User talk:Colin/Archive 4

Proposal

I would really like to see the Epilepsy article at FA level, however I do not have the medical background or the familiarity with the sources to do this. I do have some familiarity with the topic and a good grasp of the English language. :) I was wondering if you would like to make this a joint project? It seems that you have an interest in such pages and have already contributed to the epilepsy article. Awadewit | talk 22:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

As for the nav template, I was actually thinking of a "vertical series box" at the top of the article (like Culture of Ghana). But if you think that a nav box at the bottom would be better, that would be great too. Let me know, and I will try my hand at making one myself or knock on a few doors. --DO11.10 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have sort of made a mock version using the Culture of Ghana template here, but it (obviously) needs to be adjusted for use in the polio articles. I have no idea how to do this, and Help:Template reads like stereo instructions. Do you have any knowledge of how to do this?--DO11.10 18:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW did you notice this?: User:Colin‎; 09:24 . . (+666) . . Colin (Talk | contribs) (→Barnstars - a giant bouncy ball of death), lol.--DO11.10 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for FAC just now. Will keep working on the nav template (or more likely ask the resident Template guru, Arcadian, for some help). Thanks again!--DO11.10 02:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

I am contacting individuals in the order of the number of featured lists that they had created by Novemeber 10, 2007. You have created several. So you are among the first. There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Primidone approval date

It was my understanding that primidone has been in use in the United Kingdom since 1950! I read that here, here, and here. Apparently, British pharmaceutical regulatory agencies were run by naive morons in the 1950s, which are known for being a much more innocent time.--Rmky87 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression that Handley et al 1952 was another shitty open-label trial like the others listed in Williams 1956. One of those overdose articles states that it was introduced in 1950. Sometimes clinical trials are only published after the regulatory agencies have issued their approval. The pre-approval trials for Excegran weren't published until 1993[1]; Excegran came on the Japanese market in 1989. I would love to know what Epilepsy Action's source was. I think I put more stock in something that was written by doctors back then, even if it is just a case report. This article says that it was introduced "two years earlier" but it may have been submitted before 1953. Anyway, to me, "introduced" means "put out on the market".--66.142.45.164 02:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I will. Eventually. I'm not so sure if it was used in Germany then based on this (i.e. the full text, which said, "Primidone. (Mysoline#{174}) was. introduced. in. 1950"). This says, "introduced. for. clini-. cal. use. in 1952,. is Mysoline#{174} or primidone". Both of those articles were written by Americans.--Rmky87 (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the epilepsy article, I am very bad at translating things for the layman. That second article I just sent you could be useful if you want to write the history of Gemonil or Mebaral or something.--Rmky87 (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, you're free to raid the primidone article for the old reviews and for that article that states that primidone is still a popular option in the developing world. I have that study saved to my computer if you want to know what everybody was taking. You might want to take a look at this; the 1982 article about valproate and birth defects isn't on PubMed and it's the first article linking anticonvulsants to spina bifida. That was pretty historic if you ask me. You might want to look at this, too. They also say that valproate was only used for absence seizures in America. Since you're not just talking about primidone, you'll need someone to get those pre-1970 Diamox and teratogenicity articles for you. I really can't, by the way.--Rmky87 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

My thoughts exactly. Nothing like fixing a typo in the article and making one in the summary... I don't suppose the oversight folks will think "misspelled edit summary" is a good enough reason to make a revision go away :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging per WP:MEDMOS

Merge proposals here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Stiripentol

We would be grateful if you would not remove the advertising of "Alan Pharmaceuticals". Diacomit is licensed product and it is therefore legal to advertise it. Moreover, NHS hospitals and physicians are having great difficulty obtaining it since it is manufactured in France and, aside from the language barrier, most hospitals and physicians do not have import licenses.

Many thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.0.65 (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not carry advertising. This is a drug with a very limited licence. The number of physicians and pharmacies needing to obtain this drug is extremely limited, and I suspect they have better sources of information than an international encyclopaedia. Colin°^Talk 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Butalbital labeled as BUT/ASA/CAFF

