User talk:MarcoTolo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Nested tables

Thanks! There's one more thing to go, and I think it's do-able. The nested tables are centered vertically in their cells. So if they are of different heights, their tops don't line up. I think I saw something somewhere about how to fix this, but I don't remember where. I'm still not an expert at WP tables, but I'm learnin'. Lou Sander 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad it worked for you. To force for alignment, you can use the valign="top" parameter (see Help:Table#Vertical alignment for details). -- MarcoTolo 23:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It took some experimenting with the placement of the valign="top", but it's working perfectly now. Sample with embedded comments is HERE. Thanks again for your help. Lou Sander 02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning new users

I noticed you gave a 3rd-level warning ("Please stop") to a user after their first edit. Sometimes this is justified, but the content of the edit was not particularly unusual for newbie editors, and we should try not to bite the newcomers. Next time this happens, please give a first or second level warning instead. Thanks for your good work. YechielMan 04:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean my warning to Shottah, I used a level 3 warning because the posts were a continuation of edits by 38.114.67.187 (diff). I actually repeated the L3 warning in case the timestamps were too close to the user registration. -- MarcoTolo 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking editing from IP address

Hi There

I'm sysadmin at a school and we are often warned and occasionally blocked due to vandalism from our IP address - User_talk:203.56.245.7 After some discussion here we feel the best approach is to block anonymous editing from our IP address, and since you are the most recent person to warn us on our talk page I'm guessing you can point me in the right direction to arrange this - we don't want to block editing outright at our end, as some students may have useful input, but we'd like them to go through their own logins to do this so that foolishness doesn't impact on others. Any idea what the process is? Thanks in advance - Jase 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that the MediaWiki software can be configured to only block anon edits from a given IP, but I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is in that case. I've asked a Friendly Neighborhood Admin for their take on the situation and I'll let you know as soon as I hear back from them. -- MarcoTolo 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses can change so an indef block is unwise, so I'd recommend getting an official e-mail from this person, so you can confirm they are who they say they are, and then block for 1 year. The block can be renewed as necessary. People with accounts will still be able to edit. TimVickers 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I'll follow-up with Jase and get back to you. -- MarcoTolo 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jase, could you send me an email from you school account with this request so we can verify your identity? (Use the "Email this user" link from the Wikipedia toolbox - upper left side of your screen.) Thanks much. -- MarcoTolo 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, I'll send that email now :) - Jase 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year. TimVickers 00:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow - that was fast. Thanks much. -- MarcoTolo 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, the no account creation block should be OK, I'll get back to you otherwise --

Jase 00:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Aminoacyl-tRNA

Hey, I saw you tidied up the reference I made at Aminoacyl-tRNA. Is there a chance you could tell me how to do that kind of trick? Sakkura 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If you mean how to use the {{cite}} templates, checkout the Wikipedia help page. If, instead, you're asking about filling-out the template, one can: a) do it by hand; b) use a tool like OttoBib which fills-in templates using ISBN data; or c) generate the template with OttoBib, then edit as needed (what I did in that case). Let me know if you want more (or different) info about reference citing. -- MarcoTolo 23:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I have figured it out now :) Sakkura 11:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

List of polio survivors

Thanks for the barnstar! I've made some comments at User talk:DO11.10#List of polio survivors that you might want to read. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 12:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you are interesting on doing some work on the list? See my talk page. Let me know if your are interested, no pressure. Colin°^Talk 22:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. 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 started on the list already. Great. Could you look out for polio-related info to add too. I feel that helps make the list more informative to read on its own. I've tried to locate, for each person, the age they caught polio (or the year - I don't like subtracting years to get an age, since it isn't accurate), how the disease affected them both short-term and long-term, and whether it altered their career. Feel free to dip in and out as the mood and time permit. It is too big a list to tackle in a hurry. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Marco. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

EL issue

Hi Marco,

I noticed this edit to Clostridium tetani, and a similar one a few days ago on Chlamydia. Noticing a pattern here, I took a look at the contributions of the user who edited both pages (NebuchadnezzarN (talk · contribs) and found an evolving pattern. This user has added similar links to over 200 pages. I feel that there are a couple of problems here:

1. The links he is adding are, in my opinion, are highly technical and would provide virtually no information for the casual user, or really to anyone but the most specialized scientists.
2. He is adding a section called "Genomics" (or whatnot) with no content other than the links he is adding, even in articles with established EL sections.
3. The proliferation of the links is also disturbing, and feels a bit like a linkspam/repository issue.

