User talk:DO11.10/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive

Thank you for your contributions! -- WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) moved barnstars...

Antibody GA - yay!

Thanks for the congrats, but I can't take all the credit! You did a lot of work on that article too - well done!! And we have to thank TimVickers for putting it up for nomination in the first place. Man, look at all this praise - and I only came to Wikipedia to help out a little ;-) Thanks, and take care, Ciar 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Aerosol Spray

Excellent picture of the "bug bomb" on aerosol spray! Good Work! --Knulclunk 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

William Le Lacheur

You assessed the article on William Le Lacheur as B-class. It would be really helpful to understand which aspects of this article require further expansion or which gaps you believe exist. I would be happy to try and fill them in. footie 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The two vaccines have eradicated polio

Left a message for you re: The two vaccines that have eradicated polio. DieWeibeRose 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Antibody peer review

Hey there!! Sounds like a good plan. Hopefully peer review will give some helpful comments on how to make the antibody article more "user friendly" without us having to hurt our heads too much ;-) I'll keep my eye open to see what improvements can be made - when my crazy work load allows anywayz!! Thanks for the FYI and take care, Ciar 03:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Tepper School Peer Review

Thanks for the comments on this page! Its nice to get a second set of eyes on it, and I think you gave me some good ideas. Check back in a little while and you'll definately see some of your recommendations implemented. PadreNuestro 05:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will check in every now and then.--DO11.10 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I have pasted your response on the peer review page so that others know you have responded).

Seville Fair

Hello Do11.10, the Seville Fair, we are in Fair (La Feria de Sevilla de 2007 ha comenzado). Be Happy. --Saeta 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Have a great time, I wish I was there too!--DO11.10 22:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly howdy-do

Just passing some well-deserved grats on the awards, of late. It's nice to see someone dedicated to constant improvement of the Immunology articles. Any chance I can draw your much-needed attention to the shambles over in the autoimmunity topics? Jbarin 10:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like you are holding down the fort on the autoimmunity articles all by yourself. I would be happy to help, any particular place I should start?--DO11.10 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to let the more clinically-oriented types contend with the individual diseases; it seems those audiences are more geared towards that kind of information, than dry academic mechanistics.

It's been seeming that throughout the autoimmunity pages that mechanistic discussion has an unfortunate tendency to veer towards novel, and admittedly interesting, but largely too-new-to-be-conclusive. Case in point, the epidemiology of Vitamin D3 deficiency in association with MS, T1D and so forth. I'd similarly point to the Cows' Milk hypothesis over on Type 1 Diabetes as another important example. I've made my case on Talk:Type 1 Diabetes.

I'll grant that they're small symptoms of the overarching problem that we have such a poor general understanding of the etiology of autoimmune disease -- so it seems more straws seem to get grasped at, if one looks throughout all the autoimmunity pages.

So the general quandary, which perhaps you could help with -- how to talk about pathophysiology, when there's so little consensus, and a great deal of fringe? Jbarin 02:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I totally agree with you that much of the information at Type 1 Diabetes is speculative, and is being allotted far more space than it currently merits. It looks like much of the information was added by people "driving by", is this the case? IMO, the type 1 article needs to be 1) organized per WP:MEDMOS and more space alloted to a thorough explaining what exactly happens during T1D and 2) The reasoning and functional basis of the "cures" need to be better explained in this article. Case in point:

Islet cell regeneration- Research undertaken at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston Masschusetts from 2001 and 2003 demonstrated a protocol to reverse type 1 diabetes in mice.[2] Three other institutions have had similar results, published in the March 24, 2006 issue of Science. A fourth study by the National Institutes of Health further confirmed the approach, and also sheds light on the biological mechanisms involved.[3]

This tells me absolutely nothing about what islet cell regeneration is, and, in fact, this bit (and most of the section) looks to be what I like to call "reference vomit" ("Massachusetts General Hospital" and "NIH" are dead giveaways of such, in my opinion). Sorry about the rant here. If you agree with my assessment of the article and what needs to be changed, I would be happy to work on improving it.

As an aside, I actually wrote much of the vitamin D article, and have tried to keep the speculation and reference vomit out of the article, I hope that article at least somewhat reflects this attempt?--DO11.10 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The master article for vitamin D actually looks quite good -- it's the weak epidemiology of Vitamin D deficiencies in the autoimmunity that've been slowly creeping throughout those pages.

And mind you, it's more that the autoimmunity topics as a whole are almost schizophrenic in the way they treat underlying immunologic principles. For what consolation it's worth -- this politicking seems to be the way clinicians handle it. Neurologists "own" MS; endocrinologists "own" T1D, and so forth. It's a problem of the field, at least as much as it is on Wiki.

