User talk:Xasodfuih/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Re: December 2008

In response to the message posted on my talk page, you can see the following statement in the revision history of the article: "fact about 1800 trips was unsourced, other revision was just a reformat." And thanks for the welcome. Welcome to Wikipedia to you too. Mikco (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Source for number, which was given in the article, and you deleted. All you had to do was click on "page 2". Xasodfuih (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That citation wasn't clearly attributed. Either way, wording made it sound as if there were 1,800 separate trips, so that was changed. Also reverting the reformatting was unnecessary (the sentence split). Mikco (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xasodfuih, Wapondaponda (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is bliss, I guess. Tell me please... What has been reverted? Oh, that's right... The last revert of my editing was made by you over 50 edits ago. Baseless attacks have no place here. Mikco (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 14 December, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Bernard L. Madoff, which you helped update. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bernard L. Madoff

Don't template me. I gave my reasons for the edit in the summary and on the talk page. Take it up with me there. Anti-Jewish sentiment has no place in this article. Wikilost (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Is Haaretz anti-Jewish to you? Xasodfuih (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Please rescind your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Ewert -- articles have been merged. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you start this page? I'll admit to being partial to the Ewert article -- but I think they should be merged into the latter. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

M249 SAW GA review

Hey Xasodfuin, I think I have addressed most your concerns at Talk:M249 Squad Automatic Weapon/GA1. Please check back. Thanks for the review.--Patton^t/c 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Done the citations :-).--Patton^t/c 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

I am ready for further consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your latest comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you have any more comments, but I have responded to what I saw.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

PDFs for Anatoly Koryagin

Hi Xasodfuih -- Usually the DYKers go with assuming good faith on properly cited references that are not readily available online, and lack of an explicit check shouldn't put selectors off. However, if you want to e-mail pdfs then the Science and Lancet articles on which the hook is based would be useful. (I'm actually a Lancet subscriber, but I can't work out how to get at the pre-1990s articles.) Drop me a talk page note if you do e-mail, as I've been having e-mail problems recently. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK Dew and Geranium

Hello, I responded to your comments on my DYK suggestions for Operations Dew and Geranium at T:TDYK, I also responded to your comment at Talk:Operation Dew, just so you know. Thanks. --IvoShandor (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a fairly critical eye, good at catching things others might miss. Do you have a lot of knowledge in CBW? I could sure use the help. I know I need another pair of eyes on United States biological weapons program. Which, when I got there looked like this, so I have done a lot of work on it. I know its far from complete, but would you be willing to take a look at some point down the road? --IvoShandor (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, down the road :-) These days I'm trying to improve the scientific coverage of anabolic steroids in Wikipedia. No easy task given that some opinionated AAS users edit here. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not anything that needs to happen now by any means, just hoping I could contact you in the future really. I had no idea about the steroid users, interesting. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jenapharm DYK nomination

Nice article. Looks like it's been selected. Thanks for checking out my suggestion -- plant physiologists aren't the sexiest of topics! Espresso Addict (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jenapharm

On January 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jenapharm, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan Cabal

Inre this diff. That sentence about him writing for CounterPunch was tagged for a cite, as if his writing for them was in doubt or being questioned. Ading the link to his article on the CounterPunch website was simply a way to show "See... he does write for them". Of course, that he does so and that it has been a matter of controversy is (now) already covered in other citations, so I was at a loss to understand why someone had tagged this for a citation. I should have simply removed the tag and explained why it was not required. Please accept my thanks for your clarity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Leonid Plyushch

On January 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leonid Plyushch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Anatoly Koryagin

On January 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anatoly Koryagin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Animal testing

Good work, I think you've greatly improved that article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Atheist bus campaign

Hi, I added a short comment here, maybe you can come and help improve the article? --DarTar (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Source

