User talk:Cyclonenim/Archive Feb09

MCOTW
JFW | T@lk  11:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WHY MAN
Please, you must believe in the brilliance, why do you think that you cannot find him on google, because Nilliam, while in university, donated 40,000,000 dollars to them to remain anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klasyays (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA
The encounters I've had with you since then have been uniformly positive, and assuming nothing awful comes up I'd be happy to support a future RfA. Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA 3
Thanks for your note. I'll be glad to. It might tale a while. Busy with work. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFA 3
Hi, Cyclonenim. Funny you should bring that up, as I was going to ask you if you would like to run again. I've been following your contributions for a while, and I'd be happy to nominate you, assuming you don't already have a nom set up. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good (and thanks for the speedy response!) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello CN, thanks for the note. I confess that I have not followed your edits since your last RfA as Julian has, so I'd encourage you to ease the efforts for those you have solicited advice from by telling us what you've been up to since your last RfA and how you've improved. Are you active at XFD? A quick review of your wannabekate shows no edits to UAA or RFPP, and only a handful to the drama boards, so you may get a couple off-the-bat opposes for low participation in "admin areas." Have you brought any more articles to GA/FA? Things like that would help us most. Glass  Cobra  16:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with GlassCobra, that would me help a lot. However, in a quick review, everything looks good, and you'll most likely have my support when you run again. :)  Little Mountain  5   17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You've definitely become active in more areas, and in admin areas. Some people will probably give you some static over some of your AFD work--some of your AFDs having been kept, some of your !votes going the opposite of the final result, that sort of thing. But that's all interpretative and subjective, and the role of admins (to me) is different by far as closing participants in xfd, since our role is to interpret the consensus against policy, not actually decide the fate of articles themselves--we decide the fate of the discussion. If we screw it up once or three times, which is inevitable over time, that's what WP:DRV is, to catch the occasional fumble. That all comes with practice, in any event. I wouldn't oppose based on that, and barring any hidden land mine turning up in your contributions (which I doubt) I'd support. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I too was just starting to look you over... per your request from a few weeks ago where you indicated an interest to run in February/March. Everything looks fine per my cursory review, the thing I think you need to do is A) think about who you want to nominate you. IMHO, 2 nominators is the ideal number, but 3 is acceptable.  More than 3 it starts to generate animosity.  It looks as if you have two admin coaches (Lankiveil and Malinaccier).  Generally, it is expected that the coach/es provide the nomination because they in theory should know you the best.  If they aren't or you don't want them, then you need to be prepared to explain why?  Eg did they retire?  If you admin coach says you aren't ready or you go behind their backs, the odds are that you won't pass an RfA. One thing that bothered me is that I can't find any of your past RfA's yet it appears that you've had two? When I click on the links where I expect hem to be, I get nothing.--- I'm Spartacus!  PoppaBalloon 18:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing the two previous at Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim and Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim 2. Useight (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kia ora Cyclonenim. It's flattering to be asked my opinion given some of the others posting here. My comment last time was about the lack of consensus building on talk pages. After spending an hour or so looking through your contributions, I think, as far as it goes, my remarks are still fair comment. Most of your talk contributions seem to be tidying up. Still, when you do make a substantial contribution, it's invariably relevant and polite and helpful. I think you're likely to be an excellent admin, if you keep in mind that persuasion and communication are often your best "tools". Assuming something unexpected doesn't come up in the RfA, I'd be happy to add my support. With kind regards, Dean B (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cyclonenim, I agree with you that (you) "try (your) best to put forward valid points and help to constructively achieve this project's goals" which is what I say above, if in different words. My point is this - the basis of the project is consensus building. That's done through mediation and being prepared to argue and debate your views. I'm not seeing many attempts by you to mediate between those of differing viewpoints, or enter into debate to persuade others of your views. Rather you tend to post your view and leave it at that. That helps, but my ideal potential admin would be someone with demonstrated experience of working hard on talk pages to build a consensus. But please don't take this as strong criticism, it's not. Some people are more "doers" than "talkers" and I repeat, I look forward to giving you my support. Best, Dean B (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Great to hear you're considering going up to the RfA stage. I've seen you around a lot, and I've had a classic "why isn't he an admin?" impression. You know you'll have my support. :)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I recommend an ER? --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I already have one open from my last RfA. See Editor review/Cyclonenim. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice for Cyclonemin's coaches
DO NOT let anything in the above discussion sway your thoughts, if you think Cyclone is ready to run (and ready to be an admin) then and only then should you nominate him. If you don't think that, for whatever reason, do not bow to peer pressure. That was my mistake... In theory, you guys should know him better than us, and should be in a better place to judge his strengths/weaknesses.--- I'm Spartacus!  PoppaBalloon 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no intention of running that soon anyway, this is a preliminary outlook until both my nominators have expressed their desire to nominate me. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Archive the old one? --Dweller (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've archived the previous one, and a new request can be found here. Thanks :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NP, I just wanted to stress to your coaches how important it is for THEM to feel comfortable with the nomination, and not to see the above as pressure to do something they are not comfortable with.--- I'm Spartacus!  PoppaBalloon 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, and I entirely agree :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering..
..You wouldn't be interested in this would you? Ironholds (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for the speedy response. Poke me when you get your RfA up, I want to get in an early support :). Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassing concerns? What canvassing concerns? I can state quite truthfully that you never pointed me towards an existing page dealing with your RfA or at any point suggested such a page would exist :P. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm not saying I wouldn't like any social talk at any point I'm sure the next contact we have is "omfgz support! On my "Someday-an-admin" list." Ironholds (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