So the reason I am telling you this is that you seem to have a lot of experience in dealing with EL problems. Could you take a look? Let me know what you think and what I should do about it?--DO11.10 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the additions a few days ago, but hadn't realized the number of entries until now - looks like around 200 articles or so. When I originally noticed the links, they were being added to the EL section and, after looking at the site, I had a similar reaction: probably too technical for Wikipedia, but no huge red flags. Now that the edits have shifted to adding a new section and embedding "outbound" links, I'm less comfortable with the mass additions. My suggestion would be that you start with a gentle "So, you've been adding a lot of links lately that may not be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Please stop adding until we can talk about it." and see what the response from the user is. Certainly the blanket addition of a new, marginally populated section is less than useful.... On the other hand, if the links are being added in good faith, I'd hate to lose an editor simply because we didn't happen to catch their misguided work soon enough. If, on the the third hand, you get the sense that this is simple complex linkspam, a smackdown may be appropriate.

People can get very touchy about "their" links - especially when they are not directly connected to a given site, but are simply excited about a site they've "discovered" (a particular problem with disease/medical condition sites). I've found it best to stick with the "We're an encyclopedia and the link doesn't meet our needs". I hope some of the above is helpful - let me know what happens, eh? -- MarcoTolo 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have given it a shot. I'll wait to see what happens.--DO11.10 20:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in biology nominated for deletion

The article unsolved problems in biology has also been nominated for deletion. Your opinion is welcomed at the discussion under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination). Cacycle 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny - the "new message indicator" just came up as I posted my two-cents worth at the AfD..... Thanks for the thought. -- MarcoTolo 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not fix the bots

having editable sections is convenient. And what good are "bots" for except to keep a tally of something that shouldn't be a vote? --Random832 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Convenience is a Good Thing - I'd suggest talking to the bot owner (Tangotango runs Tangobot) about the possibility of a code change. -- MarcoTolo 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC

Thanks for the copy-edit, as you are an experienced copy-editor, could I ask you to give some feedback on how well the article in general meets criterion 1a at the FAC nomination page? Thanks, if you have time. TimVickers 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the prose quality in Evolution is, in my opinion, quite good. There is, of course, some variability, but overall the tone and semantic content are good. There are a few places where the text "fades" a little or where the phrasing seems a bit off ("...show these hard to fake, sexually selected traits"), but I personally think the prose is basically FA-quality now. -- MarcoTolo 23:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

MTC External Links

Hi. I note that you removed external links to two independent diaries concerning personal experiences with medullary thyroid cancer. I won't argue if you wish to delete them, as a narrow interpretation of the rules regarding such links could be invoked; a broader interpretation would support the opposite.

However, I question the wisdom of deleting the information.

The MTC article is about a very rare disease whose technical aspects the article rightly addresses. Having authored the section on MTC prognosis indicators, I would agree that content in the main text needs to be technical.

However, for those who actually face this disease, well-written diaries (such as the two you deleted), are clearly of great value; there are quite a few poorly written ones on the internet or various support sites.

Simple empathy with those who actually must endure the disease and its treatment suggests you restore the links somewhere, perhaps in the See Also. Or else be consistent and remove the See Also Chernobyl link.