My bigger problem (and more pressing), is that crufty, fad theories seem to be single most unifying commonality among all the autoimmunity topics. Jbarin 07:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

List of polio survivors

(I've posted a reply on the peer review)

I've previously worked on three such lists: hepatitic C, epilepsy and brain tumor patients. With the first two, I was pretty much sole contributor. The last one was already featured and big. I improved the reference format and doubled the size to about 250 names. So, I'm quite experienced at tracking down people and reliable souces. If you'd like me to work on that list, let me know. If you want to do it yourself, I can give some help on finding sources, etc. If you want to limit the entry criteria, then I can do the research and leave you to control whether a name goes on the list or is moved to the talk page (for example). Colin°^Talk 13:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You have done some really great work on these lists! I would be happy to turn the list over to you and let you have your way with it. Just so you know, I went through the longer list on the geocities page and made sure that polio was mentioned in the biography, so I think that the list is accurate. I tried to outline my opinions on the inclusion criteria here, but feel free to include/exclude and set up the list in anyway you would like.

The history section. I seem to keep hitting a wall here, every time I try to move something out I feel like the story starts to lack something, because for all intents and purposes polio is a historical disease. I think what I will try to do, for now, is to make a section, per MEDMOS, for "prognosis" and move all of that out of the "clinical" section. That might help a bit, I'll have to see. Thanks so much for your thoughtful suggestions, if you have any more please send them my way. --DO11.10 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if asking specific questions at the medicine project(s): "(how) should I split the article into ..." rather than just "Please peer review" might encourage more editors to comment. Someone who doesn't feel confident to "review" might still have some good opinions for a direct question. Chopping up a big topic isn't easy, especially when you clearly have plenty material.

I'll look into the list of people. Such lists can be controversial (see Talk:List of HIV-positive people today). I'll probably prepare a fair bit before posting the article. I wouldn't want an AfD before it was well sourced. Colin°^Talk 22:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yes that does appear to be the best course. Take as much time as you need, if you have any problems or get bored with it, let me know. Thanks for the suggestion about the history bit, I will mull it over a bit longer, and then I will probably end up asking as you suggest. Thanks--DO11.10 00:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments. From the original list:

• Bud Daley was on the list but is in my "Doubtful diagnosis" section because the book that I found explicitly denied the polio story. I've updated his article with this.
• I haven't managed to find reliable sources for Martin Milner yet.
• Dmitri Shostakovich's diagnosis is apparently doubted, but I haven't found details on why.

I supplemented the original list of about 50 names with more names from geocities plus a handful I collected as I was researching to give 88 names at present. There are about 20 names on geocities that don't have WP articles. I've created a couple already and should add some more. I haven't even begun to search for new names myself. So I'm pretty confident the list will go over 100.

Wrt the linked WP bios: I haven't touched them except for the odd fix. I've got to draw the line somewhere. Often, short bios have no inline cites and more problems than just unsourced statements about polio.

I'd be grateful if you could pop the list in your watchlist to keep an eye out for vandalism and unsourced additions. Also, if you have time, a copyedit would be nice. I'm afraid it is in British English :-). Cheers, Colin°^Talk 12:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help. See the article's talk and my own talk page for details and some tips. Colin°^Talk 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you've found some great stories. I nearly burst laughing at the "oatmeal box" radio. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Antibody

Hey there. I noticed the peer review request, and Opabinia's idea of using a color image in the lead. I created a colorized, vector version of Image:Antibody.png, if you think it would be suitable. No pressure, though; if you don't like it I'm open to suggestions :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, that is perfect, thank you so much!! Any suggestions for the article?--DO11.10 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what I can think of. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Plant defense against herbivory

Hi DO11.10, do you know how the article got its title ? I am not sure about the popularity of the phrase although HPR is very well established in agricultural research parlance. Also HPR is a little wider in that it includes herbivores as well as fungal and viral pathogens. Unless there is a plan for Plant defense against pathogens, which would have similar content, would propose a move to Host plant resistance, just Plant defense or Plant resistance. Shyamal 02:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

--Actually, yes, there are a number of articles that could be incorporated into a broad topic page called Plant defense against pathogens. Here are a few:

• Phytopathology
• Innate immune system#Other forms of innate immunity (Host defense in plants)
• Systemic acquired resistance
• Hypersensitive response
• Disease resistance in fruit and vegetables

My suggestion would be to:

1. Create a page called Plant defense against pathogens incorporating these and linking these topics (or rename, or redirect to Phytopathology)
2. Remove the redirect from HPR, and discuss the term in more detail linking to these two other pages.

As an aside, I personally feel that Plant defense against pathogens and Plant defense against herbivory are more descriptive and probably more intuitive titles for the general public than are the fairly specialized terms "Host plant resistance" and "Phytopathology".

