User talk:Axl/archive 13

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

our loquacious friend

I have been laughing for a good 4 minutes in response to your characterization of a certain editor's response as a "wall of text." Seriously, laughing to the point of tears, for 4 minutes. Thank you. Bryan Hopping T 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:-)
It's ironic that he missed the point of my comment, and responded with a wall of text anyway. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar - thanks

Thanks a lot for the barnstar - it encourages me to post more on Hindu temples Ssriram mt (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)ssriram_mt[reply]

RfA Comments

Hey, I just saw the comment you left on my comment on an Editor's comment on RfA (It's a whole lot like Inception ). We'll have to agree to disagree about whether that !vote was a WP:POINT !vote or not, but you're 100% correct in your other statement. I edited another user's comments at RfA without providing a Diff, and that was wrong. I was in the process of posting it when Nolelover beat me to it. Thanks and happy editing! Achowat (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe

Thanks for looking though. Can you also give it a spotcheck? That's whats really needed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to finish reading through the article again first. After that, if no-one has done spot checks, I'll do it. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the spotcheck done? LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't finished. I was really hoping that someon else would do some spotchecking too. I am somewhat concerned that of the eight references that I checked, three had problems. I will try to do some more spotchecking. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna try and get access to some journal article. So would you please put your spotcheck on hold? LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we discuss certain things via email? LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got the articles I needed. Let me know when you what then sent. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tammar genetics

I'm plan on getting the tammar wallaby article to FA next and I need to expand the section on its genome and I'm having a tough time understanding and interpeting these genetics articles. Can you help? LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chew, "HOXA13 and HOXD13 expression during development of the syndactylous digits in the marsupial Macropus eugenii". An investigation of amino acid differences in the gene products of limb development genes. This reference is not suitable for "Tammar wallaby". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankenberg, "A novel MSMB-related microprotein in the postovulatory egg coats of marsupials". Another highly technical paper. It describes chemical differences in the ova ("eggs") of marsupials compared with placental mammals. Again, this is unsuitable for "Tammar wallaby". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O'Hara, "Desert hedgehog is a mammal-specific gene expressed during testicular and ovarian development in a marsupial". I am struggling to understand this article. I believe that the "Desert hedgehog" gene is involved with the development of placental mammalian testis. This paper shows that in the tammar wallaby, DHH is also important in ovary development. Again, I don't think that this is relevant to Wikipedia's article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hu, "Differential roles of TGIF family genes in mammalian reproduction". Another highly technical paper describing subtle differences between the marsupial and placental mammals' gene expression. Also unsuitable for "Tammar wallaby". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renfree, "Genome sequence of an Australian kangaroo, Macropus eugenii, provides insight into the evolution of mammalian reproduction and development". This article looks a little more useful. It can certainly be referenced to show that the tammar wallaby's genome has been investigated and contrasted with placental mammalian genomes. Also, the article states that the Tammar wallaby has two thymuses (although many other animals also have two thymuses). There is also some relevant historical information, although this is already included in "Tammar wallaby". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wong, "Transcriptomic analysis supports similar functional roles for the two thymuses of the tammar wallaby". This paper says that the tammar's two thymuses do the same thing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wang, "A first-generation integrated tammar wallaby map and its use in creating a tammar wallaby first-generation virtual genome map". The paper describes a more detailed genomic map. Not really relevant to "Tammar wallaby". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, last time I nominateed the article, one objection was that it didn't include enough mentioning of genome articles. They posted some other articles not found on that list. Do you think any of them are relevent? LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited Sasata to comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of Axl's assessments regarding these particular articles thar are listed. I do think, however, that Wang 2011 could be integrated with a quick mention into the "Genome" section; it gives the reader an idea of where we are in understanding the layout of the Wallaby genome. I see this section already mentions that the immune system genes have been mapped onto the chromosome, but there's some details in there that aren't really necessary for this article, like the molecular genetic techniques used (BAC libraries and FISH). Personally, I think the article should do a more thorough job of explaining to the reader why researchers have chosen to put all this effort into understanding wallaby genetics. The first few sentences are a good start, but there's much more that could be added from, for example, Graves et al. (2003) (current ref #38), and probably Renfree et al. 2011 (ref #37). The title of the latter paper suggests that the genome "provides insight into the evolution of mammalian reproduction and development". So what have we learned? (... summarize in a sentence or two please). Please check out this article, which will have more information on its utility as a model organism. In general, most of the papers one pulls off the academic databases are too high-level for this sort of overview article, but part of the research element involves reading through these papers (well, at least the abstracts, to be realistic) and finding interesting or useful nuggets that can be incorporated. Hope this helps, Sasata (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Sasata. I think that we can reach a consensus on the right balance of genome-related material to include in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murchison, "Sequencing skippy: the genome sequence of an Australian kangaroo, Macropus eugenii", looks like a potentially useful reference. Unfortunately it is subscription only, and I don't have access. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed one of the authors for a PDF request. LittleJerry (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I'll send you the PDF. LittleJerry (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should get the giraffe spotcheck done first. LittleJerry (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lung cancer question

