User talk:Axl/archive 11

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Ganfyd for deletion
The article Ganfyd is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ganfyd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Burhan Ahmed &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, this should be linked to Articles for deletion/Ganfyd (2nd_nomination) instead.  — Soap  —  12:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar!
Thank you very much! I've been busy lately, I'll try and address the remaining issues with you in the next couple of weeks. Lifebonzza (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lung cancer
Hey Axl, I'm sure you'll have noticed the edits at lung cancer. I notice that has previously edited the article, and most of the edits seem reasonable, but you might wish to have a look. JFW &#124; T@lk  08:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. I do have "Lung cancer" on my watchlist, but I no longer check every edit. Most recent edits have been vandalism, and usually are quickly reverted by other editors. I'll have a look at FeatherPluma's contribution. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

M.I.A.
Hm. Well, while I did say some things to Lifebonzza that were extremely diplomatic (I believe at one point I even said I hoped the article would be certified GA), with some distance I think awarding the article GA status was unwise. I think GA status will just make it that much more difficult for other editors to add information that Lifebonzza views unfavorably.

Honestly, that article has basically been usurped by someone who is obsessively invested in portraying its subject in a highly favorable light and has a long history of bullying other editors who attempt to contribute to it. I think a better course of action may have been to ban Lifebonzza from continuing to edit the article. But that was my first ever attempt at editing, so I didn't feel confident making that suggestion.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about your comments. I think that the best way to resolve this would be to involve the editors at WikiProject Musicians. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your comment here - Lifebonzza (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess my primary concern is that Lifebonzza not feel justified in bullying other editors who wish to contribute to the article. So long as she isn't putting up a fight when others want to amend it, I don't see a problem. Given her history, though, I fear that GA status will be used to undercut the validity of changes not made by her, as in "oh the article is GA and you're degrading it." Should this happen, I think it might be wise to prohibit her (perhaps only temporarily) from continuing to edit the piece.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is now a GA, and Atlantictire should now feel more pressure in refraining from inroducing any bias into the article, as should any other user. Should edits continue to be made (by Atlantictire/Hirschberg or anyone else) that are discredited on wiki talk pages or violate policy, they will be boldly and swiftly reverted without discussion. Should a user continue to violate policy, (through personal attacks, lack of good faith, article bias etc.,_ referring this user to a committee and achieving a ban isn't too much of a stretch. Happy editing! Lifebonzza (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ^^^I rest my case.
 * Lifebonzza has a highly tendentious, I would even say paranoid idea of what constitutes "bias" and "attacks", and editors who make changes she dislikes will likely see their contributions "swiftly" reversed, with the explanation that "the article is now GA".
 * I for one, have 0 interest in making any further edits to the M.I.A. article and haven't since I was reviewing it. Hirschberg is a NYTimes reporter, and it sounds as if Lifebonzza either believes that this reporter is attempting to sabotage the M.I.A. Wikipedia page or she thinks I'm Hirschberg. I'm sorry if Lifebonzza takes offense, but that is a little paranoid.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease
Nope. I was not referring to you but to Snowman. However things have precipitated and he changed to support and the article was promoted within hours of my post at WP:MED. I feel that your comments at FAC have been highly useful, constructive and encouraging. Moreover: while the article has been promoted if you feel like continuing your review I would be more than willing to fix anything you find. Many thanks for your hard work again. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Inka 888
Yea, I gave the thumbs up to the RfA via email. The Reason I didn't want to nominate the RfA is that I personally wasn't comfortable with the nomination process. Also, I'm kind of on Wikibreak because of lack of access of internet.-- intelati  talk  15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. It's a shame that you were uncomfortable with the nomination process. It would have created a stronger endorsement for Inka 888. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

LEMS
Thanks for your edits to the LEMS article a couple of days back. Any hope of you reviewing it for GAC? JFW &#124; T@lk  00:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I have the time/energy to give it a full review at the moment. I'm just off the back of an epic GA review and I'm still finishing up with "Parkinson's disease" FAC. If someone hasn't started the review by next week, I'll do it. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 11, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 11, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 06:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 

