User talk:Axl/archive 12

Tuberculosis' FAR
Because of this conversation, Featured article review/Tuberculosis/archive1‎ has been extended for another two weeks. GamerPro64 17:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
It's funny that you mention that Axl, as I'm planning on overhauling the Pulmonology article one of these days (likely after my RFA). Anyway, your !vote of confidence is appreciated! Tyrol5  [Talk]  21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar! utcursch | talk 16:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC from you
Pleas review the comment I appended here and consider that your response is of consequence. You are a leader by birthright, so lead the way. Best, My76Strat (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, the RFA has now closed. Since you ask, I have re-considered this. In my opinion, a good understanding of deletion policies is important for almost all administrators, not just those who are highly active in CSD & AfD. I still think that N5iln does not (yet) have a good enough understanding for me to support.


 * By the way, I am not a leader by birthright. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Word to the wise on my RFA
Thanks for the word to the wise -- the process was actually quite enlightening! I learned a lot from all the comments and will keep in mind how much more there is to Wikipedia. ch (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion, protection, or something better?
Re: Articles for deletion/Rasa shastra. You're quite right: the addition of garbage refs is an argument for protection, not deletion. Actually, it's probably more an argument for vigilance, rather than protection, since keeping an eye on problematical articles is better than stopping folks from editing – but who has a watchlist big enough ? My small rant was aimed more at the well-meaning attentions of ARS, where they attract a bumbler who immediately adds junk refs thinking they are 'rescuing' an article, but are really just making it worse. I don't really have any problem with the stubbed article now (although I suspect it would be better as a redirect to a section in Ayurvedic medicine), so I won't worry however the AfD turns out. Good to talk with you again - it's been a while! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who/what is "ARS"? "Ayurvedic rasa shastra"? Anyway, I understand your concerns about the article. However I think that there is some useful content there, and it has a place in Wikipedia. I suspect that the AfD will close as "No consensus". Best wishes. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Article Rescue Squadron - earlier today  with the inevitable consequences :O - keep smiling! --RexxS (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Silverchair is/are
Please note that in Australian English, bands take a plural verb regardless of the name of the band. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at my RfA
Hey, I read your comment at my RfA, and I was wondering whether you saw my comment in the Discussion section. If you did, no problem, it's just your comment was phrased in a way that made me wonder. Thanks, Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 20:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit that I missed that statement. Thank you for pointing it out. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong
Hi Axl. Just thought I'd leave you a note regarding your oppose on my RfA. Over the past few month I've come to realise that my interpretation of ownership has not exactly matched that of the user we were discussing on my RfA. Whilst I still think his comment was no big deal and not worth chastising from an outsider's point of view, it would have been the perfect point to nip ownership behaviour in the bud and I should have done so. Anyway, I just thought I'd leave you a message to say thank you for your oppose, I do appreciate it. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me. Kudos to you for recognising a mistake and admitting it. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  16:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Kylie
Hey, thankyou for taking the review for Kylie. Would you prefer it if I wait until you complete the review, to begin making the changes? Rain the One  BAM 21:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please start now! For some reason, the user talk link in your signature at the top of the talk page was incorrect. Ayway, I've fixed it. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert at Village pump (policy)
Hi, I wanted to give you a heads up that I reverted your recent edit to Village pump (policy). The discussion you were trying to contribute to had already been closed. Monty 845  17:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  17:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice
Feel free to ignore, but just in case you didn't see my response. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. Although I would have got around to checking that page sooner or later anyway. :-) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Pituitary apoplexy
Sorry, I've been off the radar for a few days. Thanks for your ongoing input into the GAC, and I agree that the Swearingen & Biller text may be quite helpful in dotting the i's and crossing the t's. I will have a peek in my current hospital's library (but it's a DGH so I'm not putting up my hopes).

Also apologies for the fact that I might have sounded sarcastic in one particular response. This was definitely not what I wanted to get across. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. :-) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please join a discussion
Please join a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. Presto54 (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Axl, thank you very much for the Editor's Barnstar. I appreciate that very much.FeatherPluma (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Hehe, I've never eaten those before. :-) Thanks. Yet again, it has been a pleasure collaborating with you. Best wishes. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Another Barnstar is born
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. Presto54 (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Brain"
Hi, RJHall. I am currently reviewing "Brain" as part of the FAC. From "Physiology", subsection "Metabolism": "The brain consumes up to twenty percent of the energy used by the human body, more than any other organ. Although the human brain represents only 2% of the body weight, it receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization."

