User talk:Colin/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Alphaquad

Alphaquad (talk · contribs) has responded with a fresh barrage of NPA. You may want to have a look. Another one, and it's WP:ANI for him. JFW | T@lk 13:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP revert

Thanks for the BLP revert; I'm traveling, but try to log on once or twice a day just to watch for vandalism, and am glad you got to that. I've never encountered a source that would back up that text. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Gee

Thanks for your excellent expansion of Samuel Gee. I put shamefully little work into that, and now it's respectably comprehensive! Fvasconcellos 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me. I was afraid someone would notice my brain-freeze—I am glad you found it amusing, though :) Do you think you'd be able to find an image of Gee? The BMJ article JFW mentioned has one, but it's apparently copyrighted. I haven't had much luck, and thought you might, seeing as how you were able to get pics for Désiré-Magloire Bourneville and Édouard Brissaud... Fvasconcellos 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
And yes, some of his original text would be quite useful. Don't worry, you can go ahead; I'm quite busy today and will probably not beat you to it! Fvasconcellos 14:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I think that's a fair guess; I presumed it was copyright due to the "reprinted/used with kind permission from..." or whatnot present in the caption (I have to look at the article again, I don't recall it exactly). I'm actually in Brazil, which has, I believe, slightly more draconian IP laws, although I'm minimally familiar with them. I suppose there's no problem—worst case scenario, it can be tagged as fair use, however suboptimal that would be. Fvasconcellos 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I see you added the portrait already—I hadn't forgotten, I was just waiting for you to show up again on my Watchlist before asking you to mail me the instructions :) Thanks again Colin, you didn't have to go to the trouble yourself. Cheers, Fvasconcellos 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the software tips as well. I hope you'll make good use of the page layout :) Fvasconcellos 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Epilepsy on my watchlist, but I can't do much this week due to travel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian Archibald Herter

Am doing. After a cursory look, nothing jumps out—except the fact it was quite well-written :) I'll read more thoroughly later, but right now I can't fault it on anything major. I thought of perhaps breaking "Life" up into "Personal life" and "Work", but that doesn't seem like much of an idea; it might make those sections too short. Fvasconcellos 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Catching up on the guidelines is always a good idea :) Fvasconcellos 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad to have helped. I'll have to check my dictionary now, that was force of habit (and my spell-checker, set to U.S. English) Fvasconcellos 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Cite news}}

There's some discussion going on regarding Cite News and the other cite templates on that talk page. Would love your input :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply to the ongoing discussion: the very last thing we want is people charging off in all directions using their own "pet" styles for citations. We want to get the various citation templates in such a condition that anybody can use them to produce useful citations, rather than placing further artificial restrictions and limiting citation to those "experts" who "know how to format citations correctly". We need to stop trying to follow any particular existing "Manual of Style" and synthesise our own: why else did the various "Manuals" come into being other than the particular needs of the originating situation? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical tag at MEDMOS

OK, I admit that I got distracted because of all of my travel; can we try to finish this up and poll for consensus? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, enough procrastinating from me :-) Have you noticed that I *really* hate working on policy pages ? <grin> I'd much rather edit and review articles. I'm going to settle in to my upstairs computer and catch up on this thing, finally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I put the non-standard headings from your summary chart of current FAs at User:SandyGeorgia/MEDMOS Sections; maybe we can figure out if any adjustments can be made to our headings to accomodate these? There were other non-standard headings, but I either fixed them, or know they can't be fixed (Asperger). We can use the talk page there; should I ask Tim Vickers to help, since a couple of those are his and he may have ideas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Colin, besides being swamped, I have to travel this weekend, so won't be much help until the middle of next week. Are we ready to move to the next step? If so, what would that next step be? We need to generate more consensus. Did you see that list I posted (above)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Not terribly grim—it could be worse. It's just a major irritation, and costly. So, I guess it won't hurt to sit tight for a week, and see what happens? I'll be home next Tuesday, and will follow what I can on my slow laptop connection. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy

NP. It is well sourced, I don't think it's too subtle. Whether you change it or not there will always be people who will remove Muhammed from that list. Garion96 (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My Problem with the article :"List of people with epilepsy"

Dear Sir! This is my second email to wikipedia and first one to you, as my previous email was neither acknowledged nor my complaint was dealt with. As, I said in the previous email that the article "List of people with epilepsy" contains remarks about Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) as having epilepsy. The exact remarks are as Some researchers consider temporal lobe epilepsy to be a possible cause of his inspirational spells.

Now, we as Muslims, believe that our Holy Book "The Quran" was actually conveyed to us from God by these so-called "Inspirational spells" . So, when someone says that these spells were actually temporal Lobe Epilepsy . This means that all we believe in is a big joke. Any Muslims can find these remarks as very offensive and ridiculous. Plus, this diagnosis which the author has made has no proof to confirm his statement. I have tried removing couple of sentences regarding our Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) but i have given this message Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to List of people with epilepsy. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Colin°Talk 07:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmuji" Therefore, i request you again that this offensive content be removed from the website and wikipedia be made as non-controversial as possible

Best Regards Dr. Mujtaba

Drmuji 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

my referances regarding association of Muhammad with epilepsy

if u need referances the please take a look at these sites

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Badawi/Radio/RA200J5.htm

and also

http://muhammad.islamonline.net/English/index.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drmuji (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your reply

Dear Sir!