Regards, -- Jwc012 17:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The sites you listed do, I think, have considerable merit - just not as an integral part of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia has often recognized the value of these types of sites by linking to the Open Directory Project, a free catalog of web resources which is also run by a volunteer editorial staff. The Thyroid cancer article has an ODP link to http://dmoz.org//Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Cancer/Endocrine/Thyroid/; I would strongly encourage you to submit your links to ODP in this category so that individuals who wish to find the two diaries can do so easily. -- MarcoTolo 21:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Andretti curse

• I have added new sources directly covering this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andretti Curse. I invite you to review them and consider whether they might change your opinion on deleting the article. Barno 00:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Antibody

Hi there! Wow...thanks for fixing that table on the antibody page. I tried in vain, many a time, to do something with that but could just never figure it out....h'mmmm "prettytable" huh!! Much appreciated...Ciar 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. I ran across the "prettytable" class a few months ago - somehow it manages to capture the "look-and-feel" of scientific data tables particularly well. -- MarcoTolo 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I always forget about that, good thing you are here to keep my tables looking pretty. I put the image in the table, I thought it was nice to have it right there with the table. I hope you approve, feel free to help out as much, or as little as you would like. BTW, per our conversation about External links above, my third hand's sixth finger is starting to itch...--DO11.10 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I do like the "antibody complexes" image added to the table, though I find the roughly full-width table format a little distracting. Let me see if I can come-up with an option acceptable even to Inigo Montoya.... -- MarcoTolo 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I came up with another version - though its still not "perfect" IMHO. I'm not really attached to it, so if you liked the previous version better, feel free to revert. -- MarcoTolo 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PDFlink

Hey there. Don't you prefer

<ref>Silverstein AM (2004). {{PDFlink|[http://users.path.ox.ac.uk/~seminars/halelibrary/Paper%2018.pdf "Labeled antigens and antibodies: the evolution of magic markers and magic bullets"]|135 [[Kibibyte|KiB]]}}. ''Nat. Immunol.'' '''5''' (12): 1211–7. {{DOI|10.1038/ni1140}}. PMID 15549122.</ref>,

which gives

Silverstein AM (2004). ""Labeled antigens and antibodies: the evolution of magic markers and magic bullets"" (PDF). (135 KiB). Nat. Immunol. 5 (12): 1211–7. doi:10.1038/ni1140. PMID 15549122.

Just a thought :) I'm asking since I don't know whether this was ec or revert. Very nice work on the article by the way—I always regret messing with articles when they're being actively edited :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

An EC. I'm always torn in these cases because, while I do prefer the formatting of your example, I think that using {{cite}} fields allows for the (eventual) possibility of working with structured metadata. In general, I tend to come down on the side of "structured refs" - although realistically that probably has a lot to do with the fact that I no longer use a dial-up connection and thus rarely pay attention to file size <grin>. -- MarcoTolo 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I prefer the cite templates as well, but we have to look out for those poor souls with dial-up access :) When linking to PDFs I always think of SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), a frequent FAC reviewer who always seems to be traveling and away from broadband :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Herpes simplex virus

I am proposing some merging and dismantling of Herpes simplex virus, and have received no feedback. I thought you might be interested and possibly initiate the discussion. ManVhv 06:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Stop vandalising my user page. Further vandalism will be reported to the Administrators for you to be dealt with. Making bogus allegations against other memebers is not a valid means of trying to impose your will over what other editors should write. --210835a 08:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not trying to "impose my will", simply alerting other editors to what I see as an attempt for a banned (General Tojo; see also WP:TOJO) to circumvent the system. As for whether or not you are the same user, I'll let your contribution list speak for itself. -- MarcoTolo 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)

Thank you, MarcoTolo, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand

I viewed the messages connected with the editing of Kent Hovind'd page, and I understand the situation now. It won't be a problem again. I know that a number of other users on this machine and IP make changes to articles from time to time, and I wouldn't want to get them blocked, as they have a lot of good information which is well sourced. Thanks for the heads up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.242.131 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 June 2007

Thank you for taking the time to learn about Wikipedia - I hope you continue to edit productively (we can always use good editors). -- MarcoTolo 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Genomics spammer