It looks like you reverted to the version prior to my addition of BUT/ASA/CAFF on Butalbital. Please consider re-adding it.
It is important that the Butalbital entry contain a reference somewhere to BUT/ASA/CAFF because that is how the generic is labeled by pharmacies. Any patient or caretaker wishing to research prescription meds will likely use the drug name as listed on the label as basis for a search. BUT/ASA/CAFF in Butalbital allows people to find this valuable Wikipedia article using an internet search engine. Its inclusion is therefore clearly in the public interest. If you still prefer not to include it, please breifly explain your reasons. Thank you for your consideration.
131.191.92.252 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no Edit summary for your edit, and I incorrectly assumed it was nonsense. I see now that this is an abbreviation for the Butalbital-Aspirin-Caffeine formulation, not the Butalbital-Acetaminophen-Caffeine formulation you had appended it to. As you say, this is a generic term, so it doesn't fit with a list of "trade names". I'm not inclined to pollute articles with all the permutations of abbreviations that may be in use. If you disagree, post a request at WT:PHARM. Colin°^Talk 23:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"WikiProject wanna-be MOSes"

I can't completely decipher what this is on about, but it doesn't sound right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

More epilepsy cruft

[2], [3], [4], [5].--Rmky87 (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lysine

I saw this edit at Herpes zoster, which was a revert of my edit. First of all, I hope you don't think I'm a complete idiot with regards to Lysine and VZV or HZ, because it was the only study I could find that was even peripherally related. I really had no problem with the revert, because I'm just shocked that there wasn't a peer-reviewed article on lysine effects on this disease. I've been hearing for years that lysine blocks replication of zoster virus. To find out that there are no serious articles out there about it just convinces me how bad "Alternative medicine" is. The snake oil types (sorry, but I find alternative medicine to be abhorrent to science) push this kind of crap, then you find out it's not true. Sorry for the rant. If you find anything that states Lysine actually works, please add it back into the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So, I did a google search of Lysine + Treatment+ Zoster (hoping to get VZV and HZ hits). Other than the hit from Wikipedia, nearly every single hit was some sort of lame herbalist, naturopathy, homeopathy or alternative medicine site. I actually found one that said it probably has no effect. The HSV reference was the best I could do (I guess I was HOPING for something that shows lysine works, just so I can provide a diff someday that I'm not totally opposed to alternative medicine). OK, I submit myself for punishment. As for the other issues, just list them on my page or on the HZ talk page, and we'll cross them off. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the lysine subsection just now, and the only cited source has nothing to do with herpes zoster. I am not aware of previous history of the subsection but in the current state it looks very much like original research. I left a note to that effect in Talk:Herpes zoster#Lysine. Eubulides (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Herpes zoster

I took a quick look but got bogged down in the treatment section. I made a change there but I see I'll need some time to think through epidemiology, and I have other things to do. Sorry; hope it can wait a day or two. Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I worked on it a bit. I ripped the questionable epidemiology stuff out of the lead; this left a gaping hole that is now being filled in by another editor (it's less-questionable than before, but I'm afraid it's still dicey). I am only about 25% of the way through the Epidemiology section. After finishing that I suppose I'll go back to its summary in the lead. Right now I'll have to take a break as I have some real work to do. I haven't read the whole article, but my vague impression is that the other sections need work too (certainly "Management" does). Eubulides (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the stats still are not strong. The US and Canada studies I cite, in the lead primarily so I did not step on Eubulides in the Epidemiology section, are from two rather small studies in Minnessota and Alberta, respectively. And I agree with Eubulides that some other sections need more work. --Una Smith (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Rotavirus and Hepatitis B virus

Dear Colin, I know it's a lot to ask of you, but would you have time to read these two? GrahamColm^Talk 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herpes zoster

I'm not sure if you've changed your opinion of the article's FAC status, but I think you have guided us in a ton of good ideas. Have you changed your opinion? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It'll be a little while anyway, but I'll keep an eye out. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Wikipedia:Evaluating sources seems to have the potential to change the way medical and scientific articles use sources. See Tim Vickers talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLC

Archived Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series and List of works by William Monahan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at this FLC? I have concerns about the notability of the subject and at the present time it is heading towards a promotion thanks only to WikiProject support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

Given that OccamzRazor did not respond to your messages and carried on editing I have undone the move and restored ketogenic diet to its rightful place, as well as userfying his new creation. Could I ask you to review his modifications, and undo changes to other pages that were made to direct to the epilepsy diet page?

