User talk:Cyclonenim/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Medicine Portal 2 Your VandalProof Application 3 rfa 4 Mucormycosis 5 Portal:Medicine 6 WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter 7 Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight 8 WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter 9 Hypereosinophilia 10 April GA Newsletter 11 Portal:Medicine 12 Rollback 13 Thanks 14 Your RfA 15 Congrats! 16 re:Barnstar 17 Re: not popular with IPs 18 I'm sure you already noticed... 19 ER 20 Welcome to VandalProof! 21 CVST 22 "Wikipedia trumps a person's life"... 23 Hitec 24 User:Pedro/Admin Coaching 25 RfA thanks 26 Pete's Rfa clarification 27 WikiProject Drug Policy 28 Lady Aleena's RfA 29 WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter 30 Hi! 31 MCOTW 32 Thanks! 33 re:Mucormycosis 34 Just to let you know 35 Talk:Ventricular hypertrophy 36 Your input would be welcomed 37 Coppertwig RFA 38 Re: Stroke 39 Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight 40 Just to say hai 41 Thanks a lot! 42 You now have rollback 43 Israel 44 Re: Alice in Wonderland syndrome 45 Belated thanks 46 IP "vote" on Rfa 47 PR 48 RFA Thanks 49 Ditto! 50 RfA thanks! 51 FA? 52 My recent RfA 53 My RfA 54 Thanks 55 Thanks! 56 ^5! 57 Thanks... 58 Looking for Adopter! 59 New single-purpose account User talk:Harlanjackson 60 User:Sutwell 61 Help! 62 RfA thank you spam 63 Blocked 64 Neurology Assessment Categories 65 Status 66 WP:BOTREQ

Medicine Portal

That would be fantastic! While I'm working on the medical wikiproject, the science collab of the month and others, it's extremely hard to maintain properly the medicine portal. These are the boxes that should be updated from time to time. Please tell me which one would you be interested in:

• Selected article
• Medicine WikiNews
• Did you know...
• Selected picture
• Things you can do

Currently, I can take care of the selected material. NCurse _work 19:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for the long silence (exam period...)! That's how you can work on the Did you know section:

• First, find good did you know quotes in articles.
• If you find one, please insert it here (archive page).
• Then put it into the Did you know box by adding a {{*mp}} tag before your new line.

That's all. Have fun and thank you! :) NCurse _work 10:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Cyclonenim. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. β^_command 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

rfa

Thank you for your support in my RFA last week. If you ever need assistance, let me know. Archtransit (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mucormycosis

My compliments on your hard work on this article. It looks fairly complete and most content is sourced. I've shuffled things around a bit and improved the references (have a look at footnotes), but I have made no major changes to the text.

I notice that you have relied mostly on Emedicine and HealthAtoZ. That's fine, both are high-quality sources supported by generous amounts of primary research. If you want to refer to a more recent peer-reviewed article, doi:10.1128/CMR.18.3.556-569.2005 will probably meet your needs. Let me know if anything needs clarification.

When do you intend to apply for medical school? JFW | T@lk 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! My pleasure, I enjoyed working on it! I noticed my references weren't done particularly well, but I didn't know how to do them properly so I repeated the same link more than once. I'll have a read of that article on Tuesday when I have some spare time from college. I wish to apply to medical school's in September this year, chances are i'll have little success with my secondary school qualifications being quite poor (even if my college qualifications and work experience are good (which they aren't just yet!)). I see you work in the United Kingdom, may I ask which hospital you work in? CycloneNimrod (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page for some Tolosa Hunt references. No rush about the CMR article - Rome wasn't built in one day. Wish you luck re med school. I will email you about my place of work etc. JFW | T@lk 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Medicine

Hi Cyclonenim,

Thanks for your contributions to the portal, you're doing a great job! I wanted to give you some more tips:

• when you update the Did you know section, could you also update the Portal:Medicine/Did you know archive, just add the dates you added and removed articles.
• try to avoid Title Case (Fanconi syndrome instead of Fanconi Syndrome, for example)

thanks, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No apologies needed, I'm just here to help! I'm currently on a GP placement which is going very well, hope you get into medschool soon! cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As you might have seen on my user page, I'm from Belgium, studying at Catholic University of Leuven. I'm just from a 3 month placement in Newcastle though. GP isn't popular in Belgium at all, mainly because our GPs work 6 days a week 8 a.m. - 10 p.m. and earn 4 times less as in the UK. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how Newcastle courses work exactly, I mainly did an elective actually. Teaching at my uni is awful, almost 100% lecture based, with a medieval preference for theory over practice. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, in Belgium we basically have 5 basic years then 2 clinical years, and I'm in my 6th year. Contrary to the UK, we only get paid and register after 7 years :-s. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what I'll end up doing, I'll stay in Belgium most likely but it's tempting not to do some locum work as it pays so well... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 4 - February 2008 January issue | March issue Project News There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Johan Derksen, Trafford, J. Michael Bailey, Greg Skrepenak, Paleolithic-style diet, Alan Dershowitz, Natalee Holloway, Slovenian presidential election, 2007, San Francisco Municipal Railway, and Marcela Agoncillo. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 8 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: AnonEMouse (talk · contribs) Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) Casliber (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Johnfos (talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 176 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 15 new members that joined during the month of January: Atlantik (talk · contribs) Auawise (talk · contribs) Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Ddstretch (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) FamicomJL (talk · contribs) Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) jackturner3 (talk · contribs) Kbthompson (talk · contribs) Keilana (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) pcbene (talk · contribs) Skeeker (talk · contribs) Snowolf (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! On Hold versus Failing an Article This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article: Passing – it meets all six of the good article criteria; add it to WP:GA and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{GA}} to the article's talk page. Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page. On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page. Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page. So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be: the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory). minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes. mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references. a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags. On the other hand, an article should be failed if it: is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section). contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose. there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags. has evidence of an active edit war in the article history. has major neutrality issues. has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places. Did You Know... ... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days? ... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA? ... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)? ... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles? ... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles? ... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status? From the Editors Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • Fort Jackson (Virginia) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Jenny (Doctor Who) • New York State Route 9L Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 211 articles (47 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 13 June 2008 | edit

Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight

NCurse _work 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • Fort Jackson (Virginia) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Jenny (Doctor Who) • New York State Route 9L Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 211 articles (47 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 13 June 2008 | edit

Hypereosinophilia

You have been prescient in updating hypereosinophilic syndrome. Today, the New England Journal of Medicine informs us of a nice new monoclonal antibody for this rare condition: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa070812

The next step, obviously, is the use of this agent in diseases where eosinophils misbehave, such as nasty asthma and Churg-Strauss syndrome... JFW | T@lk 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008 March issue | May issue Project News There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Malachirality (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas (talk · contribs) Dank55 (talk · contribs) English836 (talk · contribs) ExplorerCY (talk · contribs) JayJ47 (talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) MBK004 (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Neparis (talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) PGPirate (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! To delist or not to delist, that is the question So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination. This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies. Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article). Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise. Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first. Delisting instructions From the Editors As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • Fort Jackson (Virginia) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Jenny (Doctor Who) • New York State Route 9L Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 211 articles (47 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 13 June 2008 | edit

Where can I find updated data regarding football related concussions in adults? Justin/Sportsfanatix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfanatix (talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Medicine

I see you've been maintaining the medicine portal and thought I'd drop some new info by you. The whole portal has been randomized so there is no need to add and remove DYKs, just add new ones. The process is to update the next available section at: Portal:Medicine/Did you know and then add the new DYKs to this page: Portal:Medicine/Did you know archive. Hope that helps! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

These pages Here and Here have all DYKs that Wikipedia featured that have medicine and medical in their hook. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I've looked over your edits, and, with regrets, do have some reservations, only because of some of the systemic requirements of rollback. But, in all honesty, Twinkle works just as well. If you were to want to install it for your account, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle and follow the instructions there. I've actually heard from more than a few editors that they even prefer that one. I do regret the decision on my part, but a little more experience would probably be sought. After a month or two using Twinkle, you'd probably be a shoo-in, if you still wanted it after using Twinkle. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert: he's out of business now. Acroterion _(talk) 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

I feel really guilty that it was my comments that made you withdraw your RfA! I really do hope your admin coaching goes well and you pass your next RfA. All the best :-) TheProf - T / C 20:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Two minor things with a view to your seemingly inevitable next RfA: Some (not me, nor the majority!) for some reason or the other don't take too kindly to self-nominations. Ideally, wait until an established editor (extra bonus if it's an admin) offers to nominate you. The second thing is, the way you responded to the individual comments in your RfA speaks volumes about both your great attitude and temperament. However, it also betrays some degree of inexperience since replying to a lot of comments is not common and even frowned upon by some (again, not myself) in certain, excessive cases. Dorftrottel (ask) 01:49, April 18, 2008

Congrats!