I appreciate your answer and your point of view about it as well. But, my only concern is that had this been on some other area, i may somehow have swallowed it. but to write that "inspirational spells" were due to temporal lobe epilepsy, actually stresses on our faith about our holy book "The Quran". And all muslims follow Quran as the guide lines. Second point which you raised was that there were hundreds of articles which concur with your point of view. My answer is that there are thousands of articles which go against that point as well. your third point was wikipedia is not censored. I am quoting what is written on the website. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." This clearly says that i have the write to change the article. Finally, my request is that the sentence which i have been objecting should be removed because any muslim who sees this article may find it very offensive and quite a lot of people quote Wikipedia on several things. I am afraid that someday someone can raise this issue at some forum and this can cause a lot of problem as you saw with the reaction about blasphemous cartoons published in one of the newspapers few months back about Muhammad (P.B.U.H) And lastly, The book "Sword and Seizure: Muhammad's Epilepsy & Creation of Islam" which you mentioned has some basic flaws. The author says that it is all because of temporal lobe epilepsy. that may sound true to some people but as a psychiatrist i know that temporal lobe epilepsy cannot last for 13 years and also that after the seizure of temporal lobe, the patient doesn’t remember any of the things which he did during the seizure. And, none of these things happened to Muhammad. You can find details about all these things in the links i sent you. Also, the author has tried to mix bipolar disorder with epilepsy in that case, but has failed to find one proper manic or hypomanic episode in the history of Muhammad (P.B.U.H). I hope you understand my point of view and appreciate my concerns. And if you feel stubborn about your point of view then I would like you mediate on this matter as long as its not Garion96, because i read his comments on your archive Best Regards Mujtaba Drmuji 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Medicine

Well, there certainly seems interest in the MOS entry, and what has been written looks good to me. What I'd suggest is posting a notice on the village pump that this new page has been written for the Manual of Style and ask if there are any objections. If, as I suspect, there aren't, you've got your consensus. Don't worry if the page isn't perfect, it can always be tweaked later. >Radiant< 09:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of Amaurosis fugax

This article still needs a lot of work, but, regardless, I appreciate your feedback concerning what has already been done! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kilbad (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


List of premature obituaries

Thanks for your FLC comments on this so far. I'm hoping to wrap it up in the next day or two (otherwise it will just run out of time due to lack of interest, like it did last time I submitted it for FL status!) - so if you have any further comments to provide, or better still, just a Support vote, I'd appreciate it! Ben Finn 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Polio History split

Hi Colin,

I have asked MarcoTolo his thoughts on a Polio history section split, and he has also been involved in the article creation. Marco responded by creating a prototype Poliomyelitis test page in his userspace with an accompanying History of poliomyelitis article. When you get a chance could you take a look at the prototypes and let us know what you think? Our ongoing discussion can be found here. Thanks again for your input.--DO11.10 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I'm going to be traveling over Mother's Day, so will try to focus on this next week. Insinuations on the Project talk page are beginning to bother me, so best I work on it later. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Check it out

Hey, I ordered Cursing Brain to read on my flight early June, and gear up for writing History this summer. I thought of you when something just came through my inbox. When I came across the 530,000 number in a journal paper (only about a week before the TS FAC), I had never seen that number in print anywhere before. Now, it's coming through my inbox regularly, and if you google 530,000 and Tourette, you find ... a lot of "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".

Any of that sound strikingly familiar (broke the last link because it's blacklisted :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Polish - yikes ! I know someone who will help with articles; give me a list of the ones you want. I haven't yet read Kushner, so not sure yet what his POV is ... I can't wait :-) Have you seen the Schizophrenia FAR? One to watch, in terms of interplay between psych and medicine on MEDMOS. I re-did the TOC to agree with MEDMOS, because all of their content basically conformed anyway — just needed better organization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute; didn't we already correspond about who could help with articles? Gosh darn memory ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but there's no point in both of us asking for the same papers. I thought you might have some already. I'll draw up a list. Colin°Talk 18:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have the ones that you listed on the article talk page — somewhere 'round here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I did/do intend to get on Polio; I was afraid it would turn into a policy/guideline discussion, and I really really hate those and always procastinate :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Colin, can you peek in here? I'm going to be really busy over the next two weeks, including travel, and then will be able to settle in and get some work done over the summer; I'm thinking you'll have some ideas on how to solve this as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

TSC review on Medscape

Do you have a Medscape account? If not, do you want me to e-mail this? (You can register for a free account.) Tuberous Sclerosis Complex: A Review SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I just skimmed the TOC/Index of Kushner (planning to read it on my trip in ten days), and I'm disappointed already. The most important current controversy (1980s) was the Comings affair, well covered in numerous articles and books, and Kushner only devotes one page (206) to the entire mess. That's not a good sign. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colin

Thanks for your message

I would like to chat about it

my email is xxxxxxxxxxxx

Rgds

Adam

List of polio survivors

Wow! I am speechless... What a fantastic thing you have created, your comments made the list so much more... it is actually quite inspiring. I am glad to see that most of the survivors are still on the list. I am just curious, did you encounter any individuals with a wiki bio that incorrectly stated that the person had polio? I did notice that most of the claims were unsourced in the individual biographies, have you plans to source polio status in each bio using these references?