Clearly, controversial moves should be undone, and on reviewing the evidence (incl Google search) I completely agree with you on the naming issue. Sorry for the trouble. JFW | T@lk 00:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at sorting out markup for footnotes. Also many (most) of the external links were either direct-links or indirect-mentions of single research papers; I've worked these up where possible, but should they be moved from "External links" to "References" or better still to relevent place in the artice as footnotes? David Ruben ^Talk 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Rotavirus

Dear Colin, thanks for the e-mail and your words of wisdom. As you know, I'm preparing RV for FAC. I'm very mindful of the demands made on your time, but could you review it? I've read every reference in full and have full copies of most of them, but I need you to check, among other things, the logic of the discourse. I'm pushing this but not rushing it, so any help you can give at your own pace would be very much appreciated. My best wishes to you, Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 13:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes

Dear Colin, I will be working at the the hospital over the New Year's celebrations, so may I wish you now all the very best for 2008 and thank you for all your kindness and support. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New... oh, wait

Well, there was no Christmas spam from me this year, so here's some New Year spam instead :) Seriously, happy 2008. Cheers, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Harry and the Potters discography (second FL nomination)

Hello. Before, I submit Harry and the Potters discography for featured list status again, I would like to contact past opposes to ask if they would support the article at its new state. I have included a large thirteen item section, entitled 'Live releases' and the article is now larger than featured articles (not lists), Exploding whale and Pilot (House), aswell as featured list Nation of Ulysses discography. Do you believe it is ready for a second nomination, as I cannot find another negative point, apart from it was too small (and I agree it was). Thankyou Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Rotavirus

Dear Colin, I see that you are working your magic on Rotavirus. Thanks. I hope the "proteins" and "replication" sections don't put you off. Sometimes I think that these virus articles would benefit from all the pure virology stuff being placed last. All my best wishes. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Another FLC

Well, there's another case of a user canvassing for votes but this time he clearly asked them to support, so if you would mind taking a look at this, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder

Dear Colin, SandyGeorgia peer reviewed this article for us and left us a list of things to do before we try for FAC. Some of the discussion with her is here [6] and some is on my talkpage here [7]. She advised us to come to you for a further review when we'd completed the work. I think we're done now as far as we are able and we'd be most grateful for your review and advice. We have struggled a bit with some of the WP:MEDMOS sections, specifically mechanisms and outcomes, as RAD is relatively recent and poorly researched in some aspects. Thanks. Fainites ^barley 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks anyway. She gave us 3 possible names so I'll try the others. Fainites ^barley 07:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I'm trying to help Fainites clean up the refs, which have inconsistent formatting. We're both having problems getting the DOIs right (for example, here). Do you have time to take a look? I'll also post to Tim and Eubulides to see who gets there first. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback enabled

You should be all set. Cheers--DO11.10 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done anything with the smallpox history section... you'll understand about this disclaimer when you read it. Also this request for input popped up on my watchlist, I think your opinion on the matter might be valuable. Just a thought, no pressure.--DO11.10 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad

Hi there. There's a deletion review of this article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 25. As you participated in the original AfD (2 years ago - the article has been recreated since) you might like to take a look there. Regards Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RAD

Any more? Fainites ^barley 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article on Attachment therapy to see why its important to make the distinction. The Taskforce report was compiled by a large chunk of the Names in the field. Also, up until an arbitration in July/August of 2007, all of the attachment pages, including RAD and Attachment therapy were actually totally written and controlled by an attachment therapist for over a year, who edit warred with 6 socks to do it. All the attachment related pages promoted attachment therapy notions as mainstream and they and about 3 dozen articles advertised his therapy as the only surefire cure for it all. He even prevented any mention of attachment therapy on the Candace Newmaker page - a 10 year old girl who was killed by her therapists during a two week attachment therapy intensive. He's now indef. banned but it explains the substantial rewrites of these pages in recent months.Fainites ^barley 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Fainites ^barley 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your help. Fainites ^barley 00:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New Orleans first-round draft picks

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		So I just went back to the nomination and read your comment and it made me laugh, it was just so true and so perfectly put. Thanks for that great comment and a good laugh. Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Peer review/Concussion

Hi Colin, I wondered if I could ask a favor. SandyGeorgia recommended that I ask you for a review of concussion, and I saw your great comments at WP:Peer review/Reactive attachment disorder. I'd love it if you could comment at the review of concussion. There have been several comments on the writing, but no one has really thoroughly evaluated the accuracy. Any help you could offer would be very much appreciated. Thanks, delldot talk 09:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, this was very helpful! Thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to do it. delldot talk 21:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical videos

You have not seen YouTube in the links on medical conditions? —Look at the links on this page Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction Paul gene (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. Paul gene (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RAD

Just to let you know I nominated this for FAC. Fainites ^barley 21:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

FA vs FL again

• FYI, [8]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not really a director or the one who should make executive decisions, but I have left some comments.
  • As well, there is currently an FLRC to remove three lists that are basically clones of eachother and I wanted to delist them the proper way so they could be merged. Could you take a look at it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure of your facts!!!!