Hiya, did some digging, got this response from a colleague.

"Sorry, no idea! They’d have to ask a clinician – it may have been added by a doctor who was referring to custom and practice. But it sounds odd to me anyway. You’d certainly need a confirmed diagnosis of some sort of cancer before firing radiation at anyone. Frankly if it was me, I’d take it out. But does Wikipedia need that level of detail about clinical decision making? Isn’t it enough to say that radiotherapy can be used palliatively for lung cancer? If they want any info about what is used when, refer them to our section, specifically the Types of tx page, http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/type/lung-cancer/treatment/"

Hope that's helpful! HenryScow (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for checking. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. When you recently edited Lung cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cytology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffes in Sudan

I really don't understand your objection to the statement that Rothchild giraffes "may live in South Sudan". Is it because it doesn't make it clear enough that its status/presence there is uncertain at the source says? LittleJerry (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Can we discuss something through email? LittleJerry (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tammar

I gonna be clearing up some articles I've edited before. But when I'm finished, I'll let you know so we can work on the tammar wallany article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready now? LittleJerry (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, could you fix and expand the genome section, adding in a summarization of what was learned from the sequencing of the tammar geonome? LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi, I just wanted to leave a note saying thank you for partcipating in my RFA, and your comments will be taken on board and acted upon. Hopfully, I will be of a level you can support in a future RFA. MrLittleIrish (talk) © 12:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Have attempted to address many of the concerns. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am away for a bit and than will continue. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no rush. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to correct a few more issues. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the thorough review :-) BTW let me know when lung cancer is updated and ready for simplification / translation. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :-) Will do. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Axl. You have new messages at Skater's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--SKATER Speak 19:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

replied--SKATER Speak. 20:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black sigs

I have just went around notifying everyone you posted to telling them to ignore your request. Contrary to your belief, black signatures are not against policy and you most certainly do not have the right to mandate how other people choose to sign posts. If you continue, I will bring you to ANI. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People have been taken to ANI before for failing to change sigs, I know, I've been the one taking them there Sven. How about you assume that at least a few of those asked might actually prefer to have readable sigs? DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
99.9 percent of people can read the black sigs. If you're in an absolutely tiny minority because of a superficial change of your own choosing, you really have no right to order people to change things. Switch to something else or write your own script that only effects you. It would be an entirely different thing if the person was using a white signature. I don't go around ordering people to change their settings to make it easier on me, what gives you the right? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I forgot, terribly wrong of me to use one of the gadgets in prefs, how wicked I must be - even more so as I wouldn't have a clue how to write code to do it. I don't recall ever ordering you to do anything. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Axl hasn't been ordering anyone, he's been politely asking people to consider changing. Try not to tell untruths please. DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your message, I don't feel it is appropriate to change my signature: to be honest, I have been active on it.wiki for more than 5 years and nobody has ever asked me to do so. I do understand your problem, but adding a background colour will significantly lengthen my signature, making it less user-friendly for most of the users that already use a white background anyway. --Mark91it's my world 23:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as for mine, I've come up with something that I think works on the best of both worlds (assuming you're not in IE). Even so, my sig shouldn't be completely invisible for those with a black background, which it was previously. Hope that covers everything WormTT≡talk≡ 10:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Worm That Turned. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New sign