Thank you for this, and all of your help with the polio articles, they are much improved by your guidance. I hope they continue to blossom. Cheers!--DO11.10 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me second the above - very impressive. Thanks for taking the time to make (in my opinion) the model "List of X disease survivors" article: Concise-yet-through introduction, well-organized, and, of course, extensively referenced. Excellent work. -- MarcoTolo 23:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this really deserves a Barnstar....and here it is. -- MarcoTolo 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(moved to userpage)

What a great job! The polio survivor list is REALLY well written. Dagoldman 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
First, I firmly second Marco's barnstar. So, I have copy-edited the piece, and changed any problems I found, amounting to a few very minor changes. Boy though, it was hard to get around that funny English- jk :). One thing I am not sure of: in Sir John Slessor it says "He was told he was "totally unfit" for the army or navy but the air force", should it be Army, Navy and Air Force, as this refers to specific incarnations?
I of course will keep an eye on it (I put the red link on my watchlist some time ago in fact.) The reason I asked about the bio sourcing thing was that I might pop in and source some of the bios myself, I didn't want to duplicate your efforts. I have to ask, aside the "yellow book" reference it says "Public domain text, used with permission and thanks" I sense a good story there?--DO11.10 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy-edit. Sorry about the spelling. If the grammar sounds awkward, don't assume it is the way we talk over here — it probably is awkward. I'm no expert on whether army/navy/air force should be capitalised. Looking at the source text (which is TIME, American), the words are lower case. I've changed the "air force" to "air corps" and linked it.
There isn't a story behind the public domain text in this article, though I did check on the web site. US Gov work is usually public domain unless they say it isn't. They do like to be cited, not just plagiarised. On another article I wrote, I was less sure about the position and wrote an email. I got a nice email back saying go ahead, but it would be nice if you attributed the text. So, even though the "permission" is generic in this case, I like to mention it and say thanks. It is one thing the US gets right and the UK get so, so wrong.
I've done some searching and have come up with a big pile of names all with Wikipedia articles that mention having polio. It will take me ages to go through them and I'm a bit worn out and can't face doing them all on my own. I think this list could definitely be an FL. The only thing holding it back is ensuring it is comprehensive. Would you guys be interested in helping? If so, I can post the list on the talk page along with some hints 'n' tips for searching for sources. Colin°Talk 22:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure - count me in. -- MarcoTolo 22:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Me too, I would be happy to help.--DO11.10 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The hints 'n' tips essay is here. Colin°Talk 20:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Truly a wonderful article. VERY interesting to me (I remember traveling through polio epidemic areas in the southern U.S. in the late 40s and early 50s). The only notable polio survivor I knew of before reading this was FDR, and it turns out he probably didn't have the disease. I also didn't realize that many of those iron lung people got well enough to get out of the lung. I have a minor suggestion: "contracted polio" is, IMHO, better wording than "caught polio," and more in keeping with the authoritative nature of the article. Lou Sander 21:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tuberous sclerosis prevalence

I tried to track down an authoritative review article on Tuberous sclerosis prevalence and came up dry. I did find that the existing citation for the "8-9 per 100,000" figure was merely an editorial that merely referred to one primary source; in cases like these I think it's better to just refer to the primary source, so I changed the article to do that.

I have some other comments on the Epidemiology section for that paper; I left them in Talk:Tuberous_sclerosis#Epidemiology.

As for Autism, you're right that the existing "Epidemiology" section and that the subarticle Autism (incidence) are in pretty bad shape. However, fixing them would be a major job and I doubt whether I have time to fix this any time soon. Eubulides 08:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I followed up to your query on the talk page (and suggested some more work for you, sorry…). As for the name, I don't have a strong preference either way but posted the naming statistics I found. Eubulides 04:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly reminder about guidelines on editing External Links. My sincerest apologies for posting erroneously. I was following a recommendation that it was OK to post a link to a site that supports users who are reading certain articles. 71.143.109.190 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Annie

My RfA :)

Thank you, Colin, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page.

Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin, for your support and for the flattering comments :) I haven't seen you around much, but I hope to work with you again soon. Cheers, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Recharged

I went back through all three versions, salvaging the good edits, removing the errors, and rebuilding the rest. I still need to finish two missing pieces, which I can do easily, if you think I'm on the right track. I believe it's important to explain the factors that affect prevalence before introducing the numbers, so I organized the content that way. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When to cite

This page concerns me;[3] I don't know how to write up examples (also leaving note to Fv and Tim Vickers, as they may know how to get started on this). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I apologize. I thought I was adding links in a different context, by helping provide patient-generated information about the product at hand. I have seen similar links such as Rxlist.com, drugs.com, ExperienceProject.com, etc where people are redirected to sites that offer user-generated content as well. However, I will heed your 2nd and 3rd warnings and cease to continue editing external links. Thanks & Kind Regards, 67.161.11.128 02:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Annie

List of polio survivors

Hi, I just a quick look and had the following points.