Hi Marco,

So I have begun de-spamming in earnest, and I now realize that I could probably use some help. Would you mind? Maybe if you could start at the top and work down... No pressure, if you don't have time or don't want to get involved 'tis no problem. Thanks a bunch!--DO11.10 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing - I'll work from the top down. -- MarcoTolo 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh thank you... I was starting to go a bit cross-eyed. Hopefully this doesn't end up resembling a game of lawn darts with a six year old.--DO11.10 01:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just finished working backwards - should be done now. Lawn darts, eh? Even in a less-litigious time I have a hard time imagining how someone ever thought "Hey! Dangerous pointy things would make great toys!".... Of course, they were a lot of fun.... <grin>. -- MarcoTolo 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is looking mighty pointy thingy my way. Could you pipe in when you get a chance? Thanks--DO11.10 01:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Levi

Was it correct to add the Independant's obit as a ref to this article? When it may or may not be the source. If it's just for further reading it could be put under External links. Unfortunately I omitted some of my sources - I must see if I can locate them :(. Cheers —Saltmarsh 06:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I added it as an inline ref to support the assertion that Levi had polio as a teenager. While it would be preferable to have a direct link to The Independent itself, as far as I can tell they do not offer free access to their archives. If your concern is that the obituary attributed to the newspaper is not, in fact, their work, I have access locally via microfilm to Independent back issues and can check the hard-copy. -- MarcoTolo 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (and apologies for grumbling) - and thanks for introducing me to the {{cite news}}, I have added another ref which is available on line. —Saltmarsh 06:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

PCBoard

Thanks for the correction of the PCBoard article. Of course COM-Port for Modems and not LPT-Port. I must have been sleeping :). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tojo

Hi, and thanks for your message. On a first glance, these could be quite possibly Tojo socks. Unfortunately, I am currently too busy in real life to take care of much here on Wikipedia. Sorry, -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No sweat - just having your opinion on the issue is helpful. Thanks much. -- MarcoTolo 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

new task force

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Hi MarcoTolo,
I'm impressed by the combination of science and public policy in your edit history--I hope you will consider signing on to a relevant project several editors have started. Let me know what you think!
cheers,
Cyrusc 06:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your prompt and informative response to my question at Cholera. Have a chocolate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.205.232 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 21 June 2007

You're welcome - and thanks for the chocolate. -- MarcoTolo 18:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. :) Chetblong 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)\

No sweat - thanks for getting the vandal up at AIV so quickly. -- MarcoTolo 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cancer straw poll

Hi. Thanks for participating in the straw poll. Just so you know, there is a huge body of scholarly research on the topic of cancer bacteria. A PubMed search for "bacteria [titl]", and limits (1) topic Cancer and (2) links to free full text, returns over 500 free full text articles, including 23 review articles. A brief look at the reviews brings up an interesting chicken-and-egg question: which comes first, (undetected) cancer or invasion by bacteria? --Una Smith 03:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Cancer. -- MarcoTolo 04:17, 3 July 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)

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)

E. Coli Move

I moved this page due to the fact that the full genous name is too difficult for many to spell and is very difficult to eventually find the page. The bacteria is very often referred to "E. Coli" throughout the media and society while the scientific name for E. Coli is more often used in a scientific setting. The scientific name is mentioned in the article though so it's not like there is no mentioning of the full scientific name in the article whatsoever. Redsox04 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Opera page rendering issue

Yes, that version is rendered correctly. Only minor problem is that references template is litle too right and rightmost part of it is covered by drugbox, (or maybe it just touches it) but nothing distracting, it's nearly unnoticeable.Errorneous 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response on morphogenetic field. Since I (a) am not at all trained in developmental biology and (b) don't have much time for Wikipedia these days, I really appreciate it.

