User talk:Cyclonenim/Archive Jul08

Physiotherapy
You moved and redirected the Physical Therapy page to Physiotherapy. The page has been named physical therapy for many years. It was awfully quick of you to make such a major change. I ask you to revert your move. The world body governing the profession uses physical therapy not physiotherpay. The wiki page should be consistent with what over 100 countries have agreed to. thnks DoctorDW (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you are incorrect. "Physical Therapy" is the adopted term by the World Confederation for Physical Therapy which represents 101 countries. "The World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) is an international non-profit professional organisation founded in 1951.  The Confederation is supported by subscriptions from its 101 Member Organisations and through them it represents over 300,000 physical therapists worldwide.


 * Membership
 * WCPT is a confederation of national physical therapy associations. Only one national organisation per country may be in membership."


 * Clearly the representives of over 300,000 PTs worldwide have decided the preferred term is physical therapy and physical therapist. It is not "almost entirely US-used term."


 * Google "physical therapy" and 19,100,000 hits return. Google "physiotherapy" and 6,650,000 hits return.


 * Physical therapy is the preferred and most commonly used term. Please revert your edit.DoctorDW (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When using OTM
Hmm. Nim has a new toy. The OTM... Could I recommend you link to the page numbers when referencing to OTM? JFW | T@lk  19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just jealous. My last textbook purchase was the 16th edition of Harrison's when it came out. I find OTM rather technical but it is utterly comprehensive. JFW | T@lk  22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot  23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration
JFW | T@lk  06:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Page Deletion
I am sorry for the bad page about Flex OS. I assumed other users would put more in. --Dirtbiker13 (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your signature
Would you consider reducing the text size? It's a bit much. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA
Best of luck for your RFA. --  Tinu  Cherian  - 11:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA
I reviewed your response to Dean B and have changed back to support. I suppose I over-AGF'd and assumed that he arrived at his decision after a thorough search for collaborative work by you. And maybe he did search, I don't know--but regardless, the evidence doesn't match his conclusions, and I maintain my original reasons for support. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ACC Tool
Someone (probably you) requested access to the account creation tool. For security purposes, please can you confirm that it was you who made the request here and then someone will approve you momentarily. Regards ——RyanLupin • (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was indeed me. — CycloneNimrod Talk? 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ok you're now approved to create accounts for users and can log in here. Before you use the tool, as it is a fairly powerful program, please have a browse through WP:ACC/G. Thanks for your interest in ACC :) ——RyanLupin • (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA
I'm glad you didn't close your RFA. I really belive that you will pass. Good luck. King Rock (Gears of War) 01:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you pass. Best of luck to you. And since your seventeen. If you get t stressed and feel like killing something, play this game when it's released. King Rock (Gears of War) 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Prospective doctors playing killing games? Whilst I wouldn't recommend the same thing, I would recommend considering admin coaching. It was my failed RFA that brought me this far. You need to consider and evalute the oppose section and to a lesser extent the support section also. Don't be too down about it, though, our RFA standards seem to have hit an all new high. I know you will make a wonderful admin when you pass. Best of luck. Regards, --Cameron* 09:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a sad fact a lot of people think like that. Obviously lots of admin coaches wish for their coachees to pass but I don't think that is essentially what admin coaching is. Perhaps you speak of a personal experience? My coach certainly concentrates on teaching me how to become a better admin rather than the details of wiki-politics for passing an RFA. I suppose every coach is different...just as every coachee is. Best, --Cameron* 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Each to his own, I suppose. I like Pedro's concept of coaching too but I still prefer formal coaching, in particular the one I am taking part in (Malinaccier's four phase coaching. Finding your own way is a good idea too though. Everybody learns but trying to some extent on the 'paedia. = ) --Cameron* 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks cyclone, I may just take your up on your kind offers. = ) You mean your watching my coaching page not my page, right? That would be bordering on wiki-stalking. Best, --Cameron* 20:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not play in JFW's backyard

 * Why do I need a mop?: When I first encountered Wikipedia, I was totally astonished by the amount and quality of information it contained. I gradually realized it's the common people like you and me who contribute to Wikipedia. The next natural question that arose in my mind was how the quality is maintained, meaning how do people not disrupt the articles! I practically started editing Wikipedia in a big way only in March, 2008, and learnt that the pages are indeed disrupted, it's just that a very conscientious and vigilant community helps it maintain the quality by undoing all the "bad edits". I also gradually learnt that there are other issues, too like moving pages, deleting articles, warning vandals, blocking and banning the vandals, sockpuppetry that all need to be taken care of. The admin tools that come with adminship will most definitely help in keeping up the quality of Wikipedia, which I have come to be proud of.


 * How my wielding the mop will help Wikipedia?: Firstly, considering where I stay, and because of which the time of the day I tend to be active on Wikipedia is peculiar, in the sense that between 05:00 and 17:00 UTC a significant portion of the Western hemisphere is inactive, so my vigil at such times will definitely be helpful.
 * Secondly, I'm knowledgeable on articles related to medicine, to an appreciable degree that on biology, and can make sense of articles on elementary physics (as shown by the articles artificial sunlight and sunlight) and chemistry, in which I'd be easily able to make out if particular edits are instances of vandalism or not. Moreover, in Medicine related articles, I'd be more easily (than other admins/users) able to make decisions about page moves, merging and deletion.

Hope these answers satisfy you, and thanks for the interest.  —Ketan Panchal t aL K   10:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: ACC query
That's you - enjoy. :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  10:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  10:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AGF challenge
I haven't completed the challenge, but it'd be nice if you could go through it before you leave for your holiday.  —Ketan Panchal t aL K   14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. Wish you a very happy holiday.  —Ketan Panchal t aL K   06:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A note regarding ACC
I noticed that you improperly dropped Request 8581 on ACC. I have since closed it with the proper resolution, Taken. Just because there is no entry in the user list doesn't mean the account doesn't exist. In this case, a database bug which affects some user creation log entries older than 2006 caused the entry to disappear. However, the create account form correctly reports that the username is already in use. Please thoroughly read the ACC Guide for more proper conventions for using the tool. -- FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 08:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't ban for vandalism more than one week before the request, as that is the unfortunate nature of dynamic IPs. -- FastLizard4  (Talk•Index•Sign) 08:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Please understand that my response in your RfA is intended to be constructive, never punitive. Users who think they can be capable admins should be encouraged, so if you think my feedback is helpful whether just as an editor or at a future RfA candidacy, please do not hesitate to contact me. WilliamH (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA
Hello Cyclonenim, I'm afraid to say I've just closed your RFA as unsuccessful with no consensus for promotion. You did receive more support than opposition but unfortunately the opposition and neutral viewpoints outweighed the support. Don't be disheartened though, take the constructive advice of those editors who did not support you, work on ensuring that those editors will support you next time you run for RFA and then come back in a few months time ready to get the mop! Feel free to give me a shout should you wish to discuss this any further, all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear this, Nim. Thankfully, RFA doesn't necessarily reflect on your editorial capabilities, and I'm sure your will be succesful in due course. JFW | T@lk  08:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I totally agree with JFW. You should be able to win the community's trust in due course. Regards.  —Ketan Panchal t aL K   21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem... Just FYI you've linked your older RFA... – xeno  ( talk ) 15:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I noticed the same. I couldn't find my !vote listed on the linked RfA, although I was sure that I had voted. Axl (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

G6PD
I have left a message on the MCOTW talk page on whether we should defer G6PD until you're back from holiday. If nobody responds (always a distinct possibility) I will simply promote medicine and leave G6PD for later. If there is significant opposition, though, I will have to go with that. JFW | T@lk  08:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)