Jump to content

User talk:MarcoTolo/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

– ClockworkSoul 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Baby Gender Mentor

Hello, thanks for your help in cleaning up the references on Baby Gender Mentor. I was starting to work on them myself - apologies for any edit conflicts I caused you. One thing I want to do is to update the accessdate for all the references, but I am done for now so I shouldn't get in your way today. The article is currently GA and it just had a new peer review also. I've made all the changes suggested in the Peer review and I am just doing a final clean-up. By all means if you have any suggestions let me know or be bold and implement them. I plan to submit the article for FA consideration soon. Thanks again, Johntex\talk 03:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your help. Your edits were great. I think the article has improved to the point of Featured Article status so I have proposed it as a Featured Article Candidate. The nomination is here if you would like to comment. I look forward to any and all suggestions you may have for improving the article. Best, Johntex\talk 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparent edit conflict on RNA interference, sorry!

Your earlier edit to RNA interference made it pop up on my watchlist and reminded me that I wanted to expand it. I think the process ate some of your subsequent reference conversion though (and added several more refs) - if you're using a script to do this, can you run it again? If you're doing this manually, (you have more patience than I, and..) don't worry about it, I'll clean them up later if it becomes important, since I plan to edit it more in the next few days. Thanks! Opabinia regalis 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay - thanks for the heads-up. The process isn't completely automated, but I've run my random collection of scripts and macros and already re-updated most of the refs that were crunched in the conflict. I'll check the article again by hand in a few minutes to snag the outliers. And thanks for the article expansion - looks good. -- MarcoTolo 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry about that. I started editing and got distracted in the middle, so the edit window was open for quite possibly hours - but I'm not sure why that would just eat your fixes and not warn about edit conflicts. (I admit, there may be more "ref formatting" work to do on this article in a few weeks, as I just can't bring myself to use those over-long cite templates every time :) Opabinia regalis 15:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That is weird - maybe its one of those extra-special, admin-only features....maye you have the Make it so. flag set? <grin> And you're right, the long Cite templates can be a pain; I'm counting on the fact that the extra work in formatting and meta-data-ing (bleah - horrible neologism) will pay off. In any case, I think I've fixed the current batch of refs, and I'll keep an eye on the article for any newly appearing "non-conforming" "non-optimally formatted" refs. -- MarcoTolo 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, if only I did ;) But I'm not sure we'd have any Pokemon articles left.... Thanks for, ah, optimizing things! Opabinia regalis 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the E=MC2 Barnstar!

It was unexpected and appreciated. Nice to know someone's paying attention! :) MoodyGroove 21:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Re: ROLL duplication

Thanks. Sorry that the reply is so belated. David Mestel(Talk) 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

Are you following me?!! (just kidding) Sorry about the edit conflict on Polio there, thanks for finding and updating those citations. (How did you find that Collins reference? I looked all over..., do you have a special place you go to find those?) How about the article, do you have any ideas?--DO11.10 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not following, though I have been noticing you a lot on my watchlist <grin>. The Collins ref was tough - had to break down and use my university LexisNexis access to dig it up. The link is probably impossible - the Philadelphia Inquirer appears to charge for all articles older than seven days. I was tempted to pull the 3rd party URL link from the reference simply because the hosting site doesn't exactly fit my "obviously reliable" criterion - maybe I'll pull it out.... In other news, keep up the good work - you're making a lot of great edits. -- MarcoTolo 02:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars

Thanks so much for the Barnstar, it is nice to feel appreciated. So here is one for you too:
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your very fine work on each and every one of an endless number of microbiology and infectious disease related articles.