Anville 20:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. Thanks for catching the Pharyngula ref - while I'd rather WP not have those sorts of problems, I'll settle for finding out about them so we can get them fixed. -- MarcoTolo 21:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears the article on the pharyngula stage itself needs some cleanup, too — I'm guessing contamination by creationist talking points, given all the "Haekel" references. Sigh. Anville 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of tuberous sclerosis

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

Poliomyelitis

I don't know if you have had a chance to look it over but, I have taken a fairly critical look at the article and clarified/rewrote a few sections. I think that it reads a bit better now. My take on the various sections is this:

History, eradication, prevention, treatment, diagnosis and cause are essentially "okay" with regard to flow, content, technical level etc.... Post-polio is probably all right as well. Recovery and complications might be a hair on the technical side and may need minor tweaking, but are (I think) well described.

Here are the problem sections, IMO:

• Transmission seems choppy, and "A number of factors increase the risk of polio infection or affect the severity of the disease including:" and the "plancental" aspect may be misplaced?
• Classification- is at maybe okay as just describing the types?
• Mechanism (intro) is just a big mess and I am not sure how to better arrange it. Should there be headers for "abortive and minor" and for "aseptic memigitis/ non-partlytic" and "paralytic" (with "spinal" and "bulbar" as subheadings)? I am not sure there is enough info to support these headers?
• "The likelihood of developing paralytic polio and the extent of paralysis increase with age....." is this misplaced, where should it go?
• Mechanism "spinal" and "bulbar" sections seem okay to me.
• I have no feelings toward Prognosis (intro) what so ever.

Sorry, this is sort of a stream-of-consciousness, I hope it makes some sense. Any ideas?--DO11.10 23:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response - Real Life issues. Overall, the article is much smoother - nice work. I'll have a chance this evening to comment more specifically and make changes from my notes. -- MarcoTolo 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

np, whenever you get a chance. I look forward to your comments.--DO11.10 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made my first big pass last night. Transmission is better, but still a little "jumpy"; the intro section of Mechanism is still somewhat directionless - have a few ideas that I'll pitch later tonight. Once we're happy with the overall form, I've got a handful of fact-checking items that should probably be addressed. Whoops, have to run - instrument time. -- MarcoTolo 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay...busy, busy. I like the changes that you have made, I have looked into a few of your parenthetical questions. Answers coming... Shall I post them here? I am, however, not sure about the 2007 Pakistan/Aussie thing added by an anon. Seems a bit like recentism to me. I think this section should be just the highlights, (probably the only major additions to this section should be either really big outbreak or a regional polio-free declaration) although it does clearly belong in the eradication article. Do you agree?--DO11.10 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, posting here makes the most sense. I'm unsure on the Pakistan Australia case - it does seems to put excessive emphasis on the recent nature of the event, but the question of whether it affected (or will affect) Australia's "polio-free" status makes the issue a bit ambiguous for me. Perhaps leaving a brief reference in the Poliomyelitis eradication entry and pulling it from the "master" article is a reasonable compromise (though, frankly, I'm not especially attached to leaving it at all). In other news, I picked-up copies of several polio and post-polio syndrome reference texts at lunch today in hopes of clarifying a few of the processes a little better (I suspect I'm having trouble imagining how to make some of the concepts more clear due to deficiencies in my own understanding of PV pathogenesis), as well as improving a few of the less-than-ideal refs - the awkward Encarta ref on quadriplegia in adults, some of the March of Dimes press releases, etc. -- MarcoTolo 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that Encarta ref is awkward, I never noticed that. I found a paper that states "quadriplegia occurred 2.5 to 3 times more often in adults than in children." PMID 2522741 and a convenience link to full text. Will that work?--DO11.10 20:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - that ref and link solve the problem nicely. Good find. -- MarcoTolo 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fact-checking Here they are (didn't miss any, did I?):

1. Two basic patterns of polio infection are described: -- still current?-- Well, most papers I have come across still describe polio this way, so I think it is still the backbone of the current classification system.
2. The mortality rate for these cases is extremely high. --number needed?-- Still working on it. (bkg) This was a "legacy" bit, I was able to verify the fulminating encephalitis part, but not the second sentence.

