User talk:Leevanjackson/Archive

HD article
Hi Lee Van, You may have noticed my somewhat random postings on the HD talk page, and that I put Huntington's original "On Chorea" on Wikisource. The reason for my interest is that I have a just given a lecture on HD to a group of specialists, as part of a clinical presentation of "interesting cases" (HD patients with chronic intractable pain). The talk belongs to me, and was given with no intention of publishing it elsewhere, as it is no more than a review of the clinical presentation, pathology, treatment difficulties and possible future treatments for HD - suitable for a medical newspaper or refresher course, but not the stuff one publishes in journals. So apart from the specific clinical patient descriptions, it is not "original work", but it still represents many hours and days spent researching the literature to develop a talk that would stand up to peer criticism (as is the nature of these talks!). It seems a bit silly for me to hang on to stuff which has no further use for me, apart from possibly being reworked for a future talk. You seem to be most active at the HD article. Where do you think would be most appropriate to post the (edited) parts of the talk the way I wrote it? My thoughts are: Should I place it on my user|talk page and ask for comments, or on the HD discussion page, section by section? Is there a separate place where collaborators collaborate, where the "suggested change" or "different writing" can be presented - specifically for the "collaboration of the week"? I would appreciate feedback by user page or e-mail. Regards, --Seejyb 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While the format of the article is quite similar to the WP article (and indeed to most reviews, which I no doubt followed, consciously or not!), it differs sufficiently to be thought of as a whole new article. It would be arrogant of me to do that, and probably counter-productive.
 * The HD talk page does not seem appropriate for the whole presentation to be posted.
 * My style and order of presentation is different from the article as it is, and the target audience was quite different. Some aspects (like symptoms and signs) I have approached quite differently, possibly too detailed for WP use.
 * I try to reference every fact, which may lead to very long lists of refs. In the WP edited version this would be aggravated by the problem that many of my statements were illustrated by reference to actual cases, as opposed to literature descriptions, the former being excluded form WP use. Similarly, my own management recommendations would disqualify their use, being "original work" or "opinion". I would need to add or change refs there.

Medical Genetics WikiProject
Anybody can post news, announcements. Welcome in the team! :) If you need any help regarding the projects' templates, just let me know. NCurse work 14:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

SCOTM
NCurse work 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On Dysphagia
You reverted the notification on the top of the article about the misuse of Dysphagia in the article. Please discuss why you did that in the talk page. Stephen Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * will do - it looked like vandalism at first glance

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Genetics
I'm so glad to see you again! Could we revitalize the project? :) NCurse work 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello! was never really away - and have net access in all locations I stay in now! :) What do you suggest - I have been noticing the cellular biology has been expanding and now covers a number of subjects we originally had in genetics and a protein/ gene box semi-bot doing it's rounds, so wasn't too worried about actual; content and accuracy relating to genetics was on the ebb. Do you think we should rationalise subjects covered to be more specialised or continue expansion making closer links with crossover projects, or both--Leevanjackson (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! You're right. We need a new project dedicated totally to genetics. It should be under both biology and medicine wikiprojects. What do you think? Are we ready to announce it at the wikiproject council? NCurse work 16:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the long silence, now I'm back in action. I think the first step should be to have a wikiproject dedicated entirely to genetics. It shouldn't be a subproject of anything else. We can express our opinions on the page of the Council. What do you think? NCurse work 21:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi, Lee. You deserve a barnstar. Axl (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazing
... how you managed to turn an entire section from crud into something useful, and still keep the article size exactly the same! diff JFW | T@lk  14:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa... freaky ! LeeVJ (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Genetics
I've created the WikiProject Genetics page, please join if you're still interested! At the moment it's pretty bare looking, but I figured everyone could chip in with things to add to the page. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Long term effects of alcohol
You suggested perhaps two articles should be made for long term effects dependent upon consumption levels? Do you mean, for example, Long-term effects of excessive alcohol consumption and Long-term effects of light or moderate alcohol consumption? Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's it exactly! LeeVJ (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ping!
Hello! I replied to your note on my talk. :) delldot on a public computer talk  04:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another ping! delldot on a public computer talk  00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Huntington's disease
decided to nominate Huntington's disease as a good article candidate. I see you have worked on this for a while and tried to get it to GA status previously.