Hi Axl. Is this proper now? Regards :) →TSU tp 12:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend not TheSpecialUser... as text-shadow does not show for IE. And that means for a large portion of the userbase, you've got a white sig. WormTT≡talk≡ 12:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TheSpecialUser, I can see your signature nicely now, thank you. However Worm That Turned may have a good point, I don't really know. (I am using Firefox with green-on-black text.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now have 1 more reason to hate IE. →TheSpecialUser≪Talk≫ 14:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blus and purple is a bit dark, but I can read it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what about this one? →TSU tp* 15:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

friends just imagine what if everyone starts complaining about the signs. Although i agree that worm is right and we must have a sign that is visible to most or all of us, but its generally assumed that people have a white background (although I am perfectly aware of the fallacy of this assumption). but if one uses a green on black skin (or for that matter any random colour) of his choice, and he is unable to see the sign, then its more advisable to change the skin colour rather than asking users to change their signs.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TSU, your new signature is fine, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

I'm sorry, but I have decided not to change my signature, as specifying a background color would just bloat my signature's code and create unnecessary disruption to discussions. Might I suggest that, instead of asking everyone else to change to suit your needs, you request that the gadget be modified to detect when background and text are the same color, and modify the display accordingly? This seems like a much cleaner solution. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 18:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for !voting

at my successful RFA
Thank you, Axl, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green on black skin

Hi! I think much can be improved with the current green on black theme you are using.

  • First off, I am in the process of making it compatible with Vector - but it's harder than I expected so it's going to take some time.
  • Second, I think the set of colors can be improved. But beforehand, I have to know more about the colors that suits you.
    • Can you read white text on black background, or do you feel dazzled? If you feel dazzled, is the light green used in the design perhaps too bright?
    • For normal people, pure white and pure black backgrounds produces eye strain over time. Might you prefer using a shade of black that would be slightly lighter, instead of the dark black?

Also, I have just found a new Google Chrome extension that does a really good job for photophobic users. On demand, it inverts the set of color for any website. Some website hurt your eyes, you just click and it becomes readable. You can disable it anytime, or make exceptions for some websites that have appropriate contrast... You need to install Google Chrome first, go to the Chrome web store, and search for High Contrast.

Do you prefer using this extension, or the green on black theme for Wikipedia? I hope it helps. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I assumed you had photophobia, where you might only have an eye strain slightly higher than normal due to the white background. Well, please answer to my questions anyway, in order to figure out your needs. Cheers, 213.55.184.154 (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; it is kind of you to consider my needs while writing your script.
I find that my eyes ache after looking at a screen with a white background for a long time (over 15 minutes). I don't seem to have the same problem when the background is black—at least it takes much longer before my eyes start to ache. I suppose that this may be a mild form of photophobia.
I mainly use Mozilla Firefox, sometimes Internet Explorer depending on the PC. (Internet Explorer is on my PCs at work, and I am not able to change any settings on those.)
Most websites have white backgrounds, and this is a problem for me. I tried changing my Firefox colour settings to white-on-black. Despite this, many websites have "fixed" their colours to be black-on-white, so the Firefox settings don't help. Worse still, some websites fix the text to black without specifying the background. Firefox changes the background to black, but leaves the text black. This creates black-on-black, which of course is unreadable.
I have now changed the Firefox setting to white-on-dark grey. This now means that websites that explicitly use black text are just about readable for me, although the text is somewhat indistinct.
Rather than Google Chrome, are you aware of a similar solution for Mozilla Firefox? I would prefer to continue using Firefox rather than installing Google Chrome.
Again, thank you for your consideration. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue with Wikipedia's green-on-black text setting: although the text is (usually) fine now, templates typically still have bright backgrounds. Not only does this create background glare, but also the overlying text is a pale purple, which isn't easy to read. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one please, Dodoïste. This page uses white backgrounds for the closed discussions. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested another update. It' will be fine soon. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lung cancer article