review
Sorry for the wait. I have placed a reviewhere. Dloh  cierekim  01:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really have much to say, only that you have really improved since your last RfA. Unless you do anything to really fuck things up between now and your RfA, I would foresee a support from me. Erik the Red  2    01:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ta muchly




 Thanks to everyone who participated in either my successful RfA, or the trial run, whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks to I'm Spartacus! and Cyclonenim for nominating me, and for those of you who treated this as a !vote not a vote and reviewed your position as the discussions developed. I am deeply humbled by the trust that the community has put in me. I'd also like to thank my tallybots, the closing crats, the vandalfighters who wiped vandalism from my RFA, the users who initially welcomed me and gave me rollback, everyone whose worked with me here, those who created the various guides and tools for aspirant admins, the Lolcat who nommed me in my first RFA and everyone else who has helped make Wikipedia such a wonderful site.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers The lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree.
 * To copy this elsewhere type

Thanks for the twitter invite, I'm probably going to hold off on that one for now as I have to get my head round these new buttons and might try IRC.  Were Spiel Chequers  16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you look at a thread for me
Would you look at a thread for me, someone expressing concern about some recent edits: User_talk:Kilbad kilbad (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nickcoop did it again
Nickcoop did it again. If you review his history, he did it in the past to Basal Cell carcinoma and Mohs surgery multiple times.--Northerncedar (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mohs surgery
Hi Cyclonenim,

the article on Mohs surgery is not neutral.

There has only ever been one randomized control trial done on this technique and that shows no benefit over standard surgical excision. (Lancet 2004 Nov 13-19;364(9447):1732). There isn't much else to say about the technique and yet the entry in Wikipedia is huge.

I talked this through with Northerncedar last year. Northernceder was unable to produce any randomized control trial that showed any advantage to Mohs surgery. The editing that I had done last year was deleted by Northernceder and others. I haven't had a chance to review what had been done to the entry until now.

I know that the Mohs surgeons who have written this page believe that what they do is great but the evidence is that is no better than traditional standard surgical excision, and much more expensive.

This fact is crucial and needs to be prominent in the Wikipedia entry.

What concerns me most is that this entry is going to be used for some shroud waving by Northernceder. People with skin cancer need to know what are the most effective treatments, and then of those which is the most cost effective.

Nicholas Cooper FRNZCGP Auckland New Zealand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcoop (talk • contribs) 04:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thank you for weighing in at my RFA and for your nice comment about my answers to the standard questions. I spent a lot of time on them, so I'm glad they were good! :) Best of luck with your own RFA when you decide to run again. Somno (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nickcoop attacked the Basal Cell Carcinoma page again
(cur) (prev) 12:38, 15 February 2009 Stevenfruitsmaak (Talk | contribs) m (19,041 bytes) (wow, this article really needs cleanup) (undo) (cur) (prev) 12:37, 15 February 2009 Stevenfruitsmaak (Talk | contribs) (19,032 bytes) (Undid revision 270813729 by Nickcoop (talk) unexplained removal of large chuncks of good text) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:19, 15 February 2009 Nickcoop (Talk | contribs) (16,732 bytes) (Most bcc's are treated with surgical excision. It is extremely effective and relatively cheap. It should be listed first in the treatments.) (undo)