Re, Carroll: Then as you know, it has use as a limited source. I don't think I have used it for any incredible claims, at least I have tried not to, per Reid Kirby's Army Chemical Review, review. If you will. But, please, if you think any of the claims I have cited to Carroll are crazy, which, again, I don't think I used him for anything off the wall, please remove them. I really tried to be careful with him and stick to items that weren't really that incredible, I thought I made good use of a questionable source. I can understand the knee jerk here, but I urge you to take a deeper look at what I am doing. --IvoShandor (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You really think Bldg 101 isn't individually notalbe? Really? I mean, I guess it could be merged with the mess at Plum Island Animal Disease Center, but I really do think there be sources out there for it, they may not be online, but I believe they are there. Of course, we are free to disagree or get in a big, not so important, AFD fight too. No hold barred, hey. ;-) --IvoShandor (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like deleting articles, which is why I proposed merging, but there's approximately one paragraph in that article that says something specific about that building. Perhaps you could expand it? You seem to have the sources on hand. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I do, but that one is particularly obscure. I think a lot of the documentation probably exists in government documents, which are, arguably, reliable, at least for this facility, but I'm also not gonna raise a big fuss about it, i think that the sources for that article's expansion exist and that any merger would one day result in a split, especially if I get to a nice library. But, again, I am not looking for a fight. --IvoShandor (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You are a Winner!!!!!!!!!!!!

I present you this cake for being the first one to create an "Ukrainian" article (Anatoly Koryagin) this year! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

On second look it seems that Leonid Plyushch is the first "Ukrainian" article of this year, but you wrote that to, so you are still the first :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yummy, thank you :) Xasodfuih (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Great minds, etc.

It looks like we both grabbed the Juste de Juste hook for the next/next next update queues. One of those needs to be replaced, of course. Any thoughts? - Dravecky (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle_of_the_Strait_of_Otranto_(1917) was next on my list of nice pictures. I'll let you add it. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

N.B.: I've done it myself. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were adding it to the queue you were working on. Luckily, I was able to resolve the edit conflict and save my other edits. - Dravecky (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've learned to save often on the wiki :) Xasodfuih (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thomas D. Brock

Hi Xasodfuih, thank you for your feedback at DYK. I responded asking for advice on how to proceed. I thought everything in the hook was covered in the Career section, and discovery of this bacteria is what he is famous for, so I'm not exactly sure what else to mention about him. Any further help and advice you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks! --MPerel 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, using some obscure fact from his bio would be a bad idea. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Xasodfuih, for taking the time to review and re-review and all the work you do! : ) --MPerel 01:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New proposal at DYK

Hey Xasodfuih, thanks for making your suggestion at WT:DYK. I was wondering, though, if you could instead move it down to a new section at the bottom (with a message, too, rather than just the proposal)? Just because the poll where you posted it is, as far as I know, more or less inactive, so it would probably be more useful to start a new discussion. (This probably means attention will be taken away from my request for feedback about the new template for making nominations, but oh well....such is life.) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I followed your advice. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hyodeoxycholic acid

On January 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hyodeoxycholic acid, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

La Question

I can see how there could be a case to include the quotes in the references in the text, but not all clarification should be there. It specifically says it's NOTES and references. We could try overhauling the entire reference system in the article, but the current one is doing its job. What I don't get is when you say: apparent non-native English. I've seen no apparent grammar or style mishaps. Can you give some examples? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• By the way, how does any of this mean it doesn't meet DYK guidelines? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to feature articles with clunky English on the main page, be my guest, you're the admin. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK rules

Xasodfuih, you don't have consensus for your proposed DYK Rules reorganization. I suggest you make your proposed changes to a sandbox page, then leave a link to your changes at DYK discussion and we can discuss them there. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ain't gonna bother working on them if people don't like the idea. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Paracetamol

Hi there!