As always the articles are works in progress. As such, I would like you opinion on the Polio article. Do you think that I should daughter out the poliovirus section to it's own page? The article is looking a bit cumbersome already, and I plan to add significantly to the "Philanthropy" section when I get back from vacation. any other thoughts that you have are certainly also welcome.--DO11.10 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - and you're right: even a small kudo makes a difference. As for the polio split, I'm for it. As a general rule—and if there's enough material—I think that "diseases" and "organisms" should have their own entries. Simply porting the Poliomyelitis#The virus section and the Taxobox to Poliovirus would be easy enough. To give other folks a chance to throw in their opinons, I'll add a split tag to the section and see what comes up. -- MarcoTolo 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply on my talk page

I replied to you on my talk page. Ariel. 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied again. Ariel. 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Complete User talk:Ariel.#Blogs as sources. -- MarcoTolo 02:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

GB & I

Please see expanded reasoning for proposed deletion of Great_Britain_and_Ireland.--Triglyph 09:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the cleanup on ephedra. Much appreciated. MastCell 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing - just trying to follow your lead. <grin> -- MarcoTolo 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on RNAi!

I realized I neglected to leave you a note when I put RNA interference up for FAC - thanks for all your work on the references! It's very much appreciated. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, please stop by here! Opabinia regalis 02:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm extremely new to Wikipedia. I added a link on the Pseudomyxoma Peritonei page. Minutes later you deleted it along with several other links that were already there. Can you explain why this happened? Thank you. -- sksmith February 16. 2007

  • I removed the website link you added (as well as several others) from the Pseudomyxoma peritonei article to try and avoid an excessive proliferation of external links. Here at Wikipedia, the goal of an article's External links section is not to be a comprehensive list of available sites, but rather a small, handpicked selection of those sites with information that is relevant, neutral, and accurate. While I fully support them, these guidelines aren't mine—you can read them yourself at Wikipedia:External links, part of the Wikipedia Manual of style. I pulled the link you added because it appears to require registration which, even if free, is generally frowned upon (though in some cases tolerated - see WP:EL#Sites requiring registration for details). I've added a link to the pseudomyxoma peritonei information at the Open Directory Project, an open-source content directory that works well with Wikipedia—the website you added looks like it might be a good fit to be added there.
My apologies for overlooking your "new user" status - I typically try to be extra "transparent" in my interactions with new folks while they're learning the ropes. I hope I've managed to answer your question clearly - if not, please let me know and I'll try again. -- MarcoTolo 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for explaining what took place. If you don't mind me pointing something out... You chose to leave the link to PMP Pseudomyxoma Peritonei Online Support Group with only 42 members and remove PMP Bellybuttons which is also a support group that has 553 members. Yes, you do need to register (for free), but maybe this could be one of those exceptions. Its an incredible support group!
Thank you for your consideration in making this change. -- sksmith February 20, 2007
  • I'm getting confused and a bit frustrated with the learning curve here, but I'm hanging in. I was hoping you would make an exception and put the PMP Bellybuttons support group on the Pseudomyxoma peritonei page. You allow the PMP Pals page there and yet they charge members a fee to join and require that they not participate in any other bulletin boards or chat rooms on the internet. This has always frustrated those of us involved on the PMP Bellybutton's site. Also, I don't see it included in the Open Directory Project, either. I would hope it could be there, as well, as it is with PMP Pals. I also don't understand what you mean by moving the Open Directory Project higher up. Can you clarify that for me? Sorry to be such a bother, but its very important people find the best help when looking up Pseudomyxoma peritonei since it is a rare orphan cancer. Thank you for helping in any way that you can! --- User:sksmith 6:42pm, February 21, 2007
  • The learning curve can be pretty steep here at Wikipedia—thanks for hanging-in there. And its not a bother: everyone was a new Wikipedian at some point, yours truely included.
As I see it, there are two somewhat different issues at this point: #1) Whether or not the PMP Bellybuttons site meets the Wikipedia external links guidelines; and #2) Listing PMP Bellybuttons on the Open Directory Project. #2 is something you may want to do anyway - submitting a link to ODP takes about 5 minutes to do: I'd suggest the Gastrointestinal cancer section (here's the link to the add form).
#1 is a little harder to answer. I pulled the PMP pals link because they charged a fee. While I noted that PMP Bellybuttons didn't, the particular sub-section of the external links guide (WP:EL#Sites requiring registration) says that:
Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers.
That, to me, says that we probably shouldn't outlink to PMP Bellybuttons. There is, however, an addendum:
...[unless] it has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website.
So, what do I suggest? The cleanest route would be to add PMP Bellybuttons to ODP - this way the link will be available to Wikipeida readers and ODP users. Register the site with ODP. Once that's done, if you still feel strongly that PMP Bellybuttons fits the "better than any other source" qualification, leave a comment on the Pseudomyxoma peritonei talk page to that effect and we can see what the community consensus is on the matter.
If any part of what I've suggested is unclear—or if you just need help with a particular part—let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. Thanks again. -- MarcoTolo 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      * Thank you for all your help MarcoTolo! --- User:sksmith 10:12pm, February 23, 2007