What do you think?--DO11.10 03:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not too strong about titles, but only so far as it affects the scope of the article. Can we move our discussion to the talk page of the article. Shyamal 03:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I have moved the comments and replied on the article talk page.--DO11.10 04:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the pharmaceutical-bioprospecting bit back to the importance to humans part since the chemical defense section is primarily about mechanism. Otherwise, I must say it looks a lot better than before. The suggestions from KP Botany were also very important and useful. I too must say that allelochemics are AFAIK about plant-plant competition although I was assuming that whoever added it must be more aware. Nice work. And more eyes, the better. Shyamal 01:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved that originally, and then decided better of it, but I got caught up in fixing the chemical section. Sorry. Yes it looks much better though, thanks for all of your help!--DO11.10 02:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I missed your message due to some newer messages lower down on my talk page ! I would say, just delete Protectant and make it redirect to here. If someone else runs into it they can make it a disambig in future for pesticides etc. Plant Incorporated Protectant seems to be a term used for legal purposes to cover several things that the EPA would like to cover and it does not have substance at the moment. Defence mechanism can be left alone for the moment. An illustration of plant evolution, insect evolution, herbivory trends on an evolutionary time scale would be a nice addition. Unable to think of a good illustration to capture the agriculture theme. Can go for GA after a week of "stability". Maybe the previous nominator can be informed of the status. Shyamal 13:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A week of complete stability has passed :) Shyamal 04:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Han van Meegeren

I apologize for that, I haven't seen the Harvard referencing used in a long time, so I must of overlooked it. I'll rereview your article later today or tomorrow when I have time. I was impressed with the amount of references you had, but when I saw only four inline citations, I thought that it was underreferenced. Due to the length of the article, it may take me a while to review it. Again, I'm sorry for missing that and I'll let you know when I'm done with the review. You don't need to relist it at GAC, I'll just pass it or put it on hold and list it when it passes. --Nehrams2020 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I just got your message now, and have been reviewing it for the last ten minutes and have only found one statement so far that needs additional referencing, and some grammar issues. I'll keep reviewing it, and then look over your differences later. I'll keep refreshing my watchlist in case you want to send another message. --Nehrams2020 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I just finished reviewing the article and put it on hold. There are a lot of simple grammar things to fix and a few requests for added inline citations. I am leaving the article on hold for seven days. Once you address the suggestions, I'll look it over again, plus any other additional changes you made to the article. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. --Nehrams2020 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Plant defence against herbivory

Hi, just to clarify my assessment - by 'top' I meant 'top quality'. I felt the article was very good and probably deserved a GA nomination. We need to work more on the surrounding articles as well - for example herbivore (which should be moved to herbivory I think, though an article on herbivores separately is also a possibility) is just a start class article and there also needs to be mention of the short term effects of herbivores on plants, perhaps with its own article.

American Goldfinch GA nomination

I've made all the corrections save one, which I left a comment on the talk page explaining. Regarding the review, I've never nominated an article for GA review before, so I'm not sure how it compares to others, but I found it very helpful! Cheers, --Jude 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Plant defense against herbivory

Hi,

I'll look forwards to looking at the updated version, it looks like a lot of hard work's gone into it recently! However I'm incredibly busy for the next week or so, so feel free to list it on the WP:GAN and I'll have a look at it if no-one else gets there first!

Cheers,

Verisimilus T 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you!

Hi there...good to see you back around the antibody page - thought you were sucked deep into the Polio pages ;). D'you reckon you're up to the challenge of getting antibody up to FA status?? At the moment it's sitting with some edits I made to try and improve the article after peer-review - but no-one else has really gone in and improved my additions yet...what do you think...you got the time, patience and will-power? Ciar 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I am willing to give it a shot. Any ideas on what needs to be added or done with the article? The article seems pretty through to me, but the function section could probably use a bit more...something. Should we start with a thorough copy edit, and go from there? Looking at the article I have to wonder if it might flow better if it were organized as:

• Isotypes
• Structure
• Function
• Affinity
• Diversity
• Applications
• History

It seems like the function gets lost so far down into the article. Just a thought though... what do you think?--DO11.10 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created a test page of the above (plus a few other changes). What do you think?DO11.10 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that order. Making the functions more prominent makes a whole lot of sense, as does moving the affinity section above diversity! Lets go for it! PS, nope, I don't tend to have other folks talk pages on my watchlist, but I will stop by and check if I've left behind a wee message!! ;) Ciar 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll give a hand with this once I've finished with the Evolution FAC. TimVickers 18:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that would be great Tim! It looks like Evolution is now well on it's way to passing. --DO11.10 19:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to jump in. I'm going to stick to copy-editing the "diversity" section for now, so you should be able to tackle the other sections without any edit clashes (I think ;-)). Oh yeah, I had directed Tim to your talk page when I saw him editing the antibody page...always a bonus to have him editing an article!! Ciar 00:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