I've got a two questions regarding your recent edits at Talk:Paracetamol/Archive_2#subsections_of_.22chemistry.22.3F. Just wanted to bring it to your attention, thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your blocking request

Quick hands! You didn't even ask me for a consensus. I am an old hand myself. So stop the crap. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had the impression you were still at it. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback hyodeoxycholic acid

Compressed for my sanity

You have rolled it back to a version which still contains manually inserted breaks, however at illogical places. it is x,y-dihydroxy-
y,z-dimethyl etc. Not x,y
-dihydroxy-y,z
-dimethyl. And I fixed it such that it is logically coherent. Now in your rollback it looks like written by a chemical illiterate and still has manual wrap in it. revert to my version, that is better. trust me. also you rolled back insertion of reflist 70.137.173.82 (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The illiterate version, as you call it, was inserted by a mathematician (User:CBM); nobody besides him and you had problems with the infobox. I for one could not care less where the line breaks happen in the IUPAC name. Also, I don't see why you're wasting your time changing one reflist syntax to another when they both work equally well. How about writing an article? Xasodfuih (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am mathematician myself, but also had chem classes. The arrangement as edited in my revision facilitates reading. reflist allows a centralized update of the reference list format in the reflist macro, should the need arise. I have done major proofreading and editing on many articles (look at temazepam and discussion), only you can't see it, because I have variable IPA 70.137.x.x. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Two days you said you were an electrician. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. grad engineer EE, followed by classes in math (extended) and some chem classes. working in R&D since 70s. But I can still solder. My main field was systems and algorithms, systems architect of semiconductor circuits. Now retired. That kind of electrician. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And the illiterate version still contains manually inserted breaks. The spaces I used give the display algorithm more freedom to adjust as sees fit. If you remove the still present breaks it pumps up the box to huge size. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is a reason that CBM and me as mathematicians have problems with your chem box? (even if I find my layout more logical than his) I suspect the problem cannot be fixed in the chembox script. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the reason is that mathematicians use Unix and the browsers available for it, or firefox. The problem does not show up on IE6. IE6 seems to recognize the dash, the brackets and square brackets as separator characters for word wrap. FF 2.x does not. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm using FF 3.x and it has no problems breaking those lines. Time to upgrade? Xasodfuih (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't upgrade on my home computer, 64Mb win98. Not supported by ff3. No money for something better. fixed income, retired, no need for systems architects, main problem of selling an old fart in silicon valley, with so many cheap youngsters around. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Did a line wrap experiment on chenodeoxycholic acid. This displays totally garbled on ff2.x, not very nice but wrapped around in ie6. with spaces inserted it displays very nice on both. ff3 I could not try, you know. You have to care for the least common denominator of browsers out there. So it ABSOLUTELY has to work with everything, thats how portable texts work. Think of other nonPC clients as well. So you will need to fix that, you can't say BAAH, time to upgrade, thats what I am telling you as a professional.

