User talk:Zad68/Archive 2013 Mar

Good article nomination for fecal incontinence article

No worries about delay, take care. Lesion (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly no problem, take your time. There are almost indefinite other articles to keep me busy =) Lesion (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued work on this troublesome article. I am busy tomorrow, but I should be able to take things forward from here after this. The end is in sight... Lesion (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been stop and go, I think we're both working on other things at the same time, but that's OK. I still need to finish another review of the prose. Zad68 02:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

David Colquhoun

Zad--You might find this website by DC entertaining:

http://www.dcscience.net/

David is one of the leading pharmacologists in the world, a hardcore traveller, and an all around good guy. The "Quackometer" in the links on the right side of the page is fun. BTW can anyone contribute to a DRN, even if not originally involved or invited? Thanks, Desoto10 (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision

Hi. I had deleted this content from the talk page[1] because it was copied directly this web site, and I was concerned it was a copyright violation. I forgot to use an edit summary to explain my edit, but I did explain it to the person who added it on their talk page.[2] Anyway, I haven't undone your edit or anything, I just wanted to explain myself. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Dawn. Zad68 05:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Intactivists in full swing again

I see they are mounting another full-court press, hoping to turn the article into the same kind of abomination as German wp's article on the topic. Well, good luck to you. When you retire from WP, it'll be Katie bar the door :( 89.204.130.151 (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern. As long as Wikipedia's policies regarding sourcing and article content continue to be implemented properly, by myself and the others at the article, there shouldn't be any long-term concern that the article will end up skewed by those engaged in advocacy. Feel free to help out at the article yourself! Have you considered registered for an account? Cheers... Zad68 13:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of crazy going on there. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what "no comment" sounds like... Zad68 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Cotton-top tamarin GAN

Hi Zad68, thanks again for your first GA review of cotton-top tamarin, I've made all the changes you've suggested and added sections on Habitat and distribution and Ecology. The article is in quite a bit better shape than it was. It'd be great if you would have a look over it again, if you have time. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, I will pick it up again as soon as I can, over the next few days. Zad68 18:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Zad68, I just thought I'd let you know that I posted a query on WT:GAN about your reuse of the GA1 review for GA2. I can't recall seeing it done, and I wanted to check in case there are issues with combining them. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the concern... I replied where you commented. To me it seemed like no big deal to do it that way, the important thing is that we end up with a GA. However if there are compelling process reasons to have to do it as an "official" second GA review I'll do it that way. Zad68 18:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think the second review aught to be done on /GA2 not /GA1. I can see why it was done that way, but they are not the same review and the same "ease of use" could be obtained by simply be copying and pasting the relevant blocks of text from /GA1 to /GA2. That, in effect, is mostly taking out the block of text prior to the GA Table, since it is solely relevant to the /GA1 review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, move to GA2 complete. Zad68 04:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

personal opinion?

Excuse me, where did i say personal opinion? I have mentioned available evidence. Thank you. You have suggested me to differentiate between ingestion and topical application. All i'm asking if i got you right. Ryanspir (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You asked me what I thought. You asked me to comment on "so you are saying..." and what I might want to say about the topic doesn't matter. All that matters is what the sources say. Zad68 20:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, i have said: what are you saying. But i was referring to the distinction you have suggested. Was what you have written, the suggestion, a personal opinion? I have considered it as summarization. Thank you, i hope its not trouble for you to clarify. Ryanspir (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

OK great. I have no response for you other than the question I left for you at the article Talk page. Zad68 20:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Responded on the talk page. Ryanspir (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The moment you've been waiting for...

Research status of manual and manipulative therapy! I want to personally thank you for your constructive criticism and insightful comments on the philosophy section. I assume this one [3] might be of interest to you. Regards, DVMt (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DVMt but it might take me a few days to get to it. I don't like to jump into these conversations without actually reading the sources. I do want to participate though. Zad68 15:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I know it's a lot to parse through. If you want just a nibble here [4] this one could be short and sweet. `DVMt (talk)

Re thimerosal paragraph deletion request

Zad,

I wanted to let you know that I'm working my through the source material (Aschner, Magos, and others - re the "lower risk of brain damage"), but the chemistry is complicated and I'm extremely busy. So I hope you'll be able to give me an adequate amount of time to respond.

PS: I updated / improved the 'FYI' part of my request.

All the best, Seipjere (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war? versus misrepresentation by Jmh (Doc)

I hoped you would reconsider your characterization of my edits here [[5]]32cllou (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)