  1. The doubtful diagnosis section. Bud Daley for instance is hard to reconcile with WP:BLP, it is sourced but when he himself says it's not polio it seems strange to include it. That whole section seems a bit weird. It is doubtful perhaps that Bud Daley has polio, but possible (different than doubtful) that Louis Auguste de Bourbon had polio.
  2. I miss the nationality of the people in the list. Some people use flag icons for that, but I really hate those. Perhaps just mention something like English science fiction author who etc...
  3. There are some unwikified dates in the references.
  4. No article, and no year info of Eleanor Abbott.

Hope that helps some, Garion96 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

The acrimony seems to have died down at WP:V and people are now co-operating on a single version that should be able to accommodate all views. Please feel free to edit this draft. here or add specific comments on how to improve it, either for clarity or including more of the relevant viewpoints. Tim Vickers 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V opinion request

Hi there, do you have an opinion on which of these formulations of a paragraph in this policy is preferable? Tim Vickers 16:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kierkegaard and Pascal were epileptic

Dear Colin,

Hello. I read what you wrote on the discussion part of the article "List of people with epileptics." I read the article on Kierkegaard's epilepsy that you attached and I agree with you 100% that Kierkegaard is indeed an epileptic. I don't understand why the article would deny this obvious fact. I could find numerous medical papers and scholarly articles proving Kierkegaard's epilepsy, and personally I've read countless articles and books on Kierkegaard because he is my favorite philosopher. Also I am almost certain that Blaise Pascal also had epilepsy. With all due respect, I think this doctor Hughes is an idiot. He obviously didn't do his homework.

Sincerely, soren1813 128.2.247.26 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

List of polio survivors

Thanks for your support. I'll have another look for Judith E. Heumann photos, but that was the best I could find at the time, that I was reasonably sure was OK to copy. BTW: Do you know David Onley's date of birth? I hope that with all the publicity, we'll be able to improve the information in the list and also in his own article. Cheers, Colin°Talk 22:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, no I don't know the birth date for David. (I have his personal email address, and I could use it, but I'll try the press office for now, for the government.
As for Heumann, that likely is the only image you'll find. Would you like me to reupload it as a JPG though, which is Wikipedia's preferred format for photos...? -- Zanimum 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, if it is no trouble. It has a transparent background that I suspect you'll need to change to white as I don't think JPG has transparencies. Cheers, Colin°Talk 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you like a transparency in the file? I can save it as a PNG, and retain that element. Either way's plenty fine with me. -- Zanimum 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Autism peer review

Thanks very much for your detailed review of Autism's lead; it's much stronger now. I finally finished editing it in response and left some comments in Wikipedia:Peer_review/Autism#Comments_by_Colin. Eubulides 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the further edits and comments. I left some followup comments in Wikipedia:Peer_review/Autism#Comments_by_Colin. Eubulides 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for your comments on Autism, this time through section Autism#Treatment. I managed to catch up with you finally, fixing things as I went alone, and left some responses in Wikipedia:Peer review/Autism#Comments by Colin. Eubulides 05:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks yet again for your comments on Autism#Epidemiology. I left some responses in Wikipedia:Peer review/Autism#Comments by Colin. Eubulides 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Further review on Autism would be most welcome. But I wasn't the one who created a link to Ben Goldacre's article; perhaps you left me a message that you intended for someone else? Eubulides 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it was me. I had remembered the article but not my linking to it. Too many autism articles lately; sorry for wasting your time. Eubulides 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your further comments on Autism#Epidemiology. I left some responses in Wikipedia:Peer review/Autism#Comments by Colin. Eubulides 05:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

heros cherry jam

Colin—thanks for pointing out my blooper, and for the Guardian link, which I've posted here. I used to subscribe to the Guardian Weekly, but my Internet addiction has crowded that out! Tony 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviews and copy edits

I noticed your careful review of Autism at peer review and I was wondering if you do peer reviews and copy edits of articles unrelated to medicine? I am always looking for good reviewers; I write on eighteenth-century British literature and history. It doesn't attract a lot of attention on wikipedia, unfortunately. Awadewit | talk 09:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

TSC

Your excellent work on Timeline of tuberous sclerosis has popped up again on my Watchlist. I hereby grant you permission to drop me a line when you send it to FLC. ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Not to stick my nose in or anything (no time for that, unfortunately), wouldn't "The timeline of tuberous sclerosis discovery and research stretches over less than 200 years" sound better as "The timeline of tuberous sclerosis discovery and research spans less than [or "under"] 200 years"? It appears you want to emphasize that knowledge of the disease is rather recent. If I've misunderstood and you don't want to emphasize that, just ignore this :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Will look tomorrow. I owe Sandy a review as well... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking good :) A suggestion for the lead's 2nd paragraph:
There are four chapters to the story of tuberous sclerosis. In the late nineteenth century, notable physicians working in the great European teaching hospitals first describe the cortical and dermatological manifestations; these early researchers* have been awarded with eponyms such as "Bourneville's disease" and "Pringle's adenoma sebaceum". At the start of twentieth century, these symptoms were recognized as belonging to a single medical condition.** Further organ involvement was discovered, along with a realisation that the condition was highly variable in its severity. The late twentieth century saw great improvements in cranial imaging techniques and the discovery of the two genes. Finally, the twenty-first century sees the beginning of a molecular understanding of the illness, along with possible non-surgical therapeutic treatments.
*Is "researchers" adequate here? Feel free to substitute / leave as it is now.
**Trying to avoid "physicians" redundancy.
I hope you'll find my suggestions adequate—if not, just ignore them ;) I'll read the timeline more thoroughly and comment at FLC tomorrow. Cheers, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphic timeline