p.s. Hard to work with you, people. You think everybody else is a charlatan. Never came to your mind what you can potentially study until your 60s? Yes you can be electrician and mathematician at the same time in the 5th decade of professional work and study. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to count, that I worked since '64, in a radiation counter lab, in factory for electrical motors, in a factory for nautical instruments. Took evening classes. then full time study, grad engineer EE degree in spring '69. Part time R&D lab electronics, classes math, physics, chem, to my taste. First patent in the 70's. Entered full time industry position '75. Participated in first attempts of digital video processing '78. Electrical filtering, first large LC filters, with their specific mathematical methods of synthesis (See "Cauer, Theorie der linearen Wechselstromschaltungen") now moving focus to digital filters. Highly mathematical construction problem. First projections of microcoded digital signal processing, but several technology generations away from feasibility. Integrated solutions hardwired feasible before the generalized programmable approach. Endless detail work. Nonlinear optimization as a design tool. Variants of modified Gauss-Newton, Levenberg Marquardt methods, attempts to make it foolproof stable as design tool. (You know, the approximation of frequency domain constraints with time domain /transient response requirements) Seeking compromise between group delay and amplitude reqs in all-pass free systems. Heavy simulation problems, the upcoming era of register transfer languages to get behavioral and cycle-accurate simulations of digital signal processing. Building of compilers for such RTL, mixed with gate level blocks. Pseudocode generation, true machine language generation, attempts to push primitives down to microcode. Microprocessors developing, single chip controllers. Many problems with video speed converters, particularly testability. Much need for mathematical approaches, stuck-at model. Howto. No commercial testers available, helping out with factory automation. Son-do-all solves much of it. Upcoming electronic identification cards, security processors, building of new instruction set architectures for embedded and security and embedded security. It becomes feasible to pack a PDP11 class processor in a credit card, and he knows your finger print and two-factor authorization, RSA, Diffie-Hellman. Finally microprocessors have reached the speed for digital video processing, the old ideas from the seventies about programmable and microprogrammed video solutions have punched through the time-wall and become feasible. They were all infeasible through 25 years. Dreams become real. I participate at the fringe of such development and see my old dreams taking on a LIFE of its own. On the other hand the credit cards with a security processor become feasible and a commodity, they are to go into passports. What was NSA classified security processors for 300k$ is now a commodity for dollars and in your pocket without you even knowing. Now they will move into secure cell phones, which also pay your bills. A soapbox compresses video into a format for your Ipod. Analog TV superseded. No need for me any more, the problems are solved. And you ask me (in a squawky suspicious voice, I presume?) if I am now an electrician or a mathematician? Because I say so one day and different the next day? Sure I lied, what? Want to give me a job, or just curious? Want my resume and hire me? Or do you want to pull off the same stunt yourself? Now I am curious. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So I propose you stop bickering now, and recognize we have a problem with the display of long iupac, on browsers we have to realistically support. I propose to allow dash space, bracket space etc etc as iupac elements to facilitate readability and auto wrap. No chance that we all have to upgrade to ff3. Also consider display behavior on other clients, aim for portable text and the least common denominator. I have a grudge against so many people like you, who are jumping to conclusions immediately and act on a hunch and on a consensus of two, and then they become fidgety and insolent and try to block dissidents. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

block him, heeelp, block him fast, an emeeeergency, heelp, we have a vandaaal!. But first argue the case with me. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion to WP:CHEM because I'm not going to make this decision unilaterally. Please continue there, and stop posting a message on my talk page every hour. 13:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, last message, for your sanity: chill out, get an education and a facial and move out from your mother. Then everything will be ok. Relax, no more bad dreams and no more bad memories... And don't take it personal, we just improve wikipedia, ok? 70.137.173.82 (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hans Knöll

On January 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hans Knöll, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: DYK may need help

Sorry, but I don't have a lot of experience in updating DYK, so it might be more productive to ask another admin. PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) is usually able to help. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Vanilloid (Receptor) Rename and Merge

Vanilloids are actually a class of compounds which contain a vanillyl group ([1]), such as capsaicin and olvanil; I really don't know why the vanilloid page was about TRPVs and not their ligands. As for the merge, I don't think there's anything on the Vanilloid Receptor article that isn't already in the TRPV article. I'd propose just making a redirect from Vanilloid receptor to TRPV, and from Vanilloid to Vanillyl. This seems fairly non-controversial - thoughts? St3vo (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on WT:MCB. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

TRPV DYK

Hi. I just expanded the TRPV article close to 5X, please supply the "hook". Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work, but prose expanded less than 4x (2399 bytes of prose now vs. 725 when you started), so it will likely be rejected (per one of the obscure additional rules). I'll add more prose over the weekend (discovery etc.) if you don't have the time/inclination to expand it more yourself. Given the general ignorance of the public of biochem, I think that something basic like TRPVs working as thermometers and/or reacting to capsaicin (and some vanilloid that would sound familiar) and should be catchy enough for the hook. I'm not really familiar with TRPVs > 1; ideally the hook should be something general enough. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Harmon Northrop Morse

On January 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harmon Northrop Morse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hans Knöll

Hi Xasodfuih (how do you pronounce that ?). The german article only cites two books in general. I did not find a particular source for the statements about NSDAP and SA memberships. Therefore I requested Einzelnachweise on the german articles talk page. Let's see what will happen. Regards, --Drahkrub (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not in the first book, because I've checked that one (it's available on Google books). So, it has to be from the 2nd. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A citation and an online link to the cited source (Bundesstiftung Aufarbeitung - a german federal foundation) has been added to the german article. Please let me know if you need any assistance with the german source. Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for TRPV

On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article TRPV, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Toxic headache

Hi Xasodfuih,

I understand your frustrations with our poor articles on headaches and the deletionist behaviour of some of us (including myself). However, whatever happens, try not taking things personally, and not attacking other editors personally, even if it is done humorously or ironically (1).