Hi Axl, I'm from pt.wikipedia and I'm translating the previous version of the article "Lung cancer" which you edited past days. You removed some sections as "Viruses" in "Causes". These sections had trustful references but, anyway, you removed that. Do you have any justify for this? Because I want to continue my translation and, if there is some problem in these sections, I will need to remove them as you did. Thank you, Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vinicius. The old version of "Lung cancer" (i.e. the one that passed FAC in 2007) had many primary sources, such as the ones used for the "Viruses" subsection. At that time, the requirements for WP:MEDRS were less stringent than they are now. Since that time, the evidence for viruses has not been confirmed. Secondary sources such as textbooks do not include viruses as a cause.
Also, other editors have added material with sources, some of which are primary. Over the last three months, I have been removing/replacing primary sources, updating text & references, and generally cleaning up the article.
I have almost finished removing the primary sources, although there is still some more clean-up required.
By the way, are you aware of the translation project? Perhaps you could collaborate there? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your fast response, Axl! In pt.wikipedia we do not have specific advises for reliable sources in medical articles, so there is no problem if I continue to translate the previous version. But I liked the way you work here and I will try to adopt it by myself. I will review the current article, after your edits, and try to import some of the changes you made, mainly the references.
I didn't know the project you mentioned and I got very interested about it. I will read carefully the page and find the best way to get involved. Regards, Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have earned...

The Medicine Barnstar
... for a massive effort improving the sourcing of Lung cancer. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That is very kind. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green on black skin, the sequel

Hi! As promised, I've made several improvements for the black skin gadget on monobook. I've asked admins to make the change at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Blackskin.css. Once it's done, you will have to Bypass your browser cache.

I've fixed the following contents: logo, infobox, tables, table contrast issues, warnings, documentation templates, footer... and user signatures! I hope you like it! If you find any other issue whith this black skin gadget, please ask me or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility to fix it! :-)

As for making the gadget compatible with the vector skin, I can't manage to fix the header, the tabs menu, and several similar contents. It seems to be tricky, I'll have to ask the help of a professional. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you for fixing the problem with signatures. Now they all default to purple, which makes them easy to read. Also, many tables/templates now use a black background, which is great.
However Template:Cladogram seems to use black lines, which aren't visible. Are you able to fix this? Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I'm pleased to help. :-) Concerning the Cladogram template, I can't fix the contrast issue easily. I would need to rewrite the Cladogram template from scratch. I'll do it later, and focus on simpler tasks for now. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFA backgrounds: done. :-) Again, I've asked admins to make the change at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Blackskin.css. It should be fine in a matter of hours. Dodoïste (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the appearance hasn't changed for me. It isn't the cache. I have left it a couple of days, with my computer switched off for some of the time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal that nothing has changed, because no change have been made to MediaWiki:Gadget-Blackskin.css yet. I believed "edit requests" were answered in a few hours. If you have an admin friend you can ask him to update the gadget. Otherwise, let's be patient. ;-) Dodoïste (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was updated today. RFA should be fine, but the logo might have been lost in another improvement. In you happen to find a 3D sphere puzzle rolling in the outer space, please let me know. Otherwise I'll replace it in the next update. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 09:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Dodoïste. Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Article_feedback please? Both the colours and the formatting are messed up. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fine now. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text colour is better now, thank you. However the formatting is still not right. There are two boxes (labelled for readers and editors) on the upper right, which are supposed to have text in them, but the text isn't in the box. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I noticed but it can't be helped. The author decided to hover white text over a black image. The image is made of black arrows on a transparent background. Since we changed our background to black, the image appears black on black. And the layout is messed up. The author did something in a fragile way, these problems can't be helped. Or I'll have to redesign this complicated page entirely and I believe it's not worth the effort. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Axl. You have new messages at Mabdul's talk page.
Message added 13:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