		The Medicine Barnstar
		For stellar work on several medicine-related articles. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

re:Barnstar

Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, well done and keep up the hard work! CycloneNimrod^talk? 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: not popular with IPs

Yeah, I guess they don't like me reverting their vandalism very much. :) Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page as well. I really appreciate it. (I always love it when someone vandalizes my talk page because it shows up really loud and clear. :P ) Thanks again and happy editing! Thingg^⊕⊗ 16:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you already noticed...

but I closed all the mfd's you just opened, and honored your request for deletion. In case you were not aware, if you ever have a user subpage that you'd like deleted in the future, simple add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. That adds it to the speedy deletion queue, where it will be deleted promptly without all the !voting. Cheers, happy editing, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Got your message, no problem. Let me know if you ever need assistance/advice/recommendations in the future, I'll help where I can and give you a flat "I don't know" when I can't :-). cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ER

Just letting you know, I reviewed you at Wikipedia:Editor review/Cyclonenim. I know my review was longer/more extensive than most people do, but I hope you appreciate it, nonetheless. Keep up the good work, JamieS93 19:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome! As I said, it's not that you have a lot of big, bad problems, just some stuff that people wouldn't like to see on your next RFA. Just be sure not to rush the next one too fast.

I think a lot of times the problem with RFAs is that you have a user who's been around for awhile, helped promote an FA or two, and has had a lot of experience in various areas of Wikipedia, including more admin-related tasks. But then people bring up diffs and problems with WP:BITE and WP:NPA, and the RFA might fail due to several opposes. It seems that it takes a while for people to actually trust a user again, that they won't be snappy, as opposed to generally seeing a trend of positive, kind interactions with others from the get-go. Even if a user's last negative interaction or semi-attacking comment was a couple/few months ago, a lot of people, myself included, often consider it too close to the current time for comfort. So, I think a great way to start out is have a good foundation of a history of civility, and then work into more experience and knowledge of Wikipedia, which is basically something that's set in stone; if you helped promote a few GAs, for instance, you or nobody else can take that experience away from you.</RFA opinions>

By the way, have you applied for, or at least considered for the future, admin coaching? I think it's a good idea myself, although you might want to wait until the time when you actually feel ready for your next RFA. :) Good day! --JamieS93 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Cyclonenim! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

CVST

Thanks for GA reviewing cerebral venous sinus thrombosis! I will certainly help out with mucormycosis when I've got access to my usual research material. JFW | T@lk 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia trumps a person's life"...

...is not at all what I said. I never even said anything remotely approaching that, and frankly I don't know what led you to think otherwise. Please pay attention to what I actually write than a convenient straw man. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A straw man argument is one thing, an implied statement is another and there is a fine line between the two. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitec

You thought the deleted content was relevant? Then maybe you can explain to me what 'Hispanic IT Executive Council' has anything to do with a corporation that manufactures radio controlled devices. There should be a separate page for that, instead of leeching off an established page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.201.194 (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looking back it appears I was indeed wrong thinking the content was relevant. Easy mistake to make, should have looked through closer. Sorry. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Pedro/Admin Coaching

Set up! Pedro :  Chat  13:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've replied with what I think I need to work most on. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 16:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pete's Rfa clarification

Did you mean "wary" of his answers? Otherwise it seems you're implying that his answers are too long or something, i.e. they make you tired. I'll assume it's a typo vs. a grammar issue, but if you don't know what I'm talking about, let me know and I'll post a link to a good grammar page. Lots of people confuse the two words. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Drug Policy

Hi there, I wanted to let you know about the formation of WikiProject Drug Policy, a project to organize and improve drug policy-related articles. You're welcome to join. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's RfA

Cyclonenim...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008 April issue | June issue Project News There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial). The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. GAN Reviewer of the Month Noble Story (talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk · contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Jbmurray (talk · contribs) Kaypoh (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) IMatthew (talk · contribs) Kironide (talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Noble Story (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) SorryGuy (talk · contribs) Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Will381796 (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GA Topic Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article. There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth. Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories. Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Uncategorized good articles is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter. That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. Did You Know... ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles? ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085? ...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses ) Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process. From the Editors There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page. Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • Fort Jackson (Virginia) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Jenny (Doctor Who) • New York State Route 9L Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 211 articles (47 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 13 June 2008 | edit

Hi!