Rubbish.Please make sure that you have your facts right!I am in Delhi!I do use the Institutional computer which is used by at least 200 othres here in the University(Delhite (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Drug names at MEDMOS

FYI, [9]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sortability

I saw you made a comment about improved sortability. I think you said it handles dates, which I think implies January MM, YYYY would now come before February MM, YYYY now. Is this correct. Also, you mention omiting columns. What is this about?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help:Sorting update. Also, I should thank you for telling me to experiment with my own user page version of WP:LOTD. I think we are starting to get a core group of followers now. You should check it out. We can always use another voter. Voting runs through the 20th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's Disease

Hi Colin. I you're not doing much (tongue planted firmly in cheek), so I was wondering if you could take a look at the article. It's really come along. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. I got interrupted and had to leave it unchecked... LeadSongDog (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

Many thanks for your comments on the RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia? Despite the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with this source or in using it on Wikipedia (indeed editors expressed their astonishment that such an issue became an RfC), the two editors, whose behaviour caused me to issue with the RfC, continue to issue questions on its use,[10] accessibility,[11] or question my motives in bringing the RfC.[12] (The RfC was the only route I saw of including information from the 2004 OCNB).

I have tried to deal with these two editors rationally, but no matter what I seem to say to them, they return with more queries and comments. Can anything be done in this case? Can someone please try explaining the situation to them at the RfC.--Damac (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Barbiturate anticonvulsants

A tag has been placed on Template:Barbiturate anticonvulsants requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Benzodiazepine anticonvulsants

A tag has been placed on Template:Benzodiazepine anticonvulsants requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Congratulations. List of polio survivors was one of the leading votegetters at WP:LOTD and will be list of the day twice this month. Let me know if you have any date preferences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS - no problems?

Why, NBaumann clearly said that he is against that addition. I just thought that it is not very harmful but on the balance considering his objections, and my objection about the first mention, I am against it. Paul Gene (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So what are these shiny, 5 pointed things for?

<<barnstar>> delldot on a public computer talk 03:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

MoS WikiProject

WP:WPMoS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Vr

I suggest you file at WP:RFCU as I suspect there are more socks than you've figured out. Let me know of it's progress. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

TOLD YOU we'd find a sock farm, see [13]. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison would have listed an IP if she found it. Logging out to edit could mean switching from one account to another, most likely, in this case. I hard blocked the named accounts, so that'll snag their IPs too. You did good. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Aldehyde anticonvulsants

A tag has been placed on Template:Aldehyde anticonvulsants requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotavirus

Dear Colin, all accolades go to you too. The achievement was as much yours as mine. You have been a good pal these past few months. I'm still a little lost for words — thanks to the power of ten million to you. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 22:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Epilepsy

Thanks, Colin - the article is a bit of a dog's dinner, isn't it? I think I chopped the switch from 'epileptic' to 'persons-with-epilepsy' partly as a result of that, and thanks for the nudge to WP:MEDMOS, which I really should be more familiar with given that, like you, I've contributed to it in the past!

Personally, I don't buy the idea that 'epileptic' is stigmatising; I see it as medical and indeed lay shorthand, and I rather think that the wordiness of people-with-epilepsy is more likely to attract attention than 'epileptic' - but that's obviously my POV, and I'm quite happy to go with MEDMOS!

On the article more generally, I'm pretty busy for the next couple of months, but will have a look then if it's still a bit of a mess. Cheers! Nmg20 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Dear Colin, I hope you have a good Easter break and the sun shines for you. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 21:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ps. I'm watching Ketogenic diet.

Glad you're back ! You missed the Genetics FAC, which got the usually amount of thunderous review from the medicine project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The AIDS FAR :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Socks and benzos

Hey Colin. I've seen a few of the edits you mention on my watchlist, and I agree something's off. There does seem to be a pattern of adding marginally-useful information to benzo articles (some edits simply appear to be attempts to "beef up the article"). Although there is significant overlap between those accounts' editing patterns (and "JournalJunkie"/"Literaturegeek" certainly suggest operation by the same person), I'm not convinced on whether these are socks or a group of misguidedly like-minded editors.