I am concerned that you might not be ready for GAC at the moment. I will happily review the article and offer advice, and I have in fact already left a couple of pointers, but please let me know if you'd rather I waited until you are actually ready for this. JFW | T@lk  10:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had intended in the coming week to address all the to-do's including remaining points of the previous GA review by delldot   talk  (who expressed an interest in re-reviewing it). The references have taken ages and I suspect will be an ongoing task! Accuracy and accessibility are my main goals, so even if it fails GA the pointers help improve it anyway, and I can devote a fair bit of time this week... your call. LeeVJ (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Delldot is more familiar with the article after reviewing it the first time. I'll check but happily defer. JFW | T@lk  14:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

More on HD
I have now made a GA assessment of the HD article. Have a look at the comments. You will notice that I'm a bit unsure about its current potential of making GA, but I trust that you will take the points to heart. Do yourself a favour and try to enlist - he might be relatively experienced as a Wikipedian but he will be able to separate the chaff from the corn when it comes to inclusion of material from secondary sources. I will keep an eye on the article and see what else I can do to take this forward. JFW | T@lk  23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done on your work on the HD article. I've got a bit of a backlog at the moment, but hopefully I will be returning to the article in a few days and decide on GA pass/fail then. I can't really plan my collaborations ahead at the moment, but in case of a fail I hope to remain involved with the article. JFW | T@lk  23:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * thankyou! bank hols always cause backlogs ... but everyone needs a break sometimes LeeVJ (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lee, I'm really sorry that I have to fail the article at the moment. If you want my honest opinion, I think it was indeed nominated too early and will definitely be ready for GA status in a little while. It is encouraging to see how much work is happening at the moment. JFW | T@lk  22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah well, no worries, the review has highlighted some inconsistencies, given a more defined direction and stirred up some editing, possible collaborations and praise - not to forget the point about primary/secondary references reaching a wider audience in medmos, so I'd say the process was a positive success :) LeeVJ (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Featured Topic Task Force proposal
Hey, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! —Cyclonenim T@lk? 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there, yeah sorry about that it changed over from a task force into a department. I completely forgot about it these past few days actually, should probably get started on it. Thanks for adding it to the watchlist, I look forward to your contributions. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your kind words. --Arcadian (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

HD and Goodone121
I was simply amazed about the fact that renominated the HD article for WP:GAN last night. I have removed the nomination and asked him to clarify. Judging from his talkpage, you are presently of the view that GAN is too early and you're still working on the article. I would be thrilled to help out but my new job is much busier than before and I am focusing on stroke as this is of greater relevance to my daily practice at the moment. JFW | T@lk  11:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a heads up, I've brought their behavior to ANI after they reverted JFW and then myself. Sorry if this creates more stress for you, you've done a great job with the reviews and great work on the article, in addition to handling this with total maturity and poise.   delldot   &nabla;.  17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou both for your support, I've no problem with the HD article becoming the most heavily reviewed article on the planet, but I dare say you GA reviewers have other articles to look at ..! LeeVJ (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Goodone121 has now chosen the way of GA review, something I find equally inexplicable. I can assure you that it is going to lead nowhere. This discussion has already greatly distracted me from planned article work on stroke. I would stay put and focus on the article while Delldot, Protonk and myself try to persuade this contributor that his course of action is not ideal. JFW | T@lk  21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems board
Hi. :) With respect to your note at Copyright problems/2008 August 30/Articles, I'm afraid that the place where you've expressed concern is not really the proper place to discuss it. That board is used to list articles that may contain copyright violations that need to be removed. If you have some questions about User:Jamesday's position on his own contributions, you may want to discuss it with him or, alternatively, to ask for general information at the talk page of the copyright policy. I would myself probably start with him. He seems imminently approachable at his user page. I note he says, "Please don't hesitate to ask me to explain why I write what I write about any legal matter." Given that, I would expect him to be open to conversation about it. Thanks for noting your concern. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do.. and thankyou for your time. LeeVJ (talk)

Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar. I hadn't noticed it earlier... Keep up the good work. JFW | T@lk  10:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation
Is what it's called. It's tricky though! I hope I do ok. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where there's a will, there's a way ... good luck :) LeeJ (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"No ownership"
Hi, are you getting anywhere with User:Leevanjackson/noowntemplate? I'd be happy with version 4. -- Philcha (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Had left that version ont he wp:own talk page for further comments, and taken a leave of absense, but Am happy with that version too... includes the main premises of wikipedia succintly and fairly worded, we need further opinions of it's suitability to use it I think, but as it standss the wp:own does need expanding to give direction to such situations... it is on my list of things to make right :)? LeeVJ (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meningitis
Thanks for the warm words. This seems to be my predominant editing pattern at the moment. Lots of patrolling and bickering, then deciding an article needs a heavy editing spree and not stopping until it's been submitted for GA. This certainly worked for subarachnoid haemorrhage earlier this year, and certainly did no harm to ascending cholangitis and hypopituitarism. JFW | T@lk  00:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems your method works ! LeeVJ (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