Found one! Coming up on the main page this week: Template:Holden timeline My idea is world events across the top, with a row for each significant country (and better colors). Whatdya think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Found a better one, colored, easy to do ... [4]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

You seem to be pretty well versed in FL guidelines, so I have a question for you. I'm working on improving the page Hart Memorial Trophy, but I was wondering if it would meet FL requirements because it is more of a general article and isn't solely a list page. Should a "List of Hart Memorial Trophy winners" be created, although I would prefer to not have to do that because then a list page would have to be created for all NHL trophies and it doesn't seem necessary to me. -- Scorpion0422 23:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

2003 Cricket World Cup statistics

Hi., i have removed the image under question (Sachin's MoS award). Can you please let me know if there is any other input you require to vote on the FLC. --Kalyan 08:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FLC

There are 3 distinct issues here.

First, regarding "comment vs.oppose", I have the exact opposite opinion. I've always been disheartened,if not almost offended, by random-looking "comments" bit, because they feel to me as if the person simply doesn't care enough to actually take a stand with their opinion. I rarely, if ever comment on a nom unless I can make a statement in favor or against.

Second, you are to me missing the point of the process. I do not, by any mean, have to ignore any nomination I feel do not "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." As for this specific case, I am disputing that having featured timelines in both the present and past represents a "professional standards", which should be marked by consistency. Since we do not have any formal guideline for such material as timelines, we have to report to what the current practice, or featured content (since featured content is our best work,what else could we take as example) uses. As it is, it doesn't take much searching (Special:Prefixindex/Timeline) to find out that the vast majority of timelines are indeed in the present (thers are formulated with nouns rather than verbs,which is equally disputable IMHO), as are the relevant featured ones. Consistency, usability and proper coding are important in a website like Wikipedia. I've dirtened my hands in several lists myself, and will do it again, and I'm all for discussing the process and my reason for opposing, but I do not appreciate the idea that expressing a straightforward opinion in a featured content candidature, at any point in the process, is a bad thing.

Third, I disagree that a "big fat oppose" (which makes me snicker as I once put my opinion exactly that way in a FAC) is in any way "off-putting". I think we have a good enough core of users watching these candidacy (although we could always use more) that none is truly ignored (unless the nominator themselves show an unwillingness to improve the list). Actually, I think I'll put an advertisement at Wikipedia:Community portal. Circeus 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

tense tension

Colin, you can get around it by saying "French physician René Lutembacher published the first report of cystic lung disease in a 36-year-old patient with TSC after she dies from ...". But there are going to be cases where the tension between past and present tenses is unsolvable. I'll check out the nomination. Tony 15:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll run through again after you've completed the work you mentioned to Tony. I'm wondering what you think about wikilinking hamartin and tuberin (or TSC1 and TSC2) to List of human genes, since they don't have articles? The introduction says there are four chapters (late 19th, early 20th, late 20th, and 21st centuries), but the article Table of Contents is organized around five chapters, which include a mid-20th century. I'm never sure if we should add last access date on templated items like OMIM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I was only planning to change the tense in a few locations, nothing major. I'm too tired to give it a decent go tonight. I'll look at your other suggestions tomorrow as well. List of human genes doesn't seem to be worth linking to IMO. I'd rather work with someone to create short hamartin/tuberin articles. I could create a stub and then seek out some help. Colin°Talk 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at creating articles for the proteins/genes and have decided to ask for help before creation. I'm not sure whether to pick the gene or the protein. I've replaced the OMIM template with a full web citation template. The mid-20th century is a bonus chapter ;-). I'm not sure of the best way to split the sections (see the talk page). If there were short phrases for "first half of the 20th century"; "second half of the 20th century" then I'd go for that. Colin°Talk 13:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Colin, my sincerest and deepest apologies for neglecting your FLC. I thought today would be calmer, and I'd be able to focus on it. I'm not going to pretend I haven't been upset—too upset to concentrate on an article with terms I don't know. You have been *so* supportive of my articles for so long, that I'm ashamed about the ugliness that has caused me to neglect you, but it has to be dealt with. I'm going to spend some time in my garden now, and hope to come back later in the day, refreshed, to take a new look at TSC. I think I've typed all I can type this morning. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Colin, it's really beautiful. Of course, the referencing work is perfect and the prose is very digestible. I still can't wrap my brain around the four chapters, five sections, but I see the advantages now that I've read the talk page. It must be unique on the internet and in the TSC literature; congratulations !!!

Polio list

Hi Colin, thank you for the shiny... I had such a good time working on it though, it hardly even felt like work. Yeah it did just sail right on through, I don't think I have ever seen anything like that happen, I kept waiting for the "opposes" to start popping up.