I don't know if you remember, posting a comment on my talk page regarding Thermodynamic feasibility of converting creatine to phosphocreatine, a doubt which I posted in the science reference desk. Well, it still remains unanswered :( . Of course, that was in good will that you recommended. Any way, that's not why I am messaging you. It's about this new article that I created, which I'd be glad if you review and comment upon.Bye. Regards.

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

MCOTW

Hello! Actually, I leave a note about the new collaboration only on the talk pages of the voters. But I always leave a note on the Wikiproject medicine talk page as well. But if you want to, I can set up a list for the regular contibutors so I can let them know about the new articles. What do you think? NCurse _work 06:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for visiting and reviewing the page on polyclonal response. The following was your feedback: "Review

Here's a brief review that i've conducted after no sleep in 48 hours, so forgive me if it's a little vague or beyond comprehension.

• WP:MEDMOS needs to be applied to the article.
• An infobox would be a good idea, i'll get down to that at some point for you.
• Significance needs to be expanded upon and written in continuous prose rather than bullet pointed.
• Polyclonal response needs to be added to the immune system template at the bottom of the page.

Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)"

• Well, by applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style, I suppose, you mean simplifying the article to make it understandable for the general public as other issues--mainly--caring for patients' sensibilities or not addressing the medical persons or the patients, I suppose does not apply in the case of this article.

• I didn't really understand what matter could be included in the infobox for this article as it's mostly a phenomenon that requires to be explained, and not a disease or a molecule that would have a lot of objective data as its attribute. But, of course, your ideas are most welcome in this issue.

• I'll try expanding the section on significance, but I had refrained from doing that because the first point in particular about maximizing the probability of recognizing an antigen would have sounded quite repetitive. Also, subconsciously, I felt that the points under the category would require citations that I didn't have.

• I have already included polyclonal response in the

  v • d • e Immune system / Immunology Systems Adaptive immune system vs. Innate immune system • Humoral immune system vs. Cellular immune system • Complement system (Anaphylatoxins) • Intrinsic immune system Antibodies and antigens Antibody (Monoclonal antibodies, Polyclonal antibodies, Autoantibody) • Allotype • Isotype • Idiotype • Antigen (Superantigen) • Polyclonal response Immune cells White blood cells (T cell, B cell, NK cell, Mast cell, Basophil, Eosinophil) • Phagocyte (Neutrophil, Macrophage, Dendritic cell) • Antigen-presenting cell • Reticuloendothelial system Immunity vs. tolerance Immunity • Autoimmunity • Allergy • Tolerance (Central) • Immunodeficiency Immunogenetics Somatic hypermutation • V(D)J recombination • Immunoglobulin class switching • MHC/HLA Substances Cytokines • Opsonin • Cytolysin Other Inflammation • Epitope (Hapten) • Cross-reactivity • Diagnostic immunology

  'immune system' template.

Hope this much progress satisfies you.

Thanks again for taking the special effort to visit the page, and, needless to say, you were pretty clear to me in whatever you said ;)

Regards

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

re:Mucormycosis

I merged the other article and started a bit of cleanup to get the two to flow a bit better and propsed a merge of Basidiobolus ranarum as it's the human variant of the previous merge. Sorry I haven't been able to give this focus OATs and other things kept me busy. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know

It's usually best to mention errors on the main page (that do not occur in their respective articles) in WP:MP/E as this is more closely monitored by admins and so you're likely to received a faster response. I've already moved your report on Cyclone Nargis Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ventricular hypertrophy

Just wanted to let you know, in case it's not on your watchlist, that there's a good informal peer review at Talk:Ventricular hypertrophy. I know you've done some work on that article in the past, and thought you might like to know about the potential for improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input would be welcomed

Hiya, sorry - this is a bit spammy. You recently commented at my talk page regarding my proposal for a mentoring process that takes us away from "admin coaching" and moves towards a process to provide a support system to help editors who wish it become effective, high quality administrators, and not an administrator for the sake of it. I've created a header at User:Pedro/Mentoring and if you have any time to provide some feedback, or just tinker with it, I'd be grateful. Pedro :  Chat  08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig RFA

I've requested a 'tone down', if you like, of your oppose on the above RFA. Hope you understand. Rudget (Help?) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Rudget (Help?) 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stroke

Hi!