Help with references in Hysterectomy?

I pulled a bunch of references out of the text and put them on the talk page a while back because they weren't formatted at all, and I did not and do not know how to format them. Do you think you could help with at least some of them? Dfeuer 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for formatting these. Some help figuring out which ones are usable would be nice, but I'll try to integrate them as they are. I am a bit concerned about what you did with the external links section. MentioningWP:EL doesn't seem like quite a good enough explanation for why you removed a whole bunch of links, and added one. Some of them I agree need to go, but other choices you made seem rather arbitrary. Dfeuer 01:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I wasn't sure if you need help with the re-insertion - I've have a look at them as well. As for the external links, going through the list of what I removed, the support groups are either listed or have similar sites available at the Open Directory Project (the dmoz links), the FTM guide link was/is broken, and the BBC link seemed to duplicate much of the information available at the ODP. After looking at the preview of the surgical hysterectomy video, it seemed much more like an infomercial than educational. As a general rule, I try to follow the most basic of the WP:EL guidelines: external links should only be added if they directly add pertinent, relevant information that is unavailable and/or cannot be added to the article itself. As an aside, I've also begun using the {{dmoz}} template to direct folks to another, WP-like resource, particularly when it comes to health-related support groups. This lets readers see a wider range of options without turning Wikipedia into a giant linkfarm. -- MarcoTolo 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. May I suggest that you add this explanation to the talk page? I do indeed need help with references. I don't know the first thing about either hysterectomy or medical journals. I just came across this page and saw it had some serious problems with anti-hysterectomy bias. I asked the person who had made the page so biased to provide references, and, as you can see, they provided dozens. I don't have the time or means right now to investigate whether all the references are good, or whether they actually support the claims made, let alone to try to find other sources to balance out the article. *sigh* Dfeuer 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference page: STDateline

STDateline (www.stdateline.com) is an informational social network for people with sexually transmitted disease that is a reference (3rd party) for people with STD's to use to find free information. What is the proper way to help people find the external link as a reference point without compromising the Wikipedia site?

IE: Like Disney and Baby Einstein definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyG4 (talk • contribs)

What is the proper way to add an external link without compromising the content of Wikipedia. Would changing the definition warrant an add? Please inform.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyG4 (talk • contribs)

  • I must appologize. Having looked at your reference within the "External Links" under Stephen Colbert, I thought putting external links that had to do with the topic of Sexually Transmitted Disease (like the daily show/colbert report/comedy central/ etc.) was appropriate because STDateline deals with Sexually Transmitted Disease. There are a few other reference points to STD's that I had added before your intervention, I appologize. Could you please advise me on how to make a proper advertisement like the Colbert Report did? Do I need to make a contribution? I will wait for your reply before posting again. [This page in a nutshell?: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyG4 (talk • contribs)
  • Well, you could make a donation to me, but since I didn't write the external links guidelines I'm not sure that would have the effect you desire <grin>.
Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and isn't a directory, the External links section should, as you noted in your comment, provide a service and should do so without duplicating another, already present link (the "minimum" part. Articles that have a tendency to collect many external links (and STD-related pages are a good example) often have a link to the Open Directory Project -- a site that, while different, provides a somewhat Wikipedia-like service for websites (the ODP website). As an example, having noted that the Genital wart article didn't yet have one, I just added an ODP link there. You might want to consider getting STDateline.com setup over at ODP in the appropriate categories, then just add (or ask someone on the talk page to add one) an ODP link to their category. Let me know if you have any other questions. -- MarcoTolo 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to thank you for your professionalism... and humor <grin squared> at such a time in the evening. If you have any suggestions on freelance writers willing to help STDateline create a professional Wikipedia profile for STDateline. Please email me at customerservice@stdateline.com.

