User talk:Axl/archive 8

Thank you for participating in my RfA
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR at talk:Lung cancer
I was contemplating tagging it with either UK English or US English to preclude fuss down the road but was not prepared to be that BOLD. The original version seemed to use mostly UK spellings, but current spelling seems inconsistent US/UK. At some point, I expect an ambitious speller will eventually come by and start making "corrections". Has there been any discussion on this?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * From reviewing the article as it was at the time of FA approval, it used US spellings at that time (e.g. dyspnea, hypercalcemia, tumor). I am not aware of any explicit discussion about this issue. I see no particular reason why it should have one format rather than the other. I'm not convinced that a tag would be helpful, but if you think otherwise, please be bold; I won't oppose you. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  05:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "Trustworthy candidate" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

re:asbestos/mesothelioma
Dear Axl

My edit did not refute the link between mesothelioma and asbestos. Please do not assume this. Indeed asbestos is still linked to mesothelioma, however "cause" is a interesting word as it implies complete responsibilty for the pathogenesis of the condition. Just as people who have strokes due to very high blood pressure - this is not a simple cause and effect. Of course, you can say that hypertension can cause strokes, but the more impartial, and in my opinion, scientific phrase would be "is strongly linked to".

The difference between the two edits changed from "can also cause" to "is also strongly linked to", which I think better reflects the fact that mesothelioma and indeed all cancers are based on more complex mechanistic failures of DNA replication rather than a simple cause and effect which we dont yet fully understand at the moment.

In short, I believe my version is better worded. Although in hindsight I think something along the lines of "increases the risk of cancer of the pleura.... fifty fold.

