for mobile disaster hospitals.

The whole area deserves an article(s); I happen to think it is useful to have a biological warfare article that deals with the policies, military doctrines, etc., as it was viewed by nation-states, another article on biological weapons, and a third on bioterrorism. Putting the issue of resources aside, there are quite a few differences in how a nation-state and a terrorist group would use biological weapons. I might be able to put some time on this next week; the next few days are going to be moving boxes, occasionally giving a presentation, and aching a lot.Howard C. Berkowitz 23:08, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Right now, only biological weapon exists, but its history section could well become the biological warfare article. While I haven't made it a priority, I could also work on bioterrorism, which justifies a separate article due to the specific and ongoing work on threat assessment, surveillance, emergency response protocols, etc.
I took the the defined articles from Select Agent Program/Agents, and tried to make them consistent with the new subgroups for microbiology and infectious disease. Tentatively, I added the Military subgroup since these are organisms with declared biological warfare potential; I have not yet so changed the templates to include the additional organisms in CDC Bioterrorism Agents-Disease list, but will do so if there is consensus.
The Military assignment is a separate argument from Microbiology and Infectious Disease.

Howard C. Berkowitz 18:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the enthusiastic response to the subgroup concept. I wonder what you think about the editor author designation with respect to subgroups. Take the biochemistry subgroup; editors could be from the Chemistry or Biology Workgroups. Obviously there will be some articles in the biochemistry subgroup that are more biological than chemical and thus, are likely to be in the biology workgroup only. Given this scenario, chemistry-only editors will not be able to act as editors for all articles tracked by the biochemistry subgroup. This also goes for biology editors for articles with more emphasis on chemistry. For any interdisciplinary subgroup this will always be true and I am wondering whether is is best not to worry about whether members of the subgroup are editors or authors. Should we just have "members" and leave it at that? Chris Day 23:13, 28 September 2008 (CDT)

I think that eventually we will get people who really only are experts within the subgroup field. For example, PhD in Biochemistry, or expert in Chemical Engineering. I think editors in workgroups will definitely have a say in topics within articles that belong to their respective fields. I think that everyone can work together and we don't need a super-defined hierarchy. I think that we should be open to evolving and carefully word the proposal so it isn't too strict with its guidelines. Tom Kelly 00:02, 29 September 2008 (CDT)
Good idea on infectious disease. You might want to look at Biological weapon/Related Articles, with links from there. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see fresh enthusiasm and drive here. Haven't followed this thread so not sure about the background - can you point me at the key page where this idea is discussed? If my sketchy understanding is accurate then I would be naturally supportive, and inclined to agree with Chris above that perhaps it is best not to worry about whether members of the subgroup are editors or authors, but just have "members" and leave it at that; in specific areas we have very knowledgeable authors, probably more knowledgeable than editors within a focussed sphere. Anyway, point me at the discussion and I'll get back as promptly as I can. For what it's worth I'm an editor in both Biology and Health Sciences and a specialist by research in neuroscience, physiology, endocrinology and mathematical biology. A neuroscience subgroup might be particularly interesting as this spans not only biology and health sciences, but also psychology, philosophy and computer science.Gareth Leng 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Before I go further have I got this right? Is this what's needed? Gareth Leng 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think so, not sure. Maybe put that on the subgroups that you agree with and see if anyone says anything. We can always change it later. I'm just trying to follow the rules. Howard, should Military wrkgrp be affiliated with ID subgroup? Tom Kelly 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It might be nontraditional, but I see many links between Military and infectious disease, certainly beyond biological warfare. It was only in the 20th century when armies had more deaths from battle than disease. It's a major planning concern in world intelligence; see U.S. intelligence analysis of patterns of infectious diseases and impacts. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you can approve it since you are a Military Wrkgrp editor. Tom Kelly 18:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Something like this I believe is necessary. But I'm unsure. I'm sure this all may change at a later date since it is so new. Anyway, lets move forward with setting it up. Bold, right? Tom Kelly 18:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Biochemistry affiliations done

I approved the Chemistry and Biology affiliations for Biochemistry. We might want to add Health Sciences as well. David E. Volk 19:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look. You might want to do this for the subgroups you started.

Tom, take a look here at what I have added to explain how to designate articles for display in a subgroup. Milton Beychok 20:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"It is often necessary to "jog" articles to make them display in workgroups and subgroups. "Jogging" is done by editing an article's main page and adding a blank space at the end of any paragraph. " thanks, figured it out before reading this, but good to know that it is documented somewhere and thank you for pointing it out to me. is it on the CZ:Subgroups page? 22:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

subgroup Members

Thanks Tom. I got an Edit Conflict when I changed it myself, and noticed you beat me to the punch by a few seocnds. David E. Volk 13:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Just saw all your notes. Did you get everything sorted out OK? Chris Day 17:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a new section to the talk page header. See what you think. Chris Day 17:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Professional conduct

If it is any consolation to you: I wrote "Hear, hear" below your comment and the constable deleted that as well.--Paul Wormer 01:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. Chris Day 17:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the ego-massage! Answer on my talk page - Ro Thorpe 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

About an article on the health effects of fine particles in the atmosphere

Hi, Tom:

As you may have read at Talk:Smog, I responded to your posting about the health effects in the atmosphere as follows:

Fine particle pollution is usually referred to as particulate matter pollution (or PM pollution) and the respirable fraction is denoted as PM2.5, which is very small particulate matter having a size of 2.5 μm or less. Particulate matter pollution is discussed to some extent in the existing Acid rain, Air pollution emissions and Air Quality Index Citizendium articles as well as this Smog article.
Yes, an article on the epidemiology of PM pollution would be of interest. But it should be based on more than just one epidemiology research report.

After that response to your suggestion, I got involved in a lengthy imbroglio by trying to reason with someone. But it was impossible to reason with that person. Based on a number of similar past experiences many of us have had with that person, I should have known better. I want to apologize to you and anyone else who read that lengthy exchange of postings. Milton Beychok 21:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Milton, I don't know what this post refers to. Either way, I'm just going to delete this section in a few weeks. Tom Kelly 01:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please consider The Citizendium again

Tom, we are revamping this wiki's goals, and I think you might like the way it's going now. If you are still receiving these message, would you considering writing some more in this wiki? Pat Palmer (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)