H'mmm, are you sure about removing the title from the table...might invite confusion over non-mammalian antibodies - someone might want to include bird IgY, or fish IgZ/IgT, or shark IgNAR, IgW etc that are not mentioned in the antibody article anymore! What d'ya think? Ciar 01:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Genomics link "spammer"

Since NebuchadnezzarN hasn't added any links since 5/28 - nor responded to your query on the 29th - I'd say it would be reasonable to start cleaning-up anytime now. Are you thinking straight reversion or is it going to need to be per-article based? -- MarcoTolo 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I am thinking case by case. On a few pages at least one of the links was okay, but I am for sure going to remove them from the body text and add them to the external links section. Maybe I'll just do five or six, at first and see if that causes an uproar. Does that seem reasonable?--DO11.10 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Eminently reasonable. Let me know if you run into problems and/or want some help cleaning-up pages. -- MarcoTolo 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The links I have added are not spam and this is easily understood by just following them. They are highly important links for people who want to know information about genome projects or genome analysis data for particular organisms. The fact that I have added them on several different pages, doesnt mean they are also the same or identical. They are all referring to different groups of organisms. Removing the links does not help at all the individual users and the research community who is interested in finding out genomics-related information about specific organisms. There are more than 5,000 different microbes already known. Several hundred of them already exist in Wikipedia, so each of them must have such links, as long as there is genome information for those organisms available. I hadnt replied earlier as I am new in this and didnt have time to look into how to respond. NebuchadnezzarN 06:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look. These links look like valuable content to me! Just in the wrong place currently. So I would suggest that once NebuchadnezzarN is confident they are going in the right place that this is continued. Alexbateman 08:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion everyone, I really am not a spammer and want to provide valuable content to the site. I now understand that in order to add a new section, it must include text and not only links. I didn't initially put it under links as any type of link could be added there and I wanted to separate out genomics. Creating a specific Genomic links is a good solution. Would it be possible to create a Genomic Links section for all the pages that my links were deleted from and to add them back in? This would save me a lot of manual work. NebuchadnezzarN 23:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few issues I have that you may wish to consider.

1. Links are sometimes okay, but actual content is much better, and far more valuable. Especially in this instance where the linked content is highly technical, most people will have no idea what they are even looking at when they click on the links. Please consider adding actual content to the articles instead of just links.
2. The two or three links you provided are fairly redundant, and in my opinion, overkill; remember ELs should be kept to a minimum. I would prefer one link from this site, as it is the far more informative of the two, IMO. Besides links to the other site can be easily located within this page, if further information is required. With one link, the link could then be added to an existing EL section with the word "genomics" appearing in the description, there would be no need for any separate "sectioning". The other link (from http://www.genomesonline.org/) is really just an aggregated result page, which is frowned upon.
3. For individual organisms the links need to point directly to the relevant page, like this one: Mycobacterium vanbaalenii, not, as before, to a general Mycobacterium page. Thus deep-linking may be required. Please do not include general links such as: Genomes OnLine Database.
4. A specific Genomic links header might be appropriate in articles that already have links to genomics pages, such as NCBI. In this case, the section should be located at the end of the external links section.
5. Also, you should note that I did not remove all of links you added. Some links (from http://cmr.tigr.org/tigr-scripts/CMR/CmrHomePage.cgi for example) were moved into the ELs section. Would another "genomics" site be any more informative here? And, to be fair, not all of the links I removed were one's that you added, some others needed to go as well.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.--DO11.10 00:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion (aka My two cents)

As DO11.10 has pointed out, the key point here is that links are good, content is better, and context is best of all. Links added as, say, an inline reference to support a given statement are much more valuable than an uncited, generic list of data. As an example, if the Mycobacterium vanbaalenii article claimed:

"M. vanbaalenii" is a high G+C, soil-dwelling bacterium able to degrade polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

References

That type of reference is ideal. Second-best (and only slightly less ideal) is to put a descriptive link in the External Links section:

External links

• Mycobacterium vanbaalenii PYR-1 from the DOE Joint Genome Institute.

As a aside, the reason Wikipedia is often so "rigid" about formatting is a function of both its breadth of content and the enormous range of its target audience. An important method of improving usability is consistent formatting of information (see the Wikipedia Manual of Style for more details). Also, the original contributions you made—though mis-formatted and somewhat ambitious—were interesting and potentially useful enough that we debated removing them en-masse (and hence the "spammer" in quotes to denote a bunch of added links but with potential). It was unfortunate that we weren't able to reach you for a week or so to determine your intent; luckily Wikipedia is eminently changeable <grin>.