Biofilms wiki article

Dear Marco Tolo, I noticed you removed the link I made to a biofilms blog (from the biofilms wiki article), and as a comment you said "Removing blog (see WP:EL)". I followed "Wikipedia:External links" and read very carefully what I can post or not in a Wikipedia site, and I have read some things for which I consider the link should not have been removed.
1) The blog is directly related to the wikipedia article's subject,
2) Point 11 of "Links normally to be avoided" clearly says: Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.
I consider my self an authority in biofilms science and engineering and "apparently" also others do since they accepted me as a PhD on the field and they read and accept my publications in peer reviewed journals on the topic, I am a researcher in biofilms, and not only because I do the research but because I have the feedback of other researchers in the field for what I write I think the blog is a useful link for the community. The blog is not promoting any personal work or any personal website, but it is an expansion on the knowledge and discussions in biofilm science and engineering. What do you need me to provide you? My CV to prove what I am saying? I consider it unnecessary, but if you followed the link to the blog and read a bit of the content you would have noticed the nature of its content.
I don't know if you are a researcher yourself in biofilms science and engineering; however, if you are related to the field you should be able to see the relevance of linkig that blog to the wiki article. I will be checking your replies in here until we are both satisfied with the conclusion of this.
-- kOxiNeLLe 27/02/2007 15:04 am (central time)

  • First of all, I think you probably have a lot to offer Wikipedia in general, and to the biofilm article in particular. I'd urge you to integrate your knowledge as much as possible. In regards to the external link you added, here are a few of the reasons I felt the site did not meet the WP:EL guidelines:
  1. Conflict of interest?: As the maintainer of the biofilm blog in question, I'd urge you to read Wikipedia's Guideline on conflicts of interest (COI). I realize that you may not be "promoting any personal work or any personal website", but Wikipedia has pretty strict interpretation of COI.
  2. Expert: I'm not being dismissive—a PhD is great—but "expert in the field" generally has a pretty high bar: unless your name is Costerton, Kolter, Ghannoum, Greenberg, Branda, etc, I'm not sure this exception fits. Again, I'm not try to be obnoxious - and I'm willing to be receptive to arguments to the contrary.
  3. Content: When I looked at the blog, it appeared to have very few (less than ten) posts: That still appears to be the case. While the information posted is laudably referenced, such a tiny body of information seems less than generally useful.
To summarize, #1 is of greatest concern to me, #3 may resolve in time; #2 is one I am willing to discuss. -- MarcoTolo 01:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your comments. About 1) Well, I am not the Wikipedia administrators, so I personally do not see the conflict of interests, since the blog is not located in any specific biofilm group website or promotes one in particular (or a researcher in particular). About 3) Indeed the external link does not contain enough information yet, because I just started it a few days ago, and I hope me and other people with interest in biofilms see the value of having a written discussion forum. And finally, about 3) First, I don't think that the purpose of the wikipedia is to show off complicated issues about one topic that general public could not follow, I think it is widely used by non-specialists and young people who want to be informed about general topics (If they want to look up for more specialized information I bet they would be looking for scientific articles). So, in this respect, I did not claim to be an "expert in the field" in the sense you mean it, i said I consider my self an authority in biofilms science and engineering and of course not in comparison to the names of Costerton, Kolter, Ghannoum, Greenberg, Brenda, etc. (who by the way when will take some time to care about the wikipedia?) but compared to the general public who read the wikipedia. And I also said that is not only about me but about the potential feedback of other researchers in the field that I could have, such as the ones I am in closer contact with (Picioreanu, Smets, Neu, Mansfeld, Lovley, etc.) who will eventually be in contact with this. In the case of scientific topics, I don't consider the wiki to be a space for anything but approaching what is in research to people who are not so close to it and who might wonder about some aspects of it, the wikipedia provides a good resource of basic information but if people have more questions or want to discuss such topics I think a space for doing it should be available to approach the "experts" and non-experts in an open way. I think the blog is oriented to that. I am sorry that it apparently compromises some interests, I will simply find another mean to openly publish it and be in contact with who is interested on it, despite considering useful and valuable for the possible readers of the wiki biofilms article. Best regards,