mabdul 13:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD comment

I wonder if you even know the GD meaning of the word irrelevant. My76Strat (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the above emotion laden text. I would prefer to have redacted it completely but leave that as your provenance. I have refactored the more public comment at the AfD as well. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At first, your new signature name confused me. I believed that another editor had posted the note and made changes to the text. May I request that you include your username in your signature, so as to reduce confusion? I have replied in the AfD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you would, please tell me why I was wrong for opining an AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplo remix discography while actually nominating it for a Merge? You did say at RfA, I was wrong. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is the wrong venue to propose a merge. WP:MERGE describes the recommended process. After proposing a merge, we should wait for other editors to comment. When I propose a merge, I invite relevant WikiProjects to comment. This helps to achieve enough comments for a consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. That is what I suspected. I guess after seeing a fair amount of AfD's close as merge, I thought it was 6, a half dozen, or the other. I did know that merge was the correct outcome. And the AfD has closed; which I merged the content. If you don't mind looking at the condition after the merge, in case I've erred in some way, that would be great. I suppose the only thing left for me, is to actually apologize to you, for the ill effects of my ill conduct. I am sorry. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I accept your apology. I'll have a look at the merged article later today. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You merged the text of "Diplo remix discography" into "Diplo production discography". A couple of entries don't have "Diplo Remix" stated (2008, Spoon, "Don't You Evah" and 2010, GD & TOP, "Knock Out"). Several entries state "Diplo Mix" rather than "Diplo Remix". Also, I wonder if it's really necessary to state "Diplo" with every entry given that the article is called "Diplo production discography". I'm not sure that "Remix" needs capitalization either, but that depends on the names that the songs are actually given. The biggest problem is the absence of references. The single external link at the bottom does not provide verifiability.
In summary, your merge literally did that and no more. The article quality remains mediocre, mainly because of the lack of references. It is ironic that the "remix discography" article was at AfD, yet no-one mentioned the poor referencing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. I'll make sure I go over the content you mentioned and also add some references. It's true I merged the content and no more. Partially to keep the attributions somewhat congruent. Improvements made now are under normal editing procedures. One good thing is that a couple editors seem currently active on the list so hopefully they will also assist improving it. Thanks again - StringdaBrokeda (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lung cancer

Hi, FeatherPluma. I see that you edited a reference in "Lung Cancer". Thank you for correcting the spelling of the author "Onn". In your edit summary, you claim to have corrected several minor errors. However I do not see any other errors that you have corrected.

The article uses a consistent citation template throughout. You removed the citation template for this reference. WP:CITETstates "editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Axl. Oops, and thanks. Maybe you know how to correct the citation template? I don't (sorry) but if you do, that might be a nice way to reconcile things? (Maybe I just edit the contents of the "template"... is it that simple? If you haven't done it, I will try that approach right away. If it works, I'll do things that way going forward, and be in compliance with consistent citation format.) Otherwise, go right ahead and "correct it back" to the wrong author name if you think that's the correct thing to do. (Sorry that I don't know everything about the arcane editing process in WP; I am always happy to have someone actually teach me something.) Not that it matters in the least but I apparently erroneously took the position that respecting a person's name comes above the "rules" (especially the ones I don't know) in WP, and having "wrong stuff" (and the template does have other errors that I allude to, but not exactly "claim"... but which you "do not see" actually exist... for example it "pushes" "78", rather than "Chapter 78".) (Sorry that as an ex copy editor I notice the small irritating stuff. I think "78" is kinda obviously the chapter number, but sort of an eye sore in the ref list when bereft of its "capitulo". Fuss, fuss, enough of Beauty Inn in Eye of the... Needle... but wait... that's what consistent formats are about. Seems we are in alignment. Did you know it's a full moon today?) Anyway, chatty Kathy here letting you in on the general purpose of the edits which is... to address what I see as a meaningful suggestion on the Talk Page of Lung Cancer Staging. Maintenant, I kow-tow as deeply as my joints are capable, which is not as far as I was capable of before a crazy Body Demolition class. Thank goodness for some yoga stretches later. Time to say goodbye, but just for now... (try out Nl9WMIPzd6w on youtube) FeatherPluma (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEW QUESTION