Since I don't really see any evidence of bad faith (yet) and some edits from the accounts you mentioned have been quite productive, I think the first step should be a good chat on the talk page of the first established account—this could simply be a case of some well-meaning folks who haven't quite got it. Sock puppetry policy leaves quite a bit of room for discretion on how suspected/confirmed socks (and the editor behind them) should be handled, and I don't think it's the time for a blocking spree yet ;) Once we've gotten to the bottom of what IMHO should be the initial concern (several editors or one person using multiple accounts?), we can start discussing the relevance of some of those additions to the benzo articles; leaving a note over at WT:PHARM/WT:MED now certainly wouldn't hurt—there are plenty of qualified guys (JFW, David Ruben, and Casliber come to mind) who could join in the discussion and lend a hand. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :=( I will just leave wikipedia if that is how my work is viewed. Please see this page for further discussion. [14]--Stilldoggy (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've not been of much help lately, guys. Two factors: my disillusionment with the Med Project of some months back, and my new duties=time constraints. Please let me know if/where I can help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Georgia, we are trying to work things out on my talk page now.--Stilldoggy (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi Colin,

Thank you for the kind reply on my talk page. Can you please check out the chlordiazepoxide talk page. This anon user is really giving me a headache. I have been up the entire night trying to deal with her. When you read the chlordiazepoxide talk page you will see what I mean. I really really want to avoid an edit war. It is very time consuming and a waste of energy to fight. This anon user is coming across as a bit crazy and difficult to deal with and I am having a difficult time controlling my temper. Thanks.--Stilldoggy (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry I thought that you were an administrator here at wikipedia. Maybe you can't help me? Sorry.--Stilldoggy (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for benzo intervention

Thanks for helping in this matter. I would not have been able to express myself so well, as I am not a native English speaker. - the anon clutter complainant. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Epilepsy (2)

Hi,

I've got a hate on for long EL sections, so feel free to replace any you think I was too extreme in removing. If I run into any issues with the remaining links, I'm happy to discuss. I realize my interpretation of WP:EL is...strict to put it charitably, so I try to be easily convinced if there's reasonable merit. WLU (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Huh? Whaddya think? You're impressed, I can tell : ) WLU (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re photos

Hey Colin. Sorry, but I am definitely not the man to ask when it comes to photos—I'm useless with a camera in my hand. There are plenty of options, though :) You could always post over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography; I'm not sure how active the project is, but I'm certain someone can give you some pointers (maybe even links to off-wiki resources). You could also have a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers, browse some individual galleries, and ask someone in particular for help—as you've probably noticed, there are many, many talented photographers around here; two users whose work I always find stunning are Fir0002 (talk · contribs) and Diliff (talk · contribs)—just don't go around WP:CANVASsing ;)

I presume you're aiming at FA level for Ketogenic diet. The graphs already in the article are prime candidates for SVG magic, especially since you had the sense to provide the data values! (thank you :) As for your image ideas, they seem excellent candidates—I'd particularly like to see a ketogenic meal as the lead image (I'm thinking something along the lines of Image:Salad platter.jpg). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best place to go for help with retouching and editing images is the Graphics Lab, where skilled people are usually pretty quick with things like converting graphics into SVG format and retouching pictures. As for advice for taking better/more lively pictures, maybe try taking shots that include both the container and the contents for the products, laid on in a context in which they would be used (for example, preparing a meal with KetCal, or performing a test with Ketostix). I'll try to take a look at the history section in the next couple days.--ragesoss (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

An FLC question

Hi Colin, are you still strongly opposed to List of the 100 wealthiest people? As well, do you think List of billionaires (2007) should be delisted? If so, you should make it an FLRC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I was wondering if you would mind monitoring the discussion for the FLRC for List of Arsenal F.C. players and closing it in about a week. The discussion has been very heated and the result will likely be controversial, so I wanted someone who has been neutral and has a lot of knowledge of the FLC process to close it. Most of the other FLC regulars have been involved in it, so would you be willing to do it? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, but I had wanted you to close it, and I don't think you can do that now. As for the List of the 100 wealthiest people, as much as I hate ignoring your comments, I think I am going to pass it (in a few hours) because although I agree that the extra references are unnecessary, it still passes the FLC criteria on referencing. If you still believe that they should be removed, then you should bring it up on the article talk page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has gone ahead and nominated the 2007 for removal. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As well, would you mind making the call on this FLRC? It's been open 2 months and I nominated it, so I don't want to close it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You got everything right. A discussion has been started here regarding a potential change to 1b (comprehensiveness) and expanding it to say something along the lines of "A list is deemed comprehensive if it includes all notable items from a topic, or establishes a set agreed upon criteria and includes a hat-note that points to a relevant Category." and I'll notify most of the participants in the Arsenal FLRC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