Okay, my exhaustive search (sigh) has confirmed that polio can cause encephalitis rarely, [1], and another non-authoritative but supporting source. Although I am not sure whether it is actually still called fulminating encephalitis or if it indeed occurs usually in immunocompromised individuals. I still can't find anything that supports the second sentence, so it should probably be removed. I suspect that there is an old case report out there (the same book and article kept coming up with my search parameters, unfortunately I couldn't actually read either, and couldn't find any other mention of it.) Thoughts?--DO11.10 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The "fulminating encephalitis" threw me, too. Which book and/or article keeps coming up in your searches? If its an old ref, I've got access to a decent "History of Medicine" library - and the collection of more current biomedical literature isn't half bad either. -- MarcoTolo 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The book is something called Excerpta Medica, I'm having a hard time retracing my steps to the article, but here are a few others that I came across and seemed to be related [2], [3]. Come to think of it, "fulminating" and "high mortality" in the face of "anti-virals" sounds an awful lot like rabies to me, which I notice tends comes right after polio in most texts. I'm just saying....--DO11.10 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Poliovirus infections are acquired orally, infecting the first cells they comes into contact with—the --follicular dendritic cells inside tonsilar germinal centers-- tonsils and intestinal M cells—... ?? seems a bit complex to me. Will look into it.

(btw This reads oddly to me... I think it is the wording infections -> infecting instead of virus -> infecting, I have changed it back but feel free to reword again.)--DO11.10 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the brilliant suggestions and fixes, Marco. So, I have updated the Encarta ref, and changed the encephalitis bit so that it is in line with the published sources. If you come across anymore information tho... I also added in the fDC inside the tonsils bit, but I thought it best to avoid the word "tonsilar", so hopefully it still reads okay the way that I wrote it? Any other suggestions/ideas? What about the mechanism intro?--DO11.10 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

importance

Hey, don't withdraw the query, I'm in the middle of answering it: it does not depend on the wording, but the meaning. It depends on what is being asserted. The way I think of it is that if it is anything that the author of the page could reasonably have thought notable, it escapes speedy. But it is used differently in some areas--for pop music, it seems to be used as "any reasonable chance of meeting the guidelines" -- but I do notusually speedy or delete or comment in that area at all.

Examples from current CSDs "Austin Systems is Austin's company live on YouTube." no indication that any reasonable person would think it important, I would delete.

"Robin Elliot is a presenter on Belfast CityBeat and NVTV. He is also a judge on the Young Star Search in Northern Ireland." so far below WP standards that no one aware of WP could think it important, but I leave it for others to delete.

"Timothy Haddigan is an American Scholar and Model. He is currently recording a rap album." this one is so impossible that I'd delete it myself.

For the article given, the person posting the article could and did reasonably believe that the position of Dean of that school was notable. It isn't, but that was another matter. Anyway, this is a matter that comes up from time to time at WP:CSD talk. My rationale for why it's better this way is that if there is any chance, its better that the community look--it's more consistent, and it saves time in getting the junk removed fast without needing to discuss it or deal with appeals. DGG (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for the clarification (and your clear examples) - I'd hadn't considered applying the reasonable person standard to the author/editor's intent. While more complicated in some sense, I do see the benefits of sending to AfD when even a little doubt exists. Again, thanks for the response. -- MarcoTolo 03:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your prod of Quantum dots in living cells

Hello. You recently proposed the deletion of Quantum dots in living cells. While you gave a good edit summary, your prod template provides no deletion rationale. I'm incapable of understanding the article, though I agree there are original synthesis concerns. Adding a rationale may help the author to understand what is happening. Just a heads up! Thanks and best regards TreeKittens 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's odd - when I added the {{subst:prod|reason}} tag I wrote "Article appears to synthesize multiple concepts violating WP:OR, and quotes other WP articles verbatim (Neurotransmitter, in particular). Copyvio concerns (section #1 is a close comparison to the fulltext of this article)" in the reason field. And yet you're right - it's not there now. Very odd. I'll re-add it now - thanks for the catch. -- MarcoTolo 03:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ha! If a URL appears in the reason field of a {{subst:prod}}, and if the URL contains an "=" symbol, the Mediawiki software interprets it inappropriately and ignores the entire field (see Template talk:Prod#Problem). -- MarcoTolo 03:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I thought it might have been some kind of glitch because of the strange nested {{{{{1}}} things. Anyway, thanks for sorting it so quickly. Best regards TreeKittens 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deconvolution