Sorry you are having such a hard time with your timeline FAC, I am not sure where the tense consistency issue is coming from, but then I tend to support anarchy over rigid structure when it comes to creative endeavors (like writing). I will have a look, and voice my thoughts at FLC. On a related issue, any thoughts about the polio article, is it ready for FAC (am I ready more likely)? --DO11.10 18:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tables in FLC

Good point. Geraldk 10:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

2003 Cricket World Cup statistics

WRT to the FLC, i had to leave town at the proverbial last minute on an unplanned activity. I shall implement the changes in the next couple of days and re-submit the page after i bring 1999 Cricket World Cup statistics to FLC level as well. --Kalyan 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations !!

I'ts been a long haul, and Timeline of tuberous sclerosis now has a star well deserved ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - outstanding work (as usual), Colin. -- MarcoTolo 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thirded - great job, on a tough subject. --DO11.10 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
And mine :) You're welcome—I wish I'd helped more. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You're most welcome, Colin! :) NCurse work 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

timeline

You're welcome, Colin. It looked excellent. Tony 00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Timelines

As you seem to know your way around lists here at wikipedia, I was wondering if you would take a look at Chronology of Mary Wollstonecraft. It is just the beginning, but I want to make sure I am doing everything correctly from the start. As usual, I have my worries about original research. Awadewit | talk 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tuberous sclerosis

Thanks. The article from english wikipedia was the impulse for me to write something about this disease in polish. Now I will take part in translation of Timeline of tuberous sclerosis, it looks very comprehensive for me and I congratulate you on this:) Unfortunately, I had no opportunity to be acquainted with Gomez review (History of the tuberous sclerosis complex) and a number of other sources, as well. I've found also that Kirpicznik article from 1910 is available via Springer website, but i have no subscription there :) Maybe you have access to well-stocked university library? In my city (Szczecin, Poland) where I also attend medical university, some journals and books are very hard obtainable. Tuberous sclerosis is very interesting for me for its complexity and its multisystem trait, I think that there are still some things to do.. If you'd like, i will convert some images from polish article into .svg format, also with english annotations. Greetings, Filip kocha małgosię 11:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling refs

HATE them. Thanks (I was sick yesterday). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Page ranges

Colin, see discussion on my talk page, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

List of English Football League managers by date of appointment

Hi Colin. You were a great help when I got this list up to FL status. I usually keep a watch on it but I've been on holiday and it's gone under some drastic changes - some of which could improve it, others I'm not sure can't. I'd appreciate it if you could advise on it as a "FL-guru", seeing as such wide-scale changes could compromise its FL-status. Many thanks, HornetMike 12:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week

WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

MEDMOS: Is drug dose information acceptable?

Colin,

You are the author of the majority of the MEDMOS guidelines and of the particular sentence regarding unacceptability of the drug dose information in the WP articles. I would appreciate your comments to the current discussion on the topic on the MEDMOS Talk page. Thank youPaul gene 01:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week

Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:

  • The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.
  • Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

FLCs

Hi, I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the FLCs for The Simpsons (season 2) and Maurice 'Rocket' Richard Trophy, both of which have been candidates for a week, but have few comments. Thanks for the time, Scorpion0422 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants

Not too keen on biting off more than I can chew :) Oh well, what's the harm. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Disability Info

I understand your concern about the NICHCY fact sheets on disabilities being too basic for pages focused on medicine. However, I posted them on pages about the disabilities to which they pretained. Are those pages only about the medical aspect of disability? Is the assumption that people who are interested in those subjects are only interested in medical aspects of disabilities and not information related to other areas such as education, which is what NICHCY focuses on? If so that is fine, but I think it would be helpful, especially for parents of children with these disabilities, to know about their children's educational rights. The fact sheets are basic, but that is the point, some people need a basic introduction to disabilities instead of only medical information about them. If there is a better place to put this information than on the specific disability pages please let me know.Kyried 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology FA debate resolution

Thanks, that was a great idea re the List of Dewey Decimal classes. Totally solved everyone's problems (: ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Medicine rant

(Message to Colin, Tim and Fv). You might want to follow this; I finally let loose on the rant that has been building since I became disillusioned that the Medicine Projects don't have a coordinated effort to combat medical misinfo, peer review articles, remove poorly sourced info, and maintain at least the medical FAs and GAs to a high standard. The Medicine Projects need a coordinated effort to review all FAs and GAs (to set the bar high where it belongs) and a method of dealing with the issues at articles like autism and Asperger syndrome (largely ignored by the Medicine Projects; if we don't maintain FAs and GAs at least, what the point?) and the messages left on my talk page about articles like pyroluria. Raul has given us the answer; will the Medicine Project do anything, or will they prefer to work on weekly collaborations that almost never yield featured articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

MilHist

And, to burden you with yet another issue, since you are such a Renaissance Man, jack-of-all trades.