Parkinson's disease is an age-related degenerative disorder of the human brain. It rarely arises before the age of 40, but afflicts more than 1% of people over 60 and 4% of people over 80. The most obvious symptoms are movement-related, including shaking, rigidity, slowness of movement and difficulty with walking gait. Cognitive, sensory, sleep and emotional problems may also occur, especially in the later stages. The most noticeable symptoms are brought about by the death of brain cells that produce the chemical dopamine. Some cases are caused by genetic factors, but for most cases the causes are not known. Diagnosis is based on assessment of symptoms. In spite of extensive scientific research, no cure has yet been found. Modern treatments are effective at managing the early motor symptoms of the disease, mainly through the use of levodopa and dopamine agonists. In the later stages, however, these treatments gradually lose their effectiveness. The disease is named after British apothecary James Parkinson, and his birthday, April 11, has been designated Parkinson's Disease Day. (more...)

]

Thanks for the Barnstar!!!
Dear Axl:

Hey, I GREATLY APPRECIATE your thoughtfulness and courtesy in giving me a Barnstar! I humbly accept it, and will try to use it as a motivator to contribute more substantially, and with higher quality, in coming weeks and months.

Interestingly enough, I'd thought about you a time or two recently, and had (tenuously) planned on checking in to see what you'd been up to. However, with approximately a googleplex number of other things commanding my attention in real life - most of which involve a severe green-colored hemorrhage from my buttock right where I carry my wallet, I'd not gotten around to actually DOING so.

Listen - if you find yourself with a minute to waste, or have an urgent need to humor an old man, drop me a note and let me know what led you to do that for me? I really haven't been doing anywhere nearly as much as I should be doing to add significant tangible value to the project lately, so I'm particularly curious as to why you would do this.

I'd also be quite interested in knowing if there's anything in particular you'd like ME to do for YOU ... not as "payback", of course, but just in the spirit of friendly cooperation to advance the project, or to take a chore off your back that you aren't all that keen on doing. I'd be very glad to help, so just let me know at your convenience.

Hoping all is well for you and your loved ones, and wishing you the best of luck, I remain

Your Wikifriend and fan: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. That whole hyphen thing got to me so bad its unreal. The place is STILL a mess. Appreciate you paying attention and everything. See you around.
 * Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You Got SERIOUS Problems, Doc ...

 * 1. You been nice to me, and you also know the statistical law referred to as "No good deed goes unpunished" (p<0.000001)
 * 2. You're a Doc. Ergo, you give a damn. Q.E.D.
 * 3. Your User Page reveals that one of your "Specialist Subjects" is (quote), "Spelling!" [emphasis in original].


 * Therefore, given 1-3 above, its no quantum leap to deduce that your friend Cliff IS NO DOUBT about to take a giant crap on you by asking if you could recover my fumble. I started an article called "EML4-ALK positive lung cancer" the other day, and intended to hammer down on this new and arguably very important variant of NSCLC. (Aside: you did see the clinical trials of crizotinib, didn't you? Quite impressive for a start, eh?)


 * Back to point: I guess when I started the damn thing, I entered the title as "ELM4-ALK positive lung cancer", a transposition of L and the M. I don't know how to fix this. Can you fix the title? Or since all I did was create the page and define it, so if its easier to just delete the darned thing and start over, go ahead - or tell me how to, or gimme permission, or whatever you think.


 * Or pass the request to some other "honcho" ... HEY, I mean ANYONE BUT Kwami, that is, or else we are ABSOLUTELY SURE to end up with a BIZARRE article name like "EML*4#~ALK?-positive+ lung>cancer. No doubt the dude will argue that its CRITICAL to do it his way, because THERE MAY EXIST SOMEWHERE ON EARTH an (IQ=60) lay reader who JUST MIGHT POSSIBLY misunderstand the way its written in EVERY SINGLE BY-GOD PAPER EVER PUBLISHED ON IT!