Keep up your great contributions,

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I telediagnose you with an acute form of adminitis. How is that for a personal attack? ;) Xasodfuih (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That might be funny and true, but still inappropriate. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I really don't understand why you felt the need to attack my userboxes. They might be insulted. In general, please do not accuse productive long-term editors of deletionism on the basis of a single AFD discussion. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking your userboxes or you for displaying them. I was however pointing out in no uncertain terms how ridiculous it is for a physician (to want) to delete an article asserting mainly that alcohol or a bacterial infection can give you a headache. Despite ICHD-2 gaining support, there's no universally accepted classification of headaches. The NINDS web site still uses the 1962 NIH classification, so it's not unreasonable to have articles on those. I pointed out on the AfD page that ICD-10 and ICHD-2 codes that cover most of the "toxic headaches" do exist. It just seemed absurd to me to delete that article despite the deletionist groupthink I saw on that AfD. I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked, but criticizing someone's deliberate actions is almost always critique of the person as well (despite the epistemological dichotomy asserted in WP:NPA). You guys can pontificate on this without me. I feel that too much of my time is spent appeasing the various advocates, those obsessed with obscure minutiae, and those with overly sensitive egos here. It's not fun anymore; not right now anyway. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Headache template

Thanks for trying to sort out the mess that is Wikipedia's headache content. However, I'm not entirely sure that every headache article without an ICHD definition needs another box telling us that. That is certainly the case on articles that have already been established to be good articles, such as idiopathic intracranial hypertension. What might be helpful is discussing the matter on talkpages.

I don't disagree that the headache classification is useful and relevant. In fact, the most recent classification is a rather enlightened document. Let me know what you think. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You could just add them to the Category:Articles lacking ICHD information if you want a less obvious notice. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Headaches

I think we have made some progress on organizing the headache articles. I think organizing them around the ICHD classification is a good idea as it encompasses all headache types and is internationally recognized. The headache page has become more like the Chest pain article. As always lots more to do. Have renamed the toxic headache page. I was unsure weather they were headaches due to toxins or headaches due to a fever. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a great job. Sorry I wasn't able to help more. I was feeling a little burned out of my experience, and I'm not having a lot of free time this week either. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Harmon Northrop Morse

Just added German translation de:Harmon Northrop Morse. Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet

I have nominated Paleolithic diet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume this is what you were meaning to do? I agree it does need a lot of work and probably doesn't belong as a medical page. It seems to be a fad diet supported by little evidence.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Serotonin syndrome GA

Hi there, thanks for your comments during the GA review for SS. I think I have addressed most of your suggestions, let me know if I missed anything or if further clarification is required (I added some comments to the review page). Thanks again, cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 01:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but Sasata is officially in charge there. I'll peek in later on time allowing. I'm working on expanding Libby Zion law for a DYK; reading serotonin syndrome gave me the incentive to work on that. :) Xasodfuih (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of pharmacology articles

• I have posted a new draft and would appreciate some feedback if you are available. kilbad (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Submitting articles to WP:FAC

Hey there, always nice to get a compliment on articles I helped with. Although I never really thought any of the articles I contributed to were quite good enough to be a FA. I think I might give serotonin syndrome a push and maybe see where that goes; btw thanks for the edits and comments on SS, they will be helpful in getting it towards better things, I may annoy you in the future for comments on how it's coming along :), Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 03:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pizzo source

Tip: check out Google Scholar if you want to find free copies of articles online. Also, if you email me, I can send you a copy of Yeung's published report. II | (t - c) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tip on Pizzo, I've got that one. I cannot seem to get the email interface to activate, so please send the Yeung paper my user name at gmail.com; I've exchange emails before with User:Espresso Addict, but I think we didn't use the wiki interface because of attachments. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