List AFD

Listed, sorry for being curt, I've got to run. WLU (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

Good gosh, I checked your contribs so I could find the diet article you've been working on, and instead, I stumbled in to that utter silliness at Talk:Rotavirus. Ugh. Maybe Nygaard woke up on the wrong side of the bed or something, because just before that, he was complaining about WT:FAC. Goodness, Graham doesn't deserve the treatment he's gotten on Wiki. Anyway, I'm really here to say you should ask User:Brighterorange to run his dash fixing script on the diet; it will fix all the page range dashes in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't sure about this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to load up the text with huge inlines; I knew if I took the time to post it somewhere, well, I wouldn't find the time :-) Let me know when I should have another look; I'm running hot and cold on the Medicine Project again, after the time I put in last night to lend a hand was butchered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin, the lead is much clearer now. I know we typically avoid too much definition in the lead, but it was needed here; now I know what I'm reading about early on. I like it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

history of...

Sorry for the delay; I looked over the history section of the article, and it looks solid to me. I made a few copyedits, but it's well-written and looks reliably sourced.--ragesoss (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You can delink Conklin if you want. I linked it because I had heard the name in a different context (in connection with Macfadden and Battle Creek but not the ketogenic diet). My philosophy is that a few red links never hurt anyone.--ragesoss (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't remember. Maybe it was for the ketogenic diet and I just forgot that part of it. I thought it was something more general, though, like a fitness regime for everyone.--ragesoss (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't you submitted the diet to GA? And when are you going for FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't addressed all your and Graham's concerns, and I intend to. I've still more material to read and consider for inclusion, plus I want to take some better pictures. I thought that once I'm happy with its comprehensiveness, I'd go for peer review (with adverts). I also plan to ask one or two of our literary writers to look over the prose -- but don't want to polish too early. I might even try to get an expert review. So much to do and so little time. FAC is a wee while away yet. Colin°^Talk 16:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

I'm going to unwatch MEDMOS for a while, and then I'll probably forget to re-watch it, so please ping if I'm needed there for any future productive discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting late, drinking Guiness and watching Casualty

Colin, can I catch up with you tommorow? GrahamColm^Talk 20:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch April 28

Will be lists, temp work at Wikipedia:FCDW/April 28, 2008, Woody and Scorpion, in case you want to peek in. I usually ask Tony to run through before publication. Other dispatches at {{FCDW}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Like Woody said, all we have are just a bunch of notes in prose form. Feel free to make any changes you like to the article (including the stuff you wrote on my talk page) and we'll credit you as a co-author. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of clean up (it's still a tad rough) and merged the text you suggested on my talk page (I also added your name to the authors, remove it if you want). As well, there has been a little bit of talk at WT:FLC about getting a director. I have no interest in the position, I just close lists because I like doing it. I don't suppose you would be interested? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I agree with you. Basically all I did last night was but your text in there and leave the intro. And I agree that we should mention the potential search for a director. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#User:Colin. Woody (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of everything really. Being a director is a commitment, but before I was just doing it for fun and could quit any time. I really didn't want to get tied into any position. However, I have decided to give it a try, so we'll see how it goes. It's a shame you've decided not to run, I think you and Rambling Man would have made a great pair. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a query at Wikipedia talk:FCDW/April 28, 2008; I need to know if you all want to hold off on this dispatch for two weeks and if I should get someone else to take this week. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved this to Wikipedia:FCDW/May 12, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Apple Inc. Gary King (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul of FL criteria

I've re-started the process here and am notifying the four candidates for director as well as advertising at FLC talk and FAC talk. Your input would be valued. Tony (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ketogenic Diet

Dear Colin, as I'm sure you know, KD has been in the news (Radio 4) today. Have you seen the ? Lancet paper yet? Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 21:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Graham got there before me. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70092-9 - it's going to Lancet Neurology. JFW | T@lk 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Snipergirl (talk · contribs) already added it to the article! JFW | T@lk 15:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

FL criteria

Colin—It strikes me that notability and linking, the subjects of my proposed Criteria 1 and 2, are covered for all WP's content; why have them at all? Then there would be no need for all of that stuff about how individual list or time-line items don't themselves have to be notable (why does it need to be said?). I'm unsure why the existing criteria needed to cover them. And would there ever be an issue with a nomination that didn't contain links to related articles? I can't imagine it. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Revised_proposal Tony (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispatches

For the FL dispatch, I have shortened the bit about longer lists (in fact, if we can get enough together about the directors and policy changes, we could just scrap that part altogether), I expanded the section on the director (I have to admit, I feel a little weird writing about myself) and I added a very brief section about the policy change discussion. I was wondering if you would mind expanding the policy section, simply because you have been more involved in the discussion than me and you could do a better job at it. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, sorry for my enforced absence and inability to add anything pertinent to the dispatch, but I thought it worthwhile if we could mention there that the Peer Review process now effectively guarantees a set of comments within three days (which it never did for lists) so FLCs should be encouraged to go through PR first... So often in the past FLC has been a dumping ground for rubbish which, due to the diligence of a number of reviewers, has come good in the end, but ordinarily (at FAC, say) result in a pile-on oppose for simple failures of MOS, lack of references etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, dumping ground may have been harsh but given the number of lists I've reviewed in the past which should have been copyedited, checked for MOS etc etc, because PR has been bypassed, I've lost count. As for changes in policy at PR, no, nothing has happened officially but User:Ruhrfisch has instigated a PR backlog campaign which will attempt to ensure all reviews have some kind of significant comment within three days. It's worked okay recently (although I was one of the keen reviewers and that's changed lately due to my obligations elsewhere), and I just think it's worth re-emphasising that it's an important part of the featured list process which recently has been 100% bypassed. Since you're busy I'll try to add something myself... cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your recent help with subcutaneous emphysema! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex

I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on the areas which I have mentioned. Thanks, Qst (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to offer your support if I created 20-25 of the actual SSSI articles and linked the others to the nearest village/district? Qst (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I apologise for my seemingly-unfriendly attitude before. Qst (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Colin. With the help of Sunderland06 (talk · contribs) who offered to help on IRC, most of the articles are now linked to actual SSSI articles, and the others are linked to the town village where it is located. I was unable to find enough free images to fill the side of the list, but in light of these new developments, are you now willing to offer your support? Qst (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

List FLC

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands - your comments have been addressed. Rudget (Help?) 10:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out — your assistance is appreciated. Rudget (Help?) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Country Trust

Hi. I noticed that you mentioned the Country Trust in quite a lot of the WM SSSI articles so I've created an stub article about it. I couldn't find any mention of the SSSIs on their website though - hopefully I've got the right organisation? SP-KP (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alzheimer's disease

I see where you've made a whole bunch of great comments about Alzheimer's disease article. Is there any way I can beg you to implement some of your comments in the section? I'm trying to do a broad copyedit, and I'm hoping you can fix the epidemiology section. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen your comments on orangemarlin page. I promise all to the article sections were fully revised (I did most of it) and rewritten whit the exceptions of "causes" and "epidemiology" so don't worry about references in those other sections. I agree that the epidemiology section is years far from the quality of the other sections. --Garrondo (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I have fully rewritten the epidemiology section. I'm no expert but I think I have used reliable references and I am quite happy with the outcome. Would you take a look at it? Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Seizure types

Tatterfly,

Please can you discuss page moves before doing them. You moved seizure types to medical seizure and rewrote the lead. There's no such thing as a "medical seizure" and you won't find the term in a medical dictionary. That article was written as a list of epileptic seizure types, the study of which is a huge area and could easily fill a long article. There are only two important seizure articles: Non-epileptic seizures (I see someone has removed the plural -- which is wrong as it is a plural term), of which (Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures are one type. The second is epileptic seizure, of which seizure types was a daughter article.

Let's discuss this before doing any more changes. I think we may need the help of an admin to move some things back if required.

Colin°^Talk 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that medical seizure may work better as seizure (medicine), which currently redirects to it. That is something an administrator would have to help with. Otherwise, I feel that the setup I changed it to makes it easier to find any term pertaining to the word "seizure." Tatterfly (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Seizure (medicine). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there's very little to say about "seizure (medicine)" as the only medically correct use of the term on its own is to refer to epileptic seizures, which already has its own article. The various paroxysmal events that can mimic an epileptic seizure get classified as non-epileptic seizures but actually diagnosed as something specific (such as a faint).

The move you did earlier in June has broken many hundreds of links that previously intentionally linked to seizure with the epileptic meaning, and now link to the dab page: Nobody likes to link to dab pages. It would take a large amount of effort to fix all those links back to pointing at epileptic seizure. Now, I actually support that move in principle, but the practicalities of it might be an issue.

The second move of seizure types to medical seizure has changed the focus of the article, which was written to discuss epileptic seizure types. I don't support that move at all.

I note also that convulsion's redirect has been moved to medical seizure. Again, there are a number of articles that probably should be specifically linking to the epileptic seizure form.