 * To BE MAXIMALLY PROACTIVE, and DEFINITIVELY PREVENT such a cataclysmic problem, then it follows directly that YOU MUST:


 * (a) keep the asterisk (*) there because - as you know - the "EML4" means Echinoderm Microtubule-Like 4, and we sure WOULD NOT want someone thinking it's the ACTUAL microtubule protein 4, you know, like from a REAL friggin' echinoderm, or else these folks COULD think they've suddenly mutated into a form of primitive sea creature;
 * (b) keep the number sign (#) next to the 4 (else they MAY BE TERRIFIED that they have FOUR cancers, instead of one;
 * (c) keep the question mark next to the ALK, because the A stands for "anaplastic", so how in christs name can we be sure of WHAT THE FRICK kind of cell that lymphoma, if it IS actually a freaking lymphoma, and not some obscure immune system cell that's lost its ENDASH gene, putting it in the "Finagle Ontogeny Class", and after undergoing DOUBLE MYSTERIOUS/SECRET-PROBATION-type histogenesis!
 * (d) keep the + sign next to the word "positive", to avoid confusing them with the ambiguity innate and inherent to the * and the ?, and because the word "positive" depends on having some arbitrary zero and an arbitrary "greater than that" direction; and lastly;
 * (e) keep the arrow > sign between lung and cancer, sop no one will wonder whether they have a lung with a cancer growing in it, or whether they have the somewhat-less-common situation wherein they were born WITHOUT a lung on that side, but instead, were born with just a lung-sized pulmonary carcinoma in that hemithorax that has, in the intervening decades, mostly "forward-differentiated" almost completely, forming most of a normal lung, with only a small portion remaining as lung cancer.


 * Hey - I had a blast writing this. Hope you enjoy it! And if you would, can you help me out on the misspelled article title?


 * With tongue shoved deep into my buccal area, and with my very best regards, I remain :-)


 * Your Wikifriend and fan:
 * Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL. Very funny. :-)


 * I have moved the article to the correctly spelt title. This leaves the original title as a redirect that I have nominated for deletion. (If I was an admin, I would be able to delete the redirect myself.) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  06:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the "heads-up" on my page. Your analysis is, as usual, astute and on-point. You ever wanna get into the forensics game, and do murder trials and cool stuff like I do in the real world, lemme know and I will get you retained. OOPS, wait a sec - we do medmal cases too. Never mind ... LOL! Back to the issue at hand - I am going to post my "big load" argument tomorrow, when I have time. And you know - I HATE THIS STUFF. Its really taken a lot of the fun out of this, and this Wikistuff has been one of the funnest things I've done in a long time. I'm telling, you, my friend, before I'm finished the lung cancer variant articles will be BY FAR the best sources on these things available to ANYONE. Guar-an-damn-teeit! I know they aren't MY articles, and I'm GLAD everyone can edit whatever they want, BUT ... it ticks me off SEVERELY when dudes who know SQUAT about the subject they are writing on want to muck up things like this. Myself, I try to ask permission of the main guys working on something BEFORE I EVEN PASS GAS, just out of courtesy, even if its something that I have a lot of knowledge about, even if its copyediting for "sentence flow" and semi-minor stuff like that. This Kwami dude thinks he's God around here, won't clean up his messes, even DELIBERATELY (in my opinion) LIES about sources, and interpretations of arguments, etc. I vented on one dude over this and told him "man, if I was on the street with this Kwami guy I'd bust him in the mouth". Sentiment was correct, statement was just Cliff-puffery. But I said it to illustrate the depth and bread of my ANGER. LOL!