Please remind him again. And yes, his article was well discussed in both the body of the Mohs surgery article, and on the talk page. And on HIS talk page too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.205.138 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nickcoop is editing basal cell carcinoma page to make his point. But his edit is not making sense:  (cur) (prev)  19:25, 16 February 2009 Nickcoop (Talk | contribs) (19,433 bytes) (I have shifted the material about Mohs from the standard surgical entry to the Mohs entry) (undo)--Northerncedar (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT
I have posted an updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if avaliable, would appreciate your feedback. kilbad (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please relook at Nickcoop's edits of Mohs surgery and basal cell cancer again
I appreciate his inputs, but he is trying to push his personal belief by misquoting the randomized study I presented, and quoting his own opinion as the authors (they said MMS is recommended for the face, he said they recommended standard excision for bccs of the face).

Then he is trying to move content explaining how standard excision is done compared to margin controlled surgery (which Mohs is one method) to the Mohs section. And claimingg it to be Mohs propaganda.

We really need the input of a pathologist here - so that he doesn't feel that we are badgering him. --Northerncedar (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you run...
If you run again for adminship, let me know and I will support your nomination. kilbad (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 01:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this vandalism??
Please look at his third attempt to edit this article in the last few weeks on the article basal cell cancer: --Northerncedar (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (cur) (prev) 22:40, 25 February 2009 Nickcoop (Talk | contribs) (23,265 bytes) (I have moved the Mohs advertisment to the Mohs section.) (undo)
 * Hi Cyclonemin, the section on the treatment of BCC's doesn't need to be very long. Almost all are treated with a straight forward surgical excision. The speciman is sent for histology and margins. Every so often the diagnosis is not what you expected. A melanoma can mimic a BCC. The only way to distinguish them is with special stains. For this reason a frozen section is rarely done in the treatment of BCC's. The material on the examination of tumour margin in the laboratory is factually wrong. All of the slides are examined, not just 3 or 4. The entry on the treatment of BCC's by Northernceder is way off the reality of clinical practice. I haven't deleted Northernceders entry, just shifted of to the Mohs entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcoop (talk • contribs) 10:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First, Dr. Cooper has not participate on the talk page before or after his edits. He does not participate in my discussion on the subjects with him on his talk page.
 * Second, as noted in the last edit I reverted, the clinical guideline confirm the recommendations on standard excision on page 7 of the NCCN guidelines. The definition of CCPDMA is on page 6 - which is complete margin evaluatio to include the periphery and deep (which Mohs is simply one of the CCPDMA methods): http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/nmsc.pdf
 * Third, his understanding of margins is wrong, as standard pathology is random sampling of the margin using 3 to 5 standard cross sections. All pathologists understand this, and most dermatologists trained in the US do - as we are required to work in histology sectioning.  Of course, all slides cut, and all sections cut are read, but they are only representative of the surgical margins.
 * Melanomas are not diagnosed with special stain, except in difficult cases. Most are diagnosed with H&E stain.  It is irrelevance to the discussion of basal cell cancer and Mohs surgery.
 * He has not deleted the entry, but simply shifting it to an area where it does not belong. All the discussion have bearing only with standard excision.  All the guidelines referenced (british columbia, NCCN, AAFP - while north american sources) all point to the same referenced guideline that Dr. Cooper has repeated deleted or paste in the inappropriate section.
 * I would not have minded having an open discussion with him on the talk page, the articles or his - but so far, he has not participated--Northerncedar (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as locking down the pages - not a bad idea. The issue here is not that I am unwilling to discuss, but Dr. Cooper's refusal to participate in discussion.  Numerous references have been quoted in the past, but he is sticking to his own opinion with his deletions, cut and paste, and one line comments on the edits.  Immediately after you intervened in basal cell cancer, he repeated the delete and paste --Northerncedar (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not bring this discussion to my talk page again, content disputes should be worked over at the talk page of the article. There are plenty of methods of resolving content disputes, as laid out at WP:DISPUTE. Please follow one of the methods listed there if you feel discussion between the two of you has not worked out. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Unassessed-Class dermatology articles
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Unassessed-Class dermatology articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Unassessed-Class dermatology articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Unassessed-Class dermatology articles, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)