In any case, I hope these examples are useful. If you'd like any help with formatting, a second opinion on the suitability of particular links, or anything else, please drop me a line on my talk page: all of us were "newbies" at one point, too. -- MarcoTolo 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Real DO11.10

Hi there, While querying some historical and detailed information on the DO11.10 Tg mouse, I found your username on Wiki. I'm interested in establishing an entry on some of the subtler aspects of the DO11.10 mouse, including the DO11.10/SCID and DO11.10/Rag-/- crosses. If you'd like to try and amass some information on this, given our mutual interest in immunology, I'd be willing to collaborate. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks,

John aka Crazygoose

Sure, it doesn't look like there is wiki article about the "real" DO11.10 at all. So in essence it is a blank slate, it could be as detailed or as brief as you want to make it. I have also spent/wasted much time looking for the history or any detailed information on the DO mouse, so it would clearly be a valuable addition here. It would also be great to include the KJ1-26 antibody, since that is really what makes the DO mouse so useful. Let me know what you would like me to do.--DO11.10 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

RNA contributions

Hi there, Thanks for your contributions to the RNA entries! We really appreciate your time and effort on this. We have formed the RNA wiki project which you may be interested in joining. Best wishes. Alexbateman 09:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Great videos

Wow - the phagocytosis video clips you've been adding (here, for example), are outstanding. Great find. -- MarcoTolo 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! I thought so too. I think that they really help illustrate the concept—much better than a still image. Thankfully, I was able to get some great help from Raul654. Here is a list of the video files that were uploaded, if you can think of other articles where they might be useful? The syntax is pretty straightforward.--DO11.10 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. thanks for commenting above, I appreciate it. --DO11.10 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Basophils

Hi,

I initiated a request a few days ago to have Basophil deleted so I could move basophils to basophil. In the meantime, I noticed that you redirected basophils to one of the basophil articles. I have since moved the basophils page to basophil and reverted your edit. This is because I feel that both the immune basophils and anterior pituitary basophils should be disambiguated. If you have other preferences or think that this was in error, please let me know. Thanks. Antelan ^talk 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Plant defense against herbivory GA on hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Secondary antibody picture

Reading through the licenses that you wrote in my profile, I have decided to go with the "GFDL" licensing. So feel free to upload my picture and add it to the secondary antibody article. If you think there's anything that should be added to the image (Since you seem to know the subject), or it should be made larger (Its made in vectorgraphics), feel free to say so. --David Munch 16:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey there DO11.10. I'm certainly not that well-versed in SVG, but I'm glad to help. David, I have left you a note on your Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

List of polio survivors – ready for FLC?

I think the List of polio survivors is very nearly ready for WP:FLC. I plan to give the prose another going-over. I know some of my text is a bit formulaic and sometimes the tense and active/passive grammar wavers. If you can help review the text, that would be great. Don't be afraid to tidy up my entries. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added some examples: here. Colin°^Talk 12:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of polio survivors. Colin°^Talk 21:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like you enjoyed your research? Colin°^Talk 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I really did enjoy the research. But this was just one of those weird coincidences. I noticed that the article was up for GA, and... gee that name sounds familiar... Thanks for keeping up with the FLC page. Nice job on the "fear and isolation" citation. It is perfect, what did you just type in "polio fear and isolation", and there that article was, waiting out there for you to find it? I dunno about you, but it never seems to go like that for me! --DO11.10 02:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it was just one of our existing refs. I can't even remember if you added it or me. At first, I thought I'd have to go through several bio refs to find enough to make a case. But then I found that one and it did the job. I knew I hadn't just made it up. Colin°^Talk 08:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(moved barnstar to userpage)

Well that sailed through FL. Shame my other list on FLC is stuck in the doldrums. Oh, well. Win some, lose some. Your support on this list really picked me up when I was flagging. It became a real team effort, which is what wiki is all about really. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 08:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just looked again at the polio peer review. You wrote, concerning the survivors list, "it is (highly) doubtful that the list will expand". Hah!

I'll look again at the Polio article. I'm currently wading through Autism, which is on peer review. Sandy is worth asking for a "readiness" opinion, though I think she is busy with an issue concerning FA promotion/demotion scripts. I don't hang about FAC enough to know all the usual attack points. I'll try my best to review against the FA criteria. Can you find another medical editor to review the "factually accurate" aspect? Colin°^Talk 16:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, you got me there <grin>. Although in my own (rather weak) defense, I think what I meant was that it is (highly) doubtful that there would be any new cases in notable individuals, since (99.9% of) people don't get polio anymore. I clearly worded that poorly :-). Thanks for your offer to look over the polio article, I would surely appreciate it. Please take your time though, there is no rush. I seem to have a hard time getting the medical people to review it, and it sounds like Sandy is rather busy at the moment... I will give it another look and perhaps ask her when things have calmed down a bit.--DO11.10 17:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a ping on the GA process.