 * You know, one of these days you should gimme a call and let's yak. You seem like an interesting guy. My number is 618-922-3918. Hey, if you are interested in peer-reviewed publications in cancer, go to my User page and look at what I posted under "my research" about giant cell lung carcinoma being more common in female non-smokers than in male non-smokers. Nobody's published that yet, would prob getcha in a decent journal. Of course only thing I did was compile stats from case reports going back to 1958, so theres some minor concerns with validity due to publishing bias, but HEY - ITS EPIDEMIOLOGY, not exactly a super hard science. LOL!


 * Your buddy and fan: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
For your input at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Ward20 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm Probably TOAST
I just lost my mind and UNLOADED on old Kwami! LOL! They will probably block me for it too, no doubt. In any case, I wanted to let you know ASAP so you could maybe get a laugh or two out of it. This dude has TICKED ME OFF worse than ANYONE in recent memory. TTYL, Doc. *firm handshake*

Your buddy: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Axl
... for saying what you said, even after I came unglued publicly. I gotta tell you that I wish I hadn't, but JEEZ - I did a search of ANI and a few other places and the guy has had a COUPLE DOZEN complaints, some EXTREMELY egregious, and nobody will do ANYTHING. Boy, I work in criminal law every day, and sure wish OUR judges were lenient like that! ........ well, then again I really DON'T, or there would be lots more thugs walking the streets. You get my drift though.

Supposedly the one honcho told Kwami not to edit medical articles, so maybe he will stay gone. I'm starting on a list of stuff he's screwed up, and will put some time in fixing it over the next week or so ... to pay my penance for shooting off my big mouth.

Again, DAMN nice of you to speak up like that, though - getting your "kooky" friends back and all :-O

Your friend: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I was just saying what I think is right and best for Wikipedia as a whole. ["Nothing but the truth", although Wikipedia's policies prevent me from stating "the whole truth".] I'm glad that you're going to continue editing on Wikipedia. Best wishes. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rhabdo
Hullo Axl, thanks for your comments on the rhabdomyolysis peer review. I have responded to your last comments, and was hoping you were happy with those. In particular, I was wondering if you had any other thoughts on how to organise the list of "causes". Once you are happy I will probably close the PR (it's been there for two weeks) and proceed to FAC. Thanks again. JFW &#124; T@lk  13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the further comments, which I have addressed. Do you plan to offer further comments? I am happy to leave the PR page open for as long as you wish. Your grammatical/stylistic input is also much valued. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been somewhat busy over the last few days. I intend to make more comments over the next week or so. Thanks for keeping the PR open. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I much prefer your input at this stage and delivering it at FAC in a reasonable form.
 * I'm toying with the idea of starting work on pleural empyema. I've found a couple of nice secondary sources, and the new BTS guidelines look pretty comprehensive. JFW &#124; T@lk  12:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The updated BTS guidelines are long overdue. I'll keep my eye on the article. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Slow loris follow-up
Were you still waiting for better clarification about the cladogram on Slow loris for the FAC, or were there other issues I've missed. Please let me know if there are any lingering issues, and I will try to address them immediately. –  VisionHolder « talk » 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am waiting for another comment on the cladogram. I'll clarify this on the FAC page. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Goofy Section in Carcinoma Article
Hi Axl:

Hope things are well with you. I'm back from my hyphen-related emotional breakdown :-O

When you get a sec, take a look at the goofy "Differentiated Carcinoma" section that's been added to the end of the Carcinoma article. I'm planning on spending some time seriously "reworking" this article in coming days, but have not yet encountered a situation such as this ... meaning a large section that someone has probably put a lot of time into, and that contains SOME useful stuff, but most of which is ... how can I put this ... ummm, really horribly stinky?

Your advice would be appreciated. If I was making the call, I'd just blank the whole dreadful section and work what little useful/correct stuff is there into other places. However, I don't want to tick anyone off either, especially after all the work they did. What do you think?

Also, I *know* the article also needs a LOT of citations, and I'll definitely do that. Lastly, and just FYI, I posted this on Doc James talk page as well. He's always been great about helping me too.