Looks like yes, I can/should edit the "template". I see. I've learned another nanometer toward another brass button, oi! I tested it on the component that gives the Chapter results because I dislike the present presention of chapter numbers in the ref list (as shown below.) But then, given your admonition not to adjust things without getting consensus, I reverted. So the question I now pose is whether the present ref list appearance (of at least 3 books) as:
  • Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2010). "46". Murray & Nadel's Textbook of Respiratory Medicine (5th ed.). Saunders Elsevier. ISBN 978-1-4160-4710-0.
  • Horn, L; Pao W, Johnson DH (2012). "89". Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-174889-X.
  • Lu C, Onn A, Vaporciyan AA et al. (2010). "78: Cancer of the Lung". Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine (8th ed.). People's Medical Publishing House.ISBN 9781607950141.
is as optimal as:
  • Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2010). "Chapter 46". Murray & Nadel's Textbook of Respiratory Medicine (5th ed.). Saunders Elsevier. ISBN 978-1-4160-4710-0.
  • Horn, L; Pao W, Johnson DH (2012). "Chapter 89". Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-174889-X.
  • Lu C, Onn A, Vaporciyan AA et al. (2010). "Chapter 78: Cancer of the Lung". Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine (8th ed.). People's Medical Publishing House.ISBN 9781607950141.
In the event that the addition of "Chapter" to the presentation format as it appears in the ref list attains consensus, I'll be very willing to practice on the citation templates and make the changes to ALL books on the list. Let me know. (try out teWFnLqjnuY on youtube)FeatherPluma (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ANOTHER QUESTION
Oh dear. Here I go at it. Once I start looking I... find stuff. If occhi miei are open... it's just too exciting for... Anyway, why are refs 8 and 9 different editions of the same book? Looks to me like REF 9 can be consolidated to Ref 8.
REF 8: Lu C, Onn A, Vaporciyan AA et al. (2010). "78: Cancer of the Lung". Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine (8th ed.). People's Medical Publishing House.ISBN 9781607950141.
REF 9: Vaporciyan, AA; Nesbitt JC, Lee JS et al. (2000). Cancer Medicine. B C Decker. pp. 1227–1292. ISBN 1-55009-113-1.
Once again, I'll be happy to do the adjustments if you me know. (try out nyWG6KlJdMg on youtube, espero disfrutar haha)FeatherPluma (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the display of the "Chapter" field. I suggested a change to the display here, but the consensus was against me. It would be reasonable to add the word "Chapter" and the name of the chapter, as you have done with Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine.

Regarding the two editions of "Cancer Medicine", I have spent the last four months updating the whole article, including the references. Initially there were many statements sourced to the fifth edition. Where appropriate, I have updated these to the eighth edition. However there were a few that were not actually supported by the eighth edition. For most of those, I have found alternative sources. In some cases, I have had to adjust the text in line with the new source. For the one remaining reference, I am struggling to find an appropriate source. Once I find an appropriate source, I shall replace it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I will adjust the "chapter issue" as you suggest, likely tomorrow, doing so consistently for all books on the list.
2. The ref presentation on the article page now reads "Lu first=C; Onn A, Vaporciyan AA et al. (2010). "78: Cancer of the Lung".Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine (8th ed.). People's Medical Publishing House.ISBN 9781607950141." Note the "first=" which is an incorrect "push" from the template. I will find the solution tomorrow and correct it. Should be elementary.
3. Now that you have brought my attention to this method of formatting references, I think I will try it out on an article I am brewing, entitled "field cancerization". Consistent presentation has spiritual merit, well sort of.
4. I am fairly sure I can help you with the remaining reference to the fifth edition. I have nasty access to lots of stuff (when the system works, and I'm in a bigger city tomorrow, so it'll probably be easily done. I think I have the gist of what type of RS you are looking for. I will look at some good sources tomorrow, and push anything by you for comment prior to actual incorporation.
5. Wherever you are in this big world, take care ! FeatherPluma (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in episode lists?

Hi, I see you've been involved in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. I have begun a discussion on spoilers in episode lists and would appreciate your input. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Axl

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and Why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Mesothelioma. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Axl, thank you for you interest in my disseration research project. I would like to ask you to complete a brief online questionnaire, following this link https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=18871 Once you complete the survey I would like to talk to you about your editing experiences and motivations you have for doing so. I can talk to you either through Skype/phone or if you prefer to answer the interview questions in a written form then you can e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk and I will send you the ethics form and the questions. Thank you so much and you input is greatly appreciated. Nuša Hydra Rain (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Axl, can you remind me whether I have e-mailed you the interview questions? I believe I have not. I saw your survey responses, cheers for that! Let me know whether you would prefer me to send you the question via Wikipedia email or other address... You can also e-mail me (see above). Thanks Nush Hydra Rain (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep vein thrombosis

Hello, I saw your review at Talk:Tuberculosis/GA1 and I was impressed. I'm shooting for FA standards with DVT now and it is up for a peer review. If you have a chance to leave comments they would be appreciated thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take a look. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Michigan Wolverines GA

Thanks again for your review and effort. Good luck with future endeavors! SCS100 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I sent you an email. I guess you have to send me one back in order for me to attach a file I didn't see a mechanism to do so from Wikipedia. Biosthmors (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Axl/archive_13"