-- kOxiNeLLe 18:05, 4 March 2007 (central time)

Biological Value

I noticed you appear to be involved in biology articles or WikiProjects relating to biology and human processes. This article, on a method for evaluating biological utilizations rates of proteins in humans and animals, was started in August and is in need of the attention of an expert. We are having trouble locating one and the article desperately needs it. This method is used constantly in bodybuilding magazines and products and is the subject of much misinformation and half-truths. On the other hand it does appear to have some value. Please help if possible. In case you're wondering why I picked you I just looked through some Science WikiProjects and biology articles and your name appeared a lot in one or both categories. Incidentally if you decide not to do this for whatever reason there's no need to reply. I'll just take it you're busy or uninterested and leave it at that. Thanks. Quadzilla99 22:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Chlamydia

The term chlamydia for the phylum derives from the name of the genus, which in turn derives from the mentioned Greek word. That's why it's wrong to put χλαμύδος at the beginning.--Al-Bargit 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, then how about changing the second sentence to:
"This term derives from the name of the bacterial genus Chlamydia (from the Greek χλαμύδος, "cloak") in the family Chlamydiaceae, order Chlamydiales, class and phylum Chlamydiae."
-- MarcoTolo 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I'm glad it was successful, and I hope to do a good job as an admin. Shimeru 15:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind if I ask for help?

Hi MarcoTolo,

I've taken a look at your editing record and it looks like you have a great deal of expertise on medical matters. I have created a series of articles on some lesser known diseases, syndromes, and eponyms. Alas, due to their obscurity, they have not been peer-reviewed. If you have the time, would you mind glancing over any of the below articles for style and content?

Fitzsimmons-Guilbert syndrome
Rabson-Mendenhall syndrome
Wallis Zieff Goldblatt syndrome
Fahr's disease
Oguchi disease
Garland's triad
Saint's triad

Best regards,
Djma12 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work adding these lesser-known syndromes. While rare genetic abnormalities are not my specialty by any stretch, the majority of the editing looks to be presentation/formatting rather than content: I'll be happy to go through them. I've made a quick pass at Fitzsimmons-Guilbert syndrome and will try to get to the others within the next few days. -- MarcoTolo 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Longest. Block. Ever.

True. <giggle> -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Daniels

Darn, beat me to it. ;) Blast 23.03.07 0022 (UTC)

"Wave" entry

Dear MarcoTolo, I see you have done some good work on the Wave entry so I wanted to alert you about an addition I made today. I added an Introduction section that addresses the complex issue of defining a wave. Have a look and let me know what you think. Pantelis Vassilakis Ph.D. - pantelis@acousticslab.org 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Marco!

I hope you had a good wiki-break. It is good to see you back! (Many thanks for adjusting the "polio types" table, it looks much better.)

While I am here... have you seen the polio peer review? What do you think about a history section split? I am having some trouble with this, it seems difficult to move much of anything out of the current article without sacrificing "the story". I might be too close to the article though, I would love to hear any thoughts you might have.--DO11.10 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one, too - will think about it and get back to you shortly. -- MarcoTolo 07:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, my gut reaction was to keep the entry together -- keep the story complete, as you mentioned in the peer review. After all, the historical aspects of polio are unique as a human disease entity. After thinking about Colin's comments in the PR, however, I've decided to try and look at the main Poliomyelitis article as a "current status" page like most other ID articles and construct a separate "History of...." page to accommodate the bulk of the historical and societal info. Its a bit crude, but I've made a prototype Poliomyelitis test page in my userspace with an accompanying History of poliomyelitis article. I am not explicitly advocating for this division - the pages are there for getting a handle on what such a division might look like. Take a peek when you get a chance and let me know what you think. -- MarcoTolo 00:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually that does look pretty good! It doesn't really seem like the main article suffered at all, and it might enable some expansion of the History part. It looks like it might work after all?? What do you think? I will drop Colin a line, see what he thinks. Thanks for giving me some perspective here!--DO11.10 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat to my surprise, it works reasonably well.... The "History" article needs some copyediting in the intro and the main article history section probably could be tightened somewhat, but otherwise it looks workable. Let's see what Colin's "outside perspective" viewpoint is and work from there. -- MarcoTolo 02:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the split and agree that it has potential. Please remember I'm only making suggestions here. Feel free to abandon the idea if it doesn't work.