Hi there. Dunno if you noticed it, but you blanked out a bunch of content from Deconvolution. Usually, it's customary to use the page's talk page before making drastic changes. Cheers. --slakr 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that - should be fixed now. Thanks. -- MarcoTolo 20:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Flexibacter columnaris -> Flavobacterium columnarae

Hi, I just saw an edit conflict here: I'm part way through fixing this up, would you mind just holding on things until I have it sorted? Thanks! Coldmachine^Talk 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mind waiting, but you should read WP:MOVE#Moving_over_a_redirect so you don't obliterate the previous editing history of Flexibacter columnaris. -- MarcoTolo 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes and I'll post a more complete reply on your talk page. -- MarcoTolo 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! :) I'm a little confused ;-) Coldmachine^Talk 22:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up posted here. -- MarcoTolo 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you be interested in proofing an article on Emerging Gastrointestinal Pathogens?

Hi MarcoTolo, I think we have some interests in common. I just put together an article on the history of some Emerging Gastrointestinal Pathogens (Cholera, H Pylori, ETEC). Feedback welcome. The working version is at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Gastro_guy/emerg_work. Does it comply with NPOV? Small changes->Edit away. Big changes->email me or leave talk. Thanks! Gastro guy 23:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation - I'll post my comments on your talk page shortly. -- MarcoTolo 01:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Great comments. Send me more. New version is much shorter. Gastro guy 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Block a link spammer

Hi MarcoTolo. I see you have warned Shekharsuman about link spamming. I thought you might like to know the user did it again today, on tumor marker. Time to block this user? --Una Smith 12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Shekharsuman has asked for clarification (and you responded clearly), I'd wait to see if what the response is - if the link spamming continues, I'd recommend a 24-hour "stop-spamming-the-encyclopedia" block. -- MarcoTolo 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Leprosy

Thanks for dropping by. You are right in moving the section to the article on M. leprae... however, Leprosy now is devoid of the cause/etiology... It would have been worthwhile if you had added a few lines about it after you had moved the section. I would also like to add that i didnt contribute much to the article except in re-organizing it, erroneously following the standard convention of medical textbooks at first but later correcting it to WP:MEDMOS#Sections. -- Đõc §aмέέЯ  20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. I've restored a brief "Cause" section to Leprosy - expand as needed. -- MarcoTolo 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Excessive deletion of reference material — Lyme Disease

Hi MarcoTolo, and welcome to the Lyme Disease article. I'd like to discuss your edits generally as they relate to article length, and then more specifically as regards reasons for particular deletions. To help organize what is quite a long comment, I want to keep separate points in separate numbered sections below.

Consensus on what is the "right" length

As you're probably aware, the article achieved Good Article status in Feb 2007, and there has subsequently been discussion on the article length. I made the comment in July 2007 that the longest section by far was the References section, not as a criticism, but as part of supporting my view that the article was (at that date) appropriately well referenced and of appropriate depth and coverage in comparison to articles on other complex and controversial medical topics.

The consensus in mid August 2007 before you started making your edits was that the article was about the right length and was more in need of minor re-structuring and copy editing rather than shortening (or lengthening). I see you haven't commented in the article length discussion yet, and I'd welcome your thoughts if you'd like to join it (please follow up in the article length discussion only for this specific issue).

Reasons for reference deletions

I notice you seem to be suddenly doing a large number of edits — more than 50 edits in two days, and I think you are doing very good work as far as tidying up reference formats, copy editing, and minor re-structuring. However, with no prior discussion, you also deleted a surprisingly large number of references — I counted more than 40 unique references deleted by you in your 52 latest edits.