I think we need to discuss this area before performing more moves. Colin°^Talk 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ack, sorry. The practicalities shouldn't be a concern here, even if they are an issue. Doy you think it would be best to a) leave the article where it is while other editors provide input over at WT:MED, b) reverse it to the move done by Tatterfly (i.e. to "Medical seizure", or c) attempt to undo the June 2 move of Seizure? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. If we can sort out the redirects and fix all the many hundreds of links to the new dab page, here's what I'd like to see:

• Epileptic seizure is fine though the Hatnote needs updated. We need to note that most links to this article would have been via "seizure" and "convulsion" and 99% of those are probably referring to the epileptic seizure rather than any other use of the word.
• The move from seizure types to medical seizure be reversed and the old lead restored. This is a daughter article of Epileptic seizure intended to discuss the classification of epileptic seizure types only.
• The move (a while back by someone else) of Non-epileptic seizures to Non-epileptic seizure be reversed. The term is an official classification and is plural. Compare Google on "non-epileptic seizures" vs "non-epileptic seizure".
• Seizure dab page link to epileptic seizure as the primary link. I need to read up on dab pages to see if all those items belong there.

If we're ok with this, the 13 redirects to seizure should be changed to epileptic seizure (they all mean that kind), then we need to work through all the direct links to seizure and move them. Is there a tool that can help with that?

If any of this looks contentious then I'd like to get the nod from WP:MED. Colin°^Talk 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I'm not sure Seizure needs to be a dab page at all—I'd personally be more comfortable with the pre-June 2 state of things and a Seizure (disambiguation) title. I do trust your judgment far more than mine on these neuro issues, though, so I'd say get the nod from WP:MED. I think we're past the stage where being bold is the best course of action :P As for making all links to seizure point to a more relevant article, WP:AWB could probably help, but we need to decide what becomes of the article in the first place. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I agree with you. If 99% of the use of seizure on WP is the epileptic kind then really seizure should either be or redirect to the epileptic article. I think changing seizure to a redirect and having the article sit at epileptic seizure is an improvement on pre-June 2 since the article then has its full unambiguous medical title. And then its hatnote can say "Seizure redirects here, for other uses see seizure (disambiguation)" This version also saves a lot of work fixing links. I'll post a note at WP:MED. Colin°^Talk 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Either be or redirect to the epileptic article—exactly. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and no input—time to move on it? Should we relist the thread at WT:MED and see if that gets some input? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Fvasconcellos. Just caught your message as I logged on. I've not been on WP much recently. Don't see the point in relisting. Nobody's interested. I've asked Tatterfly for input but he's ignored that and seems to be slowly adding seizure (medicine) to links that clearly should be linking to epileptic seizures. That's a backward step. Let's do what we discussed wrt redirects and reverts. I can patch up any hatnotes and other non-admin things. If you're not clear on what we'd settled on, let me know. Off to bed now... Colin°^Talk 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe we'd settled on keeping Epileptic seizure, moving the current incarnation of Seizure to Seizure (disambiguation), and moving Seizure (medicine) (the article formerly known as Medical seizure) back to its original title: Seizure types. Have I got it? :) However—and this is a big however—...

I've just gone over Whatlinkshere again, and I'm quite confident that Epileptic seizure should be moved back to plain old Seizure. From WP:NC:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

The least ambiguous option here for the vast, vast majority of readers as well as editors would be to have Seizure as the home of "epileptic seizure", not least because that was the article's title for a long time, and this usage also seems overwhelmingly dominant in medical literature. I don't want to seem pigheaded about this, though—stop me if I'm going the wrong way! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "seizure" isn't unique to medicine and the medical meaning is probably #2 in most dictionaries. But we are fortunate that the other meanings, although common, don't warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. The full medical term "epileptic seizure", as defined by the ILAE, is what I'd name the article if writing something stand-alone. But the "easy and second nature" linking guideline moves things towards the informal shorter "seizure". Let's go back to seizure, then, but I'll rewrite the lead to say "A epileptic seizure is a...", and work on an appropriate hatnote. Colin°^Talk 09:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I believe I've got everything. Please work your magic on the Seizure lead and find an appropriate hatnote. If I missed anything, including redirects you feel should point elsewhere, give me the old {{trout}} :) Again, I apologize for being overly WP:BOLD on this one and turning a simple undiscussed move into a right mess. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ohmigosh, big long discussion. Colin, someone just linked at Tourette syndrome, so when this is sorted, can you check the link? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)