I understand that you requested inclusion of this information. However this is specific to the human brain. I expect that the energy use of non-human brains is much lower. Without the context of non-human brain metabolism details, I don't think that these human-centric stats should be in this article. Axl ¤  [Talk]  09:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Axl. Well yes I agree. What I requested was some information on the brain's energy usage, with the idea that it would show how that effects the evolutionary development of large brains. The nominator chose to use the human-specific information, but I think it could (and probably should) be modified to talk about any animal with a large brain (given suitable sources). Regards, RJH (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll copy your comment across to the FAC page. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Principles of Neural Science etc
Hi Axl -- I'd like to explain my attitude further, but I think it's best to do it here to avoid cluttering the review page too much. When I write, I mainly work from the knowledge in my head, and then look up sources to check it and list as references. There seems to be a presumption in Wikipedia that people write by referring to sources as they go, but I've never found that approach possible -- if you don't basically know what you are going to write before you start writing it, the result is invariably disorganized crap.

Anyway, the approach of writing and then referencing works well when it comes to specialized topics where the sources are journal articles, but it runs into difficulties in dealing with textbook material. Textbook stuff is typically highly synthesized, and no two writers synthesize it in exactly the same way. The result is that even if you write something that every textbook writer would agree is valid, you usually won't find anything in their books that exactly matches it. Thus referencing ends up being a sort of nightmare -- you spend endless time hunting around looking for a book that says what you wrote in a way as close as possible to the way you wrote it. That's very frustrating, especially since in my view it's a waste of time.

The root of the problem is that I believe "verifiability" is sometimes taken in the wrong way: it shouldn't mean "verifiable with zero effort". Specific information, such as a statement that the human brain contains 100 billion neurons, needs a specific reference, but broad textbook-level generalizations are adequately referenced by a pointer to a textbook section that covers the material -- that's my view, at least.

Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't entirely agree - I've been surprised by info in sources in most articles I've written. In more esoteric articles I've written off sources as I go in bits and pieces. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, the midbrain is also part of the brainstem. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (facepalm) ok, what exactly does the source say......Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Grrr, Axl's right. I should have used "hindbrain" instead of "brainstem".  What's frustrating about this is that it is all tengential to the point of the sentence, which is about the spinal cord.  This anatomical terminology drives me crazy -- they have all these tricky ways of dividing the same set of structures up into parts.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the motor nerves come from the spinal cord. Except for the ones that don't. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actaully Looie, I think your approach has benefits in creating well-rounded articles, but I find that quite often tertiary sources have problems in their interpretation of secondary source material, and one has to be open-minded to that. It has come up more commonly than I would have expected in some of the broader articles I've worked on. Just something to keep in mind anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you
Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Aggers" FAC
Hi Axl. RL has finally relaxed enough for me to concentrate once more on the FAC. Thanks for helping to improve the article - it's appreciated. I've asked you a question at the FAC page, just to help clarify your position. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  16:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Axl, thanks for your help and comments at the recent FAC for Jonathan Agnew. Unfortunately it was closed earlier today as it received no support within three weeks.  As such, we'll need to wait a while before renominating the article, some time in the new year.  This is just a quick note to thank you for your help up to this point, have a good seasonal period, and look forward to working with you in 2012.  Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agnew
If you like, you can drop comments at the article talk, like Brian has, to keep the FAC clean. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis
Have finished the updates... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Review is out. It does not really add anything. Any further comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Giraffe
I re-nominated giraffe for FA, Could you continue your review? LittleJerry (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  17:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I finished the last task you assigned. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. I hope you'll make your decision soon. LittleJerry (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ankit Maity  Talk •  contribs 07:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

All new Agnew!
Hey Axl, me and Dweller have renominated Aggers at FAC, just wanted to let you know in case you still had concerns, outstanding comments or, indeed, any new comments on it since it's been reworked a bit! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My fault!
Sorry about that oversight Axl! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. :-) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)