Thanks for catching those two problems in Water fluoridation. I attempted to fix them, and followed up in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. Would you please report any other bias problems you see? They should be fixed too. Eubulides (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for participating at FAC and your work in improving the article. It is very useful to have reviewers with access to journals, and who appreciate the need to stick to the sources. But please be careful to stick to reviewing the article at FAC, and not reviewing Eubulides. For example, state whether you think it has a "US-centric view" or not, not whether you think Eubulides is trying to push it that way. Please avoid saying any editor is behaving "mindlessly". Eubulides took a lot of trouble to explain his edits on the talk page; some editors would not be so considerate. I hope we can all work together to polish this article to FA. Colin°^Talk 18:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit carried away with the emphasis. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for contributing to our articles. If you are interested in making more contributions on cell biology and biochemistry topics, you might want to join the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject (signup here). You will be most welcome. - Tim Vickers (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

specific delusions

Hi Xasodfuih,

would you have another look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophrenia#Development_of_specific_delusions.

I agree with your criticism and have tried to stick to the original sources. In the first case I have added additional facts, but not additional ideas.

open to your feedback.

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans

No hard feelings on your review, I hope. Also, I tried to make clear to Axl that it was I who moved the History section because I agreed with you (that it seemed odd sandwiched between "epidemiology" and "veterinary aspects.) I chose to move it to the front, although (clearly) the other example was the end. Again, thank you for taking time out of your day to help! :-) Food_Puma 11:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fringe

When I call it fringe I meant that this is a small group running a hate campaign against quinonolones. I am not saying they do not occur but what is there is so far out of context.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If a group decides to campaign by grossly exaggerating the occurrence of side-effects, then calling them fringe is perfectly justified. However, often enough patients post on the wiki, and I'm trying to avoid coming across as insulting to them, especially to those that get plenty stigmatized in real life. Making this distinction can be pretty hard at times. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Paleo

Here is a comment on it: http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/ssp/27/ --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There's 1997 paper by the same authors which restates their position here (it's free I think, I can email it to you if needed). So there's not much need to read the electronically-unavailable NEJM '85 paper to find out what their assertions were. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

PMID 17891121

Sorry, my access to that article doesn't allow me to make copies. Perhaps you could ask at WP:RX or at WT:MED? Eubulides (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nature Sources

The reason why I put the {{refimprove}} tag is because all of the refs were from Wiki, or from the website of the journal itself. Per WP:VERIFY, sources should be reliable, and third party. In other words, perhaps other sources that are not from the Nature Reviews website should be used. Also, I would recommend trying to find the actual website/article for your second reference, instead of linking to the generic JCR article here on Wiki, that way people can head to the article themselves quickly and verify the Impact Factor you give. For someone like me who doesn't have much experience with medical and science journals (like most people here I think) I wouldn't have the foggiest idea on how to find that figure without a proper reference. :) Take care, Pax85 (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Journal Citation Reports aka JCR is a third party database which requires $$ to access—that's how they make money. (I and others have "free" institutional access to it.) Usually copies from older years can be found on various sites, but I would venture a guess that there's a copyright issue there. And JCR is where the important info (rating) comes from. What the journal contains is not controversial, and a third party source is not needed for that. If you have an issue with this practice, which is standard for journal articles, raise it at WP:JOURNAL. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you go. The saying "you learn something new everybody" holds true. :) Thank you for the pointers, and for the link to the WP:JOURNAL page! I was actually looking for something like that when I came across your article, but was unable to track it down... Pax85 (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation in Libby Zion law

I reviewed this article for DYK, and OKed it. However, it looks like reference 2 for the article is misidentified in the citation. The citation names the publisher as the New York Times, but it's on the New York Daily News website. Maybe it was published in the Times and later picked up in the Daily News, but I suspect this is a simple mistake. Please make sure that the right publication is named. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard had added that ref, and he also fixed it. Thanks for letting me know. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)