Whilst I agree that references that are redundant or superceded by newer results should be deleted, it is not clear that these reasons consistently apply to your deletions. Can you explain why you deleted so many references? Is your aim simply to find ways of shortening the References section? If so, it relates to the discussion of what is an appropriate length for this article and should be discussed there first as part of the consensus building (please follow up there). If not, please follow up here.

Need for multiple references per sentence

In several of your edits you seem to have deleted any references that were grouped together at the end of a sentence, and replaced them by a single reference, e.g. [4], [5], [6]. My concern is that the references at the end of a sentence containing multiple assertions could well be supporting two or more different subsets of those assertions, and in such cases (which may be common) the references are not all redundant and it would be clearly wrong to remove all except one.

Cross-checking references vs. assertions in article

How did you decide the references you deleted fall into the redundant or superceded categories? To be certain I would expect to read and cross-check the contents of each of the references against the corresponding assertions in the article. It would take me considerably more than two days to do that for over 40 references. Did you actually read each and every one of the 40-plus deleted references confirming that what it says fits with your reasons for deleting it?

At first glance, many of the citations you deleted appear to be of relatively recent articles from high quality journals (WP:RS) reporting very specific results. Whoever originally added them to the article seems to be very familiar with the literature and seems to have given much careful thought (bearing WP:GOODFAITH in mind) as to which references to use. It seems like the result of a lot of diligent work by a previous editor, and it would be a shame to revert such good work without having very good reasons.

Other deletions of references

Some of your edit summaries are a bit misleading, e.g. it was not immediately obvious from [7] "(Copyedits. Removing Burgdorfer ref (further research does not appear to support transmission in these vectors). Ref cleanup.)" that you also deleted the MacDonald(1989) reference on congenital transmission of Lyme disease. What were your reasons for deleting MacDonald(1989)?

Regarding your deletion of the Burgdorfer(1998) reference, you made the claim that "further research does not appear to support transmission in these vectors", which is a strong claim. Can you provide a recent citation to support it?

Deletions of co-authors' names

You truncated many of the existing references at the third author, e.g. [8]. This hides potentially important and useful information on who were the research group leaders involved in the work behind the publication, because such people are quite commonly listed at the end of a list of authors, despite being highly notable researchers. Hiding any co-author names greatly reduces the immediate utility of the references in the article, and saves relatively very little space (~300 bytes). I propose these names be re-inserted. Unfortunately it is not a simple reversion because your edits to co-author names also included other edits.

Deletion of internal link to related article

You deleted the internal link to Type I and type II errors which previously clarified the meaning of "erroneous test results" which is otherwise ambiguous and frequently misinterpreted by lay people. I think it is appropriate in this case to clarify the meaning, and I propose to restore the link unless you have any objections.

Consensus

Many Wikipedia articles receive criticism for lack of references, but the consensus is that this article has stood out for being mostly very thoroughly and appropriately referenced.

My comments here are intended constructively. I hope we can generate some discussion of the issues, and build a consensus on what to do next. -- Neparis 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:ONCOLOGY

I am trying to gauge what the interest would be for a WP:ONCOLOGY category. This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standards of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles.

If this is something you are interested in, please sign underneath the relevant section at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Oncology

Regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Hi. I've missed seeing you in my watchlist. Hope you're enjoying a break. Let me know if you have plans to take Polio to FA and I'll have a look at it again. Colin°^Talk 07:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

MCOTW

JFW | T@lk 12:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marco !!?

Just in case you didn't check, I sent you an email a while back... I hope to hear from you soon, wherever you happen to land :) --DO11.10 03:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Why on earth hasn't anybody nominated you for adminship yet? When you get back drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Polio has been Featured!

Hi Marco, I wanted to let you know that Polio made it through FAC with flying colors. Thank you for all of your help, etc...! I hope to see you around soon!--DO11.10 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/RNA interference

Just a note of a review of this article, though a fairly minor one - it needs a few copyedits to make it layman-friendly, no more than that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 15:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs). Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.

Haven't seen you in a while; I hope all is well. Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 15:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)