I have included most/all of your points from the Talk:Elsie MacGill. Let me know! Maury 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up-:) I have responded on the talk page.--DO11.10 02:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination for the Elsie MacGill article

Hi DO11.10, I have added to and rewritten parts of the article. Please look it over, Maury may be on vacation or otherwise occupied, but he has done the "lion's share of the work." Check it over for GA status. FWIW Bzuk 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC).

Heart "nonsense"

That addition to immune system might have been badly-written (so bad you were right to remove it) but the role of clamydia in heart disease is a real area of research. Can you catch a heart attack? Strange indeed! Tim Vickers 22:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, is that what the editor was saying? I had no idea what it was going on about. My nonsense comment was referring to the writing, not the content. Perhaps I should have said, "rv nonsensical statements" or something, but I noticed that you had previously warned the user, I assumed that you had intended to remove it. Interesting stuff indeed, though, thanks for the link, the 1998 findings seem to have borne out and expanded as well. [1]

--DO11.10 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That might have been what the editor was talking about, but to be honest, I can't be sure! Tim Vickers 00:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of tuberous sclerosis

The timeline of tuberous sclerosis is now a featured list. Many thanks for your support and suggestions at FLC. Colin°^Talk 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Poliomyelitis

I've been meaning to ask you for a couple of weeks when you were thinking about taking Poliomyelitis to FAC - I'm guessing you're ramping up for one in the near future. Do you have any large-scale concerns with the structure or content at this point? (Other than some minor fiddling, I've sort of forgotten where we left off....) -- MarcoTolo 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, I noticed that you made some nice alterations a few days ago. So to answer you question well, kind of.... I feel like the information is all there, but maybe not presented in the best order. I don't really know how to make it flow any better, I just find myself moving things here and there, and then back again. If you have any ideas of how the information could be better organized I would sure take 'em?! Also, a few of the statements were rather oblique, I have tried to reword for clarity. If you have any thoughts here?...--DO11.10 01:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're both in the same boat - knowing that the article isn't quite right, but not exactly sure what to change. <grin> I'll be out of town for a few days, but I'll take a hardcopy of the various polio-related article with me to give them a once over. (Don't let that dissuade you from making changes, however.) -- MarcoTolo 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I keep forgetting about it. I've printed it off and will have a good read tonight. BTW: have you seen that Virus is at FAC. It has some prose/MOS problems. I've helped revise the lead but don't have the time or expertise to give the rest an overhaul. Colin°^Talk 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started reviewing the text of Polio. My attempt to rewrite the lead of Virus wasn't polished enough to help out at FAC. Tony pulled me up on several points. I'm not going to ruin your chances by hacking away at it so I'll make some comments/suggestions and you are free to ignore/reject what you want. Don't interpret a confident assertion as if I'm insisting on a change or that I am some kind of expert. I'll keep the points "to the point". If you want me to elaborate or suggest alternative text, let me know. I'll put my review here (which I'm watching) but you can move it if you want.

I really don't think you have anything to worry about. I took a look at Virus and agree that it would take an awful lot of work (or Tim Vickers) to pass FAC. If you didn't happen to see it, check out my last FAC.... at least now I am more prepared :) --DO11.10 03:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This version

DO11.10 - I'm going to keep working through this but I don't think I'm capable of copyediting this sufficiently well to withstand FAC. I saw your previous FAC benefited from User:WillowW, User:TimVickers, User:Fvasconcellos and User:SandyGeorgia (who doesn't count herself as a copyeditor but has a good eye for MOS detail and stuff). Those are all great editors and I'd us like to ask all of them to help review and copyedit. Would you mind? Shall you or I do the knocking on doors? Best to do as much preparation ahead of FAC, don't you think? Colin°^Talk 19:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Preparation is key... If you want to do some knocking, I will work on fixing the current issues you have raised. --DO11.10 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put out some requests. Anyone else? If there are rewrites/fixes that you want help with, you might want to move some of the above to the article talk page, if other folk are going to contribute. Let me know if you want me to continue to post here or there. I'm off to bed now... Colin°^Talk 23:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. I think I will move your review to the talk page. Looking forward to some great suggestions!--DO11.10 23:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm finished. Your idea of a nav template for the Polio series is a great one. Are you thinking of something like on Tourette syndrome? Colin°^Talk 11:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the vertical kind are certainly more noticable. Would it interfere with the infobox? I suppose you'll find out if you experiment (perhaps nick someone else's box to try?) Colin°^Talk 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I forgot...