I added this section:

Common types of ischemic stroke include: Total Anterior Circulation Infarct (TACI) Partial Anterior Circulation Infarct (PACI) Lacunar Infarct (LACI) Posterior Circulation Infarct (POCI) Each of these gives a stereotypical clinical picture. Before the location of the infarction has been confirmed by diagnostic imaging (e.g. CT Scan), they may be referred to as Total Anterior Circulatory Syndrome, and so on (TACS, PACS, LACS, POCS).

I'm afraid I don't have a reference for it - it was something that I was taught at medical school though, so I'm sure it'll be documented somewhere. Ged3000 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight

NCurse _work 08:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Thanks for the smile back ! :D -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Thanks a lot for the barnstar. Never thought will get one. Well, I had a doubt: how does one cite the same source again in an article to support different facts. For instance, how can I add The "Immunolgy Fifth Edition by Goldsby" at different places? Also please provide me with a wikilink to the relevant page with instructions.

Thanks in advance. Regards. Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You now have rollback

Be sure to use it only according to our guidelines found at WP:ROLLBACK. Cheers, happy editing, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Israel

Thanks, when I saw your question I went 'ooh, I think that's partially a trick' and remembered Israel. Wish I could find the ANI discussion for full details but I'm glad I answered it to your satisfaction. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I told Keeper somewhere in the discussion process that I don't mind answering questions that are relevant, or even somewhat irrelevant like the username spelling question. I don't have anything to hide, Wiki-wise, so I figure it can't hurt to answer and at worst, you learn something if it's not answered the way the questioner thought. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not too worried about Kurt, it's his POV which he's entitled to. I also !voted in the AfD you linked. I agree with you that it's not spam and appears notable. It's well beyond my scope of understanding and much of it is behind pay gates so I personally couldn't clean it up but I think it could be done. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for this link when you asked me about the IntelliCAD AfD. I wasn't aware of that page before and using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/ misses out on the non AfD discussions. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Experience is always a good thing. Looked as if people supported the idea of your RfA but with more experience, so that's a good start. I found that 'working' with Keeper, Jayron, DGG and other admins was a good learning tool and observing some of their actions taught me more than just reading policies and what not. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Alice in Wonderland syndrome

Hi, I'm afraid I don't have any sources, but it is something that was mentioned regularly by the guys in the psychiatry department when I was on placement there. A quick google search revealed this. I'm sure pubmed could find something better. Maybe Lipowski ZJ. Delirium: acute confusional states. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.? "Lilliputian hallucinations are hallucinations of miniature people or animals" - Cameron AD, Crash Course Psychiatry 2nd Ed, p23, ISBN 0-7234-3340-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged3000 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with that edit. Delirium Tremens is not a symptom - it is a diagnosis. (IDC-10 F10.4) As such, "Delirium tremens is also a known symptom of AIWS" just doesn't make sense. Also, the article you refer to with this statement does not mention delirium tremens or lilliputian hallucinations. Ged3000 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I completely agree that information in any encyclopaedia should be properly referenced. Sadly I don't have any reference in front of me, and don't have the time to look for one. However, I have been taught that lilliputian hallucinations are a characteristic feature of DTs, which is why I thought I should make a comment that this was not fully described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged3000 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: reference. Sorry - I didn't look at the title of the article as mentioned on the wikipedia page. The link supplied with the reference leads me to an unrelated paper - The Evolution of Surgery for the Treatment and Prevention of Stroke [1] Ged3000 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much - you beat me to correcting the missing >! Hopefully that is closer to the truth! Ged3000 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Not sure if I ever properly thanked you for the nice barnstar. Hereby: thanks for the nice barnstar! I haven't quite got around to looking at zygomycosis yet - had my hands full with familial hypercholesterolemia (now GA). JFW | T@lk 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

IP "vote" on Rfa

I presume you noticed that someone moved the IP's "vote" back to general comments. The IP was absolutely correct to put it under general, as IPs are not allowed to cast an official "vote" according to the (perhaps outdated) general RFA guidelines. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) At least you didn't use the new rollback tool I gave you to revert J Milburns updates. That wouldn't have been good.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PR

Hiya, was that what you were looking for on Talk:Zygomycosis? I didn't see anything resembling an NPOV issue, but I'm not sure if you were intending to suggest there was one. I do see what you mean about all the merges making it confusing though. Anyways, gimme a heads up if you were looking for something more specific (I'm crap at watching talk pages though, so you better hit my talk page). Peace, delldot talk 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, wasn't sure if you saw my reply on my talk page since I'm just so popular tonight. ;)

In other news, I was excited to see from your userpage that you got pneumonia to FA, are you interested in chest medicine? I wondered if you'd be interested in giving me a review for either pulmonary contusion or subcutaneous emphysema; I'm not an expert and it's possible I've introduced errors. Any lung insight you could bring to either would be much appreciated. Awesome work on the medical articles by the way, I'm surprised we haven't run into each other before this! I guess I tend to hang out in pretty isolated corners of WP:MED. :P Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 07:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto!