A decision was made to drop the WProject clause of WP:WIAFA, on the basis that WP:MEDMOS (for example) is already part of WP:MOS so the clause was redundant. Unfortunately, that left MilHist—one of our strongest Projects—out in the cold. [5]

Kirill has been convinced to do something about it. [6] Since you're now an expert in getting Project guidelines to MOS status, I was hoping you'd peek in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update

Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

  • Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.
  • Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

AS

TimV, Tony, and Colin, Eubulides (talk · contribs) has completed his rewrite of Asperger syndrome; it's ready for a fresh look by any new eyes who want to review it. He was working under pressure and on limited time, so he invites an additional prose check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MCOTW

JFW | T@lk 11:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

MedRS

Colin, I'm completely not following the question here; maybe you can understand it? [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal

O.K. I have put my idea together at User:TonyTheTiger/LOTD proposal. Toss me some comments before I try to make this an official proposal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent out 3 feedback requests and got back two complexity complaints. I am working on it, but it is a simple process. Eligible FLs are nominated. People cast 3 votes. Votes are tallied. The winners become LOTDs. Dates are then assigned. It is not too hard to understand. I will hopefully clean it up in the next few days so that it appears as simple as it is. I think with 400 FLs and 40 new ones being produced a month (and probably more in the future), we should be able to come up with 30 a month. We can repeat like POTD for a while if necessary. I will try to clarify the procedure and get back to you. As for the quality issue, I have produced 42 WP:DYKs. If these can go on the upper part of the main page, we certainly have high enough quality content to go at the bottom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
O.K. My proposal is a lot leaner now. I should say that I believe the current quality of WP:FLs is as good as WP:FAs when they started WP:TFA. I think this type of mechanism will increase the quality of WP:FLs by competition. I am not sure I have addressed all your concerns, but reconsideration, feedback and advice would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:TonyTheTiger) I've moved the Survey/Discussion to the talk page. I think the main page should focus on the proposed procedure rather than become a discussion page itself. Can I suggest that IMO it is way too early to call a survey (support/oppose). I recommend you remove that section ASAP. This will free the discussion from becoming polarised. When it appears the proposal is heading somewhere positive, then call a survey to gauge the opinion. Colin°Talk 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is correct to move the discussion to the talk page. Thank you. I kind of disagres with "it is way too early to call a survey (support/oppose)". People at this point know if they want to see FLs on the main page in all likelihood. We have a format for their inclusion based on WP:FC work done already. I think the best way to get things moving is to call for opinions. If people don't want to see FLs on the main page they can cast an oppose vote saying so. I think the most likely ways for FLs on the main page proposal to get derailed is for people to start debating over whether the FC format is the best, whether we should do it daily like TFA or POTD, whether we should wait until later, etc. All of these are just votes against. In all likelihood, people who want FLs on the main page will either want to do it similar to my way (democratically) or similar to TFA (autocratically). I am just calling for a vote of persons who want to get going democratically. If they vote for my procedure it can be tweaked like anything else at WP. I think votes to wait are just votes against us being on the mainpage or votes against a democratic procedure since we are so far beyond where TFA was when they started. What would we wait for if we already have over a years worth of FLs and are producing more than 30/month?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I realize WP is not a democracy, but at times we do use one man one vote such as WP:RFA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I would not call those three points goals. People against formatting per FC are just trying to make it undoable and should just come out and say they are against, IMO. People who don't want to do it democratically, want something totally different from what I am proposing and should vote against. People who don't want to do it daily don't truly want to expose the daily readers to WPs best work in a normal way like TFA and POTD do. These people should just say they are satisfied with not being on the main page and vote against. I find it hard to believe someone who wants FLs on the main page and wants some sort of by collective consensus would vote against. This is a proposal that should be close to what people who want FLs on the main page by collective choice should want. I don't necessarily want a lot of discussion. I would prefer 100 support votes and a motion to close debate. You have a lot of skin in the game here because like me you have 3 FLs although I think yours have more subject overlap than mine do and should not be nominated in the same month. I would think you probably think your work is deserving of main page exposure. If so I think you should support this kind of approach. I imagine there are many alternate voting procedures that would work. However, a myriad of alternate plans is also a pretty good way to torpedo a proposal. I would imagine extensive debate on alternate procedures would likely lead us astray from getting this thing going. The table has actually been revised for LOTD format. Note those are all lists in the table. Would you like me to format one of your lists as an example? It is of course possible that people would just like to see a list of nominees. I think this however makes the first blush comparison easier. Debate over whether a table with 500 characters per entry or just a list of list names should be shown is of course another way to bog down the progress. I proposed it as it is because I think it will work. If I had a month to nominate something, I would be able to summarize it in 500 characters and figure out which projects should take note of its candidacy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems fairly ludicrous for you an editor of 3 FLs who started the opposition movement to say everyone who nominated and closed FLs would blindly vote for my proposal. Those people happen to be the ones who are most concerned about the FL process. There is no way FA is going to be involved in any FL on the main page process. There were a few respondents who don't know how much excess demand to make the main page there is from FAs who think TFA might give up a couple days a week for FLs. Not gonna happen.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying you are against FLs on the main page. I think most believe FLs should be on the main page. If we were to take a straw poll of should FLs be on the main page, it would probably pass 80/20 or better. That is not my point. Discussion shows three camps 1. Support for my democratic/consensus selection process. 2. Support for a first in line/calendar type process like POTD 3. Support for a dictatorial selection process like TFA. You are pro first in line. I am not looking for support from people who at some point in the distant future to have a dictatorial selection process or who want a first in line process. I am looking for support for a democratic process. If it goes down it goes down. I could write you a dissertation with extensive calculus on why this is the mathematically most efficient process, but no one at WP would care. I believe in a democratic and free market process. My proposal for that is posted. If you want first in line I don't want to modify my proposal to get your support. I don't mind if it turns out that my idea is not supported. I don't want analysis by paralysis by debating about the three types of processes. Just tell me whether you would go along with mine or not. I will move on to other things and let FLs on the main page die if people prefer other ways.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes a selective process (either democratic or dictatorial) would create a two-tier FL system of accepted and rejected FLs. However, oddly you believe that there are some FLs that are main page worthy and some that are not. One would hope a selective process would approximately agree on its division. However, if you want to lead a non-selective first in line calendar movement, I may support, but that is not my proposal here. It is not an unwillingness to compromise. Putting ideas together that don't go together is not compromise. I am not interested in a dictatorial process. A melding of a dictatorial and democratic process is not a compromise. You either do one or the other, IMO. A melding of a selective and a non-selective process is not a compromise. I would be willing to compromise on the mechanics of a consensus based selection process. If you would want to discuss some sort of compromise that would result in a consensus based selective process, I would be open to compromise on such a process. However, the proposal here is for whether you are for a consensus based selective process. Most people in support of such an idea realize that my idea could be tweaked. If you are against a selective consensus based process then we can't come together. Aside from a two-tier result what other significant concerns would you have with a consensus based selective process?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I think it is possible that persons thinking their work is less likely to succeed in a consensus based process might be against my idea. I think it is likely that you may feel that your excellent work would not be likely to succeed in getting to the main page. Is this your thinking?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