... to thank you for the Elsie MacGill GA process. I was really down on the whole GA/FA thing, it seemed like the suggestions always seemed pretty picayune, and the process just dragged on and on. In contrast, the GA on Elsie was quick, painless, and extremely useful. So again, thanks! Maury 02:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome, I enjoyed it too! --DO11.10 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Scientist/doc

A template you created, Template:Infobox Scientist/doc, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubella

You're into infectious diseases? Could you have a look at recent edits to Rubella? Some anons have been challenging the "eliminated from the US" statement based on a GeekTV podcast presenter who claims she might have Rubella. I think they are trying to be helpful but don't really understand WP:RS or that this is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. I don't like to revert more than once so would appreciate another opinion. Perhaps rubella has returned to the US? Colin°^Talk 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: What's happening with Polio? Where's MarcoTolo? I'll have a review of the text if you think you want to go for FA. Colin°^Talk 07:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colin, it is good to hear from you!! I have had a lot of real life stuff piling up lately and haven't had a lot of time to contribute lately. I took a look at the Rubella article. According to several articles I was able to dig up, epidemic Rubella has been eliminated from the US. PMID 16998777 (by Stanley Plotkin no less) and PMID 16998776. This article is also quite clear on the matter. Whether this woman really had rubella and where she got it are not clear from the "podcast" and neither is a Podcast a reliable source. I guess what I am saying is that I think RS must trump unverifiable trivia at every turn. Would you like for me to change it, or post a comment on the talk page?

Oh polio, my dear friend polio... I am not sure what to do with her. I think that the recent changes Marco made have really helped, but I am not sure that it fulfills the 1a requirements? I would like to take her to FA at some point but I am really busy right now, maybe in a few weeks I will take it to task, so if you might have a chance to look at it and give me your thoughts that would be quite helpful.

I dunno what happened to Marco?? (Picturing my self wandering around a swimming pool with my eyes closed here) I will give an email shout if I don't hear anything soon, just to make sure he hasn't given up or anything.--DO11.10 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrt to Rubella. I'd appreciate it if you were bold and edited the article, mentioning the talk page in an edit summary, and explained there the difference between eliminated and eradicated. I'll back you up if necessary. Colin°^Talk 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

np, will do :)--DO11.10 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Chlamydia intro

I edited the intro a bit, added a link to National Medicine's Chlamydophila page, added some internal links, etc. I honestly can't believe I'm doing this with less than 2 weeks till boards. Anyway, I don't mean to trample. Edit over me where you'd like or drop me a line on my (completely blank) user page.

By the way, interleukins suck. Why can't I remember them? All their overlapping jobs, everything's a big series of messy circles. I would never TOUCH an interleukin article:) Walking Softly 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.chlamydiae.com/docs/Chlamydiales/taxonomy.asp I don't think this would be terribly appropriate to link to. Just FYA. Walking Softly 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi there, I'd like to nominate you as an admin. The extra tools are quite useful and I think you're very well-qualified. Have a read of Wikipedia:Administrators and tell me what you think. Tim Vickers 17:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll write up a nomination this evening. Are you a he or a she? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, all done. Now transcluded to the mainpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As a molecular microbiologist, your attitude reminds me of a great BBC radio program a while ago - Me and My Bug Tim Vickers (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For your humble gift (:), although I still think Colin was far more helpful. I still owe you that second diagram—don't let me forget! I also rendered my own bouncy ball of death a while ago, bound to CD155, after PMID 10618374; sort of like the image on the left here, though not as cleanly illustrative. Do you think it could be any use? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really gone into the whole "how polio binds it's receptor" angle, mostly because crystallography makes my head spin 'round like a top. But an image such as the one you propose would definitely be really useful if I (or anyone) gets around to adding this sort of material to the poliovirus article.--DO11.10 18:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am immune to your charms. And Fvasconcellos probably came out in hives at the sight of a PNG on his talk page. He has a raster-intolerance. Colin°^Talk 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he minded much since he actually switched this one out for the <gasp> .JPG version the was in the poliovirus article.--DO11.10 18:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A JPG diagram? There should be a law against such things. Colin°^Talk 18:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, there should :) SVG for an image like this is overkill, but there's no excuse for using a JPEG version when this category is chock-full of images just waiting to be put to good use... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the image, by the way. I hadn't uploaded it yet because I didn't think it would be very useful (big footprint, slightly inconsistent style etc.) Either way, if you think it could help Poliovirus or CD155 feel free to use it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. She's gone live—I noticed :) Let's see what Casliber's magic article polish will do, I may have to reassess my suggestions ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Polio

Yep this:

Many notable individuals have survived polio and often credit the prolonged immobility and residual paralysis associated with polio as a driving force in their lives and careers. (There must be a source for this somewhere) - (search on IMDB for movies with polio as keyword. I don't have time today but may do tomorrow.)