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

FA?

Yikes, you really think it's ready for FAC? I'm such a wuss about these things. Are you allowed to just list an article as a GA, or does it have to go through GAN? Either way, it's very exciting, I look forward to seeing what happens.

Hey, can you add stuff from this ref? I've apparently "reached my viewing limit" for this book, whatever that means, and it's got good stuff in there: Schnyder P, Wintermark M (2000). Radiology of Blunt Trauma of the Chest. Berlin: Springer, 10–11. ISBN 3-540-66217-0. It's in there as ref name="Schnyder00".

Be seeing you! delldot talk 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, I feel like all the concerns being brought up at the FAC are valid, maybe we should withdraw the nom and work on them. I really don't feel like we'll be able to address the concerns within the allotted time frame, and I'm concerned about wasting the time of people who participate in FAC, they already do so much. How about we take it down, find some of those reliable sources like the textbook Colin mentioned, and come back after the concerns have been addressed? I'm not having luck finding any good sources online, and it'll be a while before I can get to a medical library or anything. I assume it's possible to withdraw them, right? delldot talk 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, thanks for handling the relisting. Was it OK how I handled that? I thought I'd do it since with the FAC closed we might not get the feedback on that question. Didn't mean to be a jerk about it or anything. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your concern, but I think the most positive course of action would be to leave the RfA open until the proscribed end date. There are always more comments that people can make, and I would like to give as many people the opportunity to express their opinion as possible. After all, what harm could possibly come from leaving it open a bit longer? – PeeJay 19:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point there, and of course there is always the danger of that, but we'll never know if we don't try. What I would really appreciate is a couple more questions to answer. – PeeJay 19:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support and interesting questions in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. Good luck in the event you decide to pursue another RfA _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

^5!

:D We're GA! I'm psyched that he gave such a thorough review, good pointers. I'm going to get to work on them hopefully tomorrow. Yippie! :) delldot talk 05:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for not making your questions on my RFA toooo hard and for your vote of confidence. I will do my best to live up to it! --Slp1 (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Adopter!

I would like help on learning how to make contributing articles on Wiki. I would someday like to contribute to the articles on chemistry and specific animal species. I saw that you liked science, which is why I chose you. Warning: I find it tough to word what I'm thinking of, questions about wiki. let me know if you can help me or adopt me. Pozilla (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay! I didn't realize how active people were on Wikipedia. I did ask a few other people; isn't there a place where I can see whose page I edited? Pozilla (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

New single-purpose account User talk:Harlanjackson

A new single-purpose account User talk:Harlanjackson has just appeared, making edits on alcohol and health topics. I suspect this account is being used to push a particular POV and I would appreciate your help keeping an eye on him. Spiro Keats (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked further and suspect sock puppetry. I've raised the following case: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (3rd). Feel free to comment. Spiro Keats (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Sutwell

Hi Cyclonenim, you tagged this userpage as a spam speedy. I'd previously given the user a welcome and tried to explain a few things. I've now been a little more WP:BOLD and blanked the user page for them, so your CSD tag is gone now too. I'm just trying to give them a little better introduction to the wiki than waking up to find their work (such as it is) permanently gone. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Help!

How would I create an info box? I am going to add to Voltaj. Pozilla (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you spam

Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Aww... here, you can have a flower too -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Neurology Assessment Categories

Hi. I've deleted the categories that you tagged as G7 deletions. It looks like you missed Category:B-Class Neurology articles and Category:Start-Class Neurology articles, as those were not tagged for deletion; did you need them deleted as well? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Per your message, all of the "Neurology" cats have been deleted, and all of the "neurology" cats have been retained, untagged, and - in one case - undeleted (whoops). You should be all set. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Status

I use Qui. :)  Asenine  19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQ

I made wikilinks of the diagnoses at: User:Stepshep/Sandbox, but came up with a few red links. Would you mind looking it over? After that I can tag them if you want, or Rich can do those too. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It only took about 10 min in Word. I tried to use [2] but it wouldn't work. Glad I could assist. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)