Best regards from your Wikibuddy: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rhabdo FAC
Hi there. The peer review got archived, even though I have the feeling that you might still want to offer comments on the "treatment", "epidemiology", "prognosis" and "history" sections. Any case, I've jumped the gun and nominated it for FAC (here), as I will have a bit of spare time over the next few weeks to carry this one through. Thanks very much for your comments so far, and please let me know if there is anything else that may help. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Anything else I need to do to win your support? JFW &#124; T@lk  07:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still unhappy with the table of causes. Perhaps we should ask WikiProject Medicine specifically about this? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My post on WT:MEDMOS (diff) only attracted a response from WhatamIdoing, who made suggestions for the formatting but less so on the grouping of couses.
 * I remain unconvinced that the reader is served by grouping causes according to a surgical sieve. I will follow your suggestion and post something on WT:MED about this. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talkpage, and I am sorry to learn of your oppose. I have responded on the FAC page so perhaps other people who have reviewed the article could offer their feedback as to whether for them the current state of the article makes it noncompliant with WP:WIAFA. JFW &#124; T@lk  16:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Inre Kill Kill Faster Faster
I've done a bit of cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. What will be needed is to find the archived reviews and to source additional awards.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  06:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a bit more by researching the director, stars, and awards. Article looking better. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Start preparing a nice DYK. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Did You Know... That director Gareth Maxwell Roberts worked with author Joel Rose in creating the screenplay for the film Kill Kill Faster Faster based upon Rose's own novel by that name?
 *  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael, I have not been involved in DYK before. Please go ahead and nominate it if/when you think that it is appropriate. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Axl
Hey, when you get a second, check out the Talk pages of myself, Kwami, and Doc James. Kwami is messing with hyphenating cancer articles again, against consensus, and against his word to the honcho User:Georgewilliamherbert, to whom he gave the promise to stay away from all cancer articles. Any suggestions on what I should do? I feel very bad dumping on you and Doc James like this, but this dude appears to me to be out of control and not very ... ummmm ... honest. Let me know what you think. You KNOW these hyphens are incorrect ...

Very best: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks again. I've somehow managed to keep my temper this time, and you and Doc James have been great buddies. All appears well (for at least the next 15 minutes).
 * FYI - I have fired my psychotherapist and set about doing thru the following systematic procedure ...
 * (a) find all articles with "against-consensus/inappropriate" hyphens;
 * (b) adding the "hyphenated forms" to the lede section;
 * (c) remove all hyphens that are against consensus within the article body;
 * (d) making a list of articles that are "repaired" (so far its just Squamous cell carcinoma and Small cell carcinoma.
 * HOWEVER, I don't know how to fix the problem with the hyphens in the titles and the moving/redirect issues, and was hoping you knew someone who might. I would supply them with my list of "fixed articles" every so often.
 * Best wishes to you and yours.
 * Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Borders of the lung merger
Hi, I'm proposing to merge the anatomy articles Posterior border of lung, Anterior border of lung, and Inferior border of lung into one article: Borders of the lung. There's no consensus on the issue, and since it is supported by the Pulmonology task force, I was wondering if you could add your opinion at the merger discussion here: Talk:Borders of the lung.

Thanks,K e rowyn Leave a note 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input! ~ K e rowyn Leave a note 16:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

TB
If lungs are your thing, then Tuberculosis is at Featured article review/Tuberculosis/archive1. I'd look again now but I need to sleep...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer
You were previously involved. Please see. User:LeadSongDog notified everybody else (including myself), but missed you. --FocalPoint (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Rhabdo once again
Hello there. Following Casliber's comments on FAC I have now restructured the table of causes according to the classification used by Warren (Muscle Nerve 2002). I was hoping that this might sway you sufficiently to revise your Oppose vote. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes
Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

whisperback
. Yoenit (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your kind message. I hope the current version is also consistent with your personal view on how "lists of causes" should be organised. It might perhaps be useful to add something to this effect on WP:MEDMOS. JFW &#124; T@lk  13:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)