The disease was very well publicized during the polio epidemics of the 1950s, with extensive media coverage of any scientific advancements that might lead to a cure. Thus, the scientists working on polio became some of the most famous of the century. Fifteen scientists and two laymen who made important contributions to the knowledge and treatment of poliomyelitis are honored by the Polio Hall of Fame at the Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation in Warm Springs, Georgia, USA.

looks good - 2nd para can stand as is - movies (if any) and one or two of most famous examples in para 1. Then t/f to article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

NB: I should add that I am a psychiatrist (hence my infracortical medical knowledge has had 10 years to atrophy through non-use. Clinical reductionism shits me to tears arouses strong negative feelings in me. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Marc Shell in his book Polio and its Aftermath (Harvard 2005) makes a convincing case that the lead charater L. B. "Jeff" Jefferies (James Stewart) in Rear Window is recovering from Polio. I have the book on loan from the library, so I can check if there are other movies that feature a protagonist recovering from polio. --Dan Dassow 14:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on making FA. Well done. It has been a pleasure working with you, once again. Colin°^Talk 18:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Again, I hope my suggestions were helpful—you certainly were. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

DO11.10,I would like to add my humble congratulations and would like to compliment Colin, Fvasconcellos, SandyGeorgia for their positive support and guidance. It is truly refreshing to see an author and group of editors work so well together. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all! As well, FV and Colin it has been my pleasure to work with you both. Anytime you want to collaborate... I truly appreciate your willingness to take the time to review, suggest, and copyedit my baby. You should be rightful proud of her too. I went to the article about a year ago to (just) add a couple of images from the Commons that were in need of a home, and was fascinated by this disease that I had never even given much thought to. It made me want to learn more, and learn more (much more) I did; I really enjoyed writing this article. The relatively painless FAC process and the helpful comments I received there have really bolstered my opinion of the FA system.

Dan, your comments during FAC were very moving. You've reminded me of the goals of Wikipeida, which many of us sometimes forget in the process of writing, editing, and critiquing articles. It really is about the people who read them. Thank you.--DO11.10 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Scientist and Wikipedian's Barnstar from Dan Dassow

moved to user page --DO11.10 (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fancy a change...

Would you consider working on a medical subject outside of your field? I've recently started a collaboration on epilepsy. This is still at an early stage: collecting sources, working out the article structure and points to cover. Due to lack of time, it is likely to be a slow, gentle affair. It is a huge subject, but perhaps you would be interesting in researching even just a section? Prior knowledge is absolutely not required. In fact, it can help keep things honest wrt sourcing and also with explanations for the reader. I've found that researching for and writing on Wikipedia is a wonderful way to learn a new subject. I'm sure you found that with polio. There's even an infectious-disease/immune-response aspect (hint: third world). No pressure or hurry. Think about it and let me know by talk or mail. Colin°^Talk 21:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd definitely be willing to help. I didn't really have any solid plans after polio. Just point me in the general direction you want me to help out with.--DO11.10 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. The current text needs a complete overhaul. It is mostly uncited and of mixed quality. At this stage, we're not quite ready to rewrite. Have a look at the collaboration page. I've been organising potential sources: general stuff at the bottom, specific stuff in the sections. Perhaps you can search for suitable sources where they are lacking. Comment on the organisation. Since nobody has claimed a section, the topic is wide open for you to choose. I don't know how much you know already or want to learn/research. Could you tackle the hard bits that we're going to struggle with (e.g., mechanism: both of seizure occurrence and anticonvulsant suppression)? Or pick a section? Does your library have some good reference books (see the Bibliography for some possible examples - I can't get any of them). What's your journal access like? Have I given you enough to get started, or do you want something more specific? Colin°^Talk 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Mechanism" would probably be right up my alley, I will work on finding some good sources here. Both the medical and public (cool building, BTW) libraries in my area are great. But, I usually get journal articles through my school's proxy server. Most journals are subscribed to by my library so if there are articles that you need from journals you are unable to access I can send you the articles by email, just let me know. Cheers--DO11.10 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello DO11.10. How are you? I am a new Wikipedian and I have never taken part in any RfA. However, now I would like to take part and I will support you. I saw you edits and I think you have done a great job. In future, if I face any problems in any medicine-related topic, will you help me? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I supported you. By the way, it was my first vote in RfA! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Just drop me a line here or by email.--DO11.10 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Adhesion plaques

Hello DO11.10. Can you please look at the article Adhesion plaques? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-Polio Health International

This was my first article for Wikipedia, though I have made edits to a few others in what you call the "polio series." I'm very grateful for the significant cleanup you performed on an early version of the PHI piece -- especially in the "tone" of some of the explanatory footnotes. And I've learned a lot about coding references and dealing with disambiguation from watching you and others work on the article. Very helpful. And this is also the place to add my praise for the work you have done on the poliomyelitis and post-polio syndrome articles. When I first looked at them last year they were pretty messy. Posidonious (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)