List of brain tumor patients

Just a note to say thanks for your comments on the afd discussion, and for the thought that went into them. It was useful to see how you see it. Thanks again:) FT2 (Talk | email) 10:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

FL new proposal

It sound like you are against the new proposal, but did not state so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Long time no talk

Hey, there, long time no talk! I hope all is well with you. There was some recent commentary on the talk page (from an IP) at Causes and origins of Tourette syndrome that the language is above the level of the average layperson. I'm not sure if it's a real concern, or an IP with an agenda, considering some off-Wiki issues I'm aware of. You are the best editor I know for friendly-fying prose; would you be interested in working on it at your leisure? Also, wondering if you stil have the talk page at Asperger syndrome on your watchlist. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of work done

The list looks somewhat transformed. Please see List of basic geography topics, to see if it makes the grade, in your opinion. The Transhumanist 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update

Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

  • The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

Dr. Cash 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Polio

Hi Colin,

I am still planning to take her to WP:FAC sometime soon (maybe in a week or so). Could you please take a look when you get a chance, I would really appreciate it. I think that there are a few weak spots, but overall that the article has come together (or actually has been divided off) quite nicley. That was all you; and it ended up really making all the difference in improving the article. Thank you for that.--DO11.10 19:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One additional thought, what do you think about adding a nav template to the series of polio articles? I am thinking that it would be beneficial to the reader to have the series more easily identified and accessible.--DO11.10 19:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

FLC discussion continued

The discussion you participated in continues at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics. The Transhumanist 04:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • What is an acceptable definition for the term "basic geography"? Please see the new subsection at the FLC discussion. I've presented a suggestion there. Any suggestions for improving it would be most appreciated. Thank you. The Transhumanist 20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FLC subpage question

Hi Colin, I have a question about a subpage within a WP:FLC page and originally asked SandyGeorgia's advice on it. Sandy thought you might know the answer so I am asking you, please see here. Thanks in advance for any advice, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi there, SandyGeorgia recommended you as somebody who might make a good admin. If you would be interested in being nominated, please drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers 04:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Autism assessment

Any interest? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship and polio

Overwhelmed? I know the feeling :) As for poliomyelitis, that's pretty much outside my limited expertise, but a good read and an opinion can't hurt. I'll see what I can do (I'm becoming traumatized by this sentence). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yours were more so, trust me :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

There were numerous supports for the original proposal. I am not sure why you believe no one supported the process. However, as you said the trial will die if everyone boycotts, is uninterested or does not participate for some other reason. I view your reply as a statement that although you do not support the process you are not opposed to it having its fair shot. Are you an admin? I am trying to figure out whether I am truly going about this incorrectly. I guess I should still give people some sort of notice that I will be conducting the experiment so that if there is some sort of policy violation, I will be corrected. I think giving 7 days notice like this is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If I go forward with the experiment would it be spamming to post a notice on the talk page of all people who nominated FLs promoted in 2007 of such an experiment?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, regarding your recent edit, is there an official policy to only wikilink the first occurrence of a term? I couldn't find any mention of it in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. Of course I see the rationale (and it sure would make my life easier), but I'm curious to know whether this is a judgment call in each case or a policy which I should keep in mind in general. Cheers, AndrewGNF 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to read more carefully. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking:_what.27s_the_best_ratio.3F Anyway, agreed that the previous version was WP:OVERLINKED, but I may add a few of those wikilinks back. As it is, I think it is a tad underlinked (readers who jump to the bottom may not realize TSC2 is wikilinked at the top). AndrewGNF 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I replied over here. Cheers, AndrewGNF 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)