I have very little time to chase this up. Let me know if you decide to stick with the edit. regards PhatRita (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Power reassessment
Hey. A couple of months ago, you reviewed Great Power and listed it at a Good article. However, some editors believe that you had POV (members of the PIIR project don't think so though) as U.K is listed as a current great power. To put an end to this, I've requested a community reassessment here. Just thought I should inform you. Deavenger (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to the list and thanks for your contributions to the RD. -hydnjo talk 00:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization
I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminship
Would you like to be nominated? Perhaps I wouldn't be the best nominator, I could ask Davidruben or Jfdwolff or others... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would happily nominate/co-nom along others, as I've said countless times and I'm pretty sure DR and JFW are in the same position. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I take that as a no? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't reply. I must have received two or more messages at the same time and I didn't notice your kind offer, Steven. Cyclonenim (and others) have also offered to nominate me in the past. I think that admin tools would help me to assist Wikipedia more. However I have reservations about the RFA process. (I would be happy to discuss my reservations further if you would like.) I will not be applying for adminship anytime soon. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  14:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you have reservations; it can be quite frustrating, and there is too much fuss and drama surrounding RfA... Just let us know when you are ready okay ;-) . --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Plutonium
As promised, I created a PR for this article and copied your remaining comments to it. I've since tried to address each point. Please, take a look. --mav (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica could use your help!
Strombollii from the WikiProject AP Biology 2008 could really use your help on his current project: Osteitis fibrosa cystica. He has had trouble finding suitable information (in both verifiability and quantity) for the topic and is relatively unfamiliar to the style and formating for medicine articles on Wikipedia. As a friend, I told him I would gladly message those who I respected as fellow wiki-editors and who I believed could add to his medicine related article. You, of course (from your help and critizim in Osteochondritis dissecans), were one of my choices. So if you can spare the time, I am sure your help would be much appreciated. Again, thank you for your own help in my article... without you and several other editors, I would have never made GA. Cheers! FoodPuma 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in this
There's been a proposal (here) for the creation of a pulmonology task force under WP:MED. As a respiratory physician, I assumed you'd like to know. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In your edit summary you said "pulmonology moved", where to? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved it to "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces/Archive 1". The new task force page is "WikiProject Medicine/Pulmonology task force". Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, I didn't realise you'd got the task force going. Cheers :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't my question
It wasn't my question. I removed an inappropriate question from someone asking how much davrocet they could take without overdosing. Such advice should only be given by medical professionals, so I removed the question. It is standard practice to remove questions which ask for medical advice. If you want to know who asked it, you're going to have to go through the history page. It was some IP address. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Halle Berry's Heritage
I wonder if this should be noted about Halle heritage: Her maternal grandmother was English. Also has other English (distantly related to the Baronets Beresford, Viscounts of Tyrone, Earls of Tyrone and Marquesses of Waterford, to Barons Decies and to Baron Beresford, and to the Marquess of Campo-Maior Count of Trancoso in Portugal), Irish, German and remote Dutch ancestry.. I got this info from here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000932/bio Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Osteitis fibrosa cystica GA review
I'd marked the article as under review at WP:GAN, but it looks like you beat to posting ;) I've placed the article on hold, which seems to be your assessment as well, and it looks like we've duplicated some comments between us, but as I mentioned in my preamble I'm no subject expert. Would you be happy to handle this as a joint review? I'll wait for your reply before transcluding anything to the article talk page. EyeSerene talk 12:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm happy to jointly review the article with you. [Although I would have failed the article myself, not placed it on hold.] By the way, do you know who originally passed the article? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great, and I agree that the article should probably have failed - however, I think under the circumstances a hold is justifiable. The original review is here; I blanked it before re-reviewing. On seeing the review, JimmyButler posted to the FA-Team mission page here and I think contacted a couple of editors too, as he wasn't sure where to air his concerns. There were then various other threads including on the article talk-page and at WT:GAN, so the inadequate review was caught fairly quickly. I think the only real problem has been that JimmyButler was basing his student grades on their Wikipedia GA assessments, and obviously that was problematic in this case. However, I've had a word with the original reviewer (who clearly didn't understand the GA review process), and Strombollii has been very mature about the whole thing and seems keen to earn his GA pass, so hopefully we can move on. Your help is very much appreciated. EyeSerene talk 12:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Cancer rate.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Cancer rate.gif. I noticed that it is sourced to UK cancer incidence statistics by age, which is covered by the Cancer Research UK Terms and Conditions, and these terms don't allow copying of the image to Wikipedia. I also noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eubulides (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, Eubulides. You are quite right, the website doesn't technically allow us to use their picture. Please go ahead and delete the picture from Wikipedia. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it's been deleted. Thanks for the quick response. Eubulides (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica GA review
I've done a progress update on the GA review, and tried to combine our comments into a single 'to-do' list of those issues that appear to be still outstanding. Please edit/amend/etc as necessary ;) EyeSerene talk 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think that it's time to fail the article. Unfortunately not enough has improved over the time frame. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Baumhauerite
Hi Axl. I created about a mineral named Baumhaumerite. Could you please edit the page? Here's the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumhauerite. Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans ready for FA?
I am at a loss for how to improve the article as it stands. Recently my edits have mainly been focusing on minor copyediting, and at this point I feel as though it's time to jump the cliff and hope for the best. I was advised by my teacher (JimmyButler to wait until my diagram images have passed OTRS verification. At that point, would you support a move for FA? Kind regards, FoodPuma 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, go for it. However you should expect a lot of harsh criticism. Don't be disheartened by the feedback that you receive from the FA assessors. I'll keep my eye out and assist you. Best wishes. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No hard feelings on moving the "History" section. I was merely trying to please Xasodfuih with the move, as I seconded his opinion on it being an odd placement between "veterinary aspects" and "epidemiology." Graham Colm's edit has since placed it at the very end, which was the only other option I saw fit. Hopefully you understand! :-/ FoodPuma 23:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica
There hasn't been much activity recently and there are still some outstanding issues on the review page. I saw your comment above, but wanted to extend a little more time to the editor. However, it looks like constructive work has pretty much ceased - do you agree with a GA fail verdict? EyeSerene talk 09:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should fail the article. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, done. Thanks very much for your assistance with this review, it was much appreciated. EyeSerene talk 10:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacology | Dermatology

 * I have started a discussion regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if avaliable, would appreciate your feedback.
 * Also, do you (or any of your friends) have an interest in dermatology? If so, I am looking for more help with WP:DERM.  Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia! kilbad (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Many Thanks
Hey Axl Many thanks for the barnstar. Looks like I am going to need some help in this one. We definitely need a policy on user who consistently propagate WP:FRINGE. Cheers.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans
I think the (non-)issue with the history section is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend anyone, Axl. Real life comes before wikipedia, obviously, and I don't mind if the doctors (like yourself) don't have time to review. Hopefully no harm done, I just mis-attributed their reasons for not reviewing. On a seperate note, thanks for your constant support since my arrival here. OCD is now a FA-article! Best regards, FoodPuma 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for looking into that statement regarding Ichthyosis_vulgaris. I really appreciate your help! kilbad (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)