Poliomyelitis:

I'd like to see this move more towards the top-level-heading suggestions in WP:MEDMOS. However, I wonder if for infectious diseases, the heading "Infection" might be a better one than "Cause". The subject of "Infection" can discuss the virus, its transmission and the incubation. I'd move the current "Poliovirus" section to become just the initial paragraphs (with the Main article remaining). Pathogenesis is such a technical word.
I also suggest replacing "Clinical presentation" with "Signs and symptoms". The former sounds to me too much like a doctors handbook. This section currently combines the effect (presentation, signs, symptoms, whatever) with the mechanism/pathophysiology. If these were separated, the reader would have a clear section covering the likely symptoms (and data such as percentages) without having to wade through technical explanations.
Perhaps "Post-polio syndrome" can be moved to the end of Prognosis, and a Main article created for it.
The treatment section still contains too much history. There's certainly room for expansion of this topic when moved to thie history article. For example, Sister Elizabeth Kenny's "treatment" appears to have been widely used (this currently appears only in the Legacy section). This section might become just a paragraph.
Similarly, much of the Vaccine and Eradication sections belong in the history. The Eradication section can be moved entirely, leaving just a paragraph at the end of the history summary section. A new "Prevention" section can discuss the currently-used vaccines (with perhaps a brief mention of the Antibody serum, which appears currently in your Treatment section).
Your "Further reading" section can be made a top-level heading (though perhaps a few entries move to History) — unless these are actually your references, in which case you should split into two sections: "Notes" and "References".

History:

The history article needs a proper lead that summarises the article. You need more sections. this web site has got a good history and timeline of key events that could be covered. However, as a reference I'd prefer if you used the book rather than the author's homepage, which probably doesn't meet WP:RS.
I hope the new page gives the History room to expand. I'm sure there's enough material for a well structured article several times this size.

Colin°Talk 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and well-reasoned commentary, Colin - I think your suggestions are good ones. Unless anyone has specific objections, I suggest we begin editing with the assumption that the split will occur. Should we make the rough split now and edit from there or are folks more comfortable with the edit-the-temp-version-then-port-to-article-space model? -- MarcoTolo 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, thank you Colin, your guidance has been most helpful. I am more comfortable with an edit-the-temp-version approach, but this would involve merging in any contributions from others, is that a problem? --DO11.10 23:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(I don't want to clog your talk page so I thought I would move this discussion to User talk:MarcoTolo/Sandbox/History of poliomyelitis test)--DO11.10 00:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, MarcoTolo. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:MarcoTolo/Archive 1. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

From Yancyfry

Thank you for the info. -Yancyfry

USS Rankin table formatting

Perfect! I had fooled around with it for quite a while, but never found the key. Thanks. Lou Sander 02:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi MarcoTolo, thanks for your support in my RfA, which passed unopposed. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryanscottgraham

That was very uncalled for. You have wiki's on here about famous myspace people and bands all the time. I tried to add one myself, and you deleted it. That is completely upsetting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanscottgraham (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 May 2007

Wikipedia does include many articles about bands/people in which Myspace pages are referenced, however, they must meet Wikipedia's notability requirements (or, for bands in particular, Wikipedia:Notability (music). If you/your band meets these guidelines, please write the article first, then re-add a link in the Ryan article. -- MarcoTolo 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarcoTolo/Archive_2&oldid=1141475916"