UserTalkback template
Hi, I've noticed your comment on the Talkback template talk page: “I was wandering if adding a pointer to username would be a good idea to the mesage box placed on one's own talkpage, i.e. …” This is exactly what I thought when I found this template. I've added a new option for Usertalkback: “hint” – if set to “yes” then usage pointers will be included. Would you care to try it? Regards, Skarebo (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. I've changed it to use “hint=yes” by default. Skarebo (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks better, will get to test it shortly, tad busy at mo.. LeeVJ (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the barnstar Lee! Much appreciated. As for when do I sleep, I am about to go and try to sleep now haha!-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Tutorial redesign
Yeah, it got implemented, then evolved to today's version. The sub pages could/should probably be deleted. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: How to win an edit war Essay
Please do not edit other people's userspace contrary to their wishes, especially editors you are in conflict with (and it's hard to say you aren't when you actually reported him to AN). Regarding (edit summary: "removing from cat: user essays until intent has been proven"), you have a bone to pick with this editor for some reason. But that's not a good reason to rather illogically demand "proof" that something he designated as a user essay is indeed one. --C S (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time I'd had no prior communication or response to my question from the editor ( so not really in conflict?), I cynically thought it'd stay that way until I went away ( a tactic contained in the essay), so I made the change until a response was received - oh and I might of had a little too much pop :( ! LeeVJ (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is ridiculous to ask someone to "prove" their intent in tagging their essay to be an essay. I would think it's common sense that you don't revert someone's edit to their own userspace like that.  You wanted to provoke him, as you say, and that's never a good reason to do something.  --C S (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember ever categorising it. It's just a satire of some of the tendentious users that experienced content users have to deal with. I seriously doubt anyone's gonna learn anything from it or want to. Read especially the opening paragraph. The sarcasm is obvious ... I would have thought. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This has no information on how to win an edit war! I think I know; just keep at it for a while & then just stop. no warning, no given reason, just leave the page alone. then go back to it a week or 2 later & re-edit to be how you want it to be, but don't tell your nemesis. Fortunately i Have a life, so i have never been involved in one of these stupid wars. J (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Full genome sequencing Comment
Thank you, I do appreciate it! This is a very important topic and one that will have a tremendous impact upon our entire civilization. More data on the technology and the companies still needs to be completed but at least it's a start. Thank you again for your comment. --DoctorDNA (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Meningite.png
Lee, further to your offer on Featured article candidates/Meningitis I'd be most grateful if you could draw a version of this image that doesn't have the current copyright cloud hanging over it. JFW | T@lk  18:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have already reformed one based on the previous images ref's - there were a few inconsistencies, will upload later.. LeeVJ (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making that pretty new map! The article is now FA. JFW | T@lk  17:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

HD
Great job obtaining the image permission; now we have a great lead image. I'll be away next week from Thursday to Monday; so if the review is carried out I won't be able to help those days.--Garrondo (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the instructions and help on getting permission / licenses on WP/CC aren't as easy to follow as they could be, but we made it! As for GA review - don't worry I'm sure you'll catch some of it - seems a 1-2 week backlog on the reviews and I'd expect we'd be given time to fix any issues before the review closes... L&there4;V 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding caregiving and dementia: It was created as an spin-off from AD; however nobody ever edits it (I had it in my watchlist) and in general is in bad shape. I do not think that you will have many people going against you if you rename it to caregiving and neurodegenerative diseases. That way it could cover dementias and a few other diseases like Multiple sclerosis or HD. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason for the review to have been stopped? It's been a month since it began and we only had a few initial comments. You have been doing good changes to the article but in most cases they have been minor so the article is stable enough to be reviewed. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked a few days ago but I had no answer, lets see if you are luckier.--Garrondo (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Aesthetically I prefer a single citation per paragraph; and when I write off line articles they are usually more than enough; however, in wikipedia a citation for each sentence makes it much more difficult for people adding unreferenced info: if there is only a citation for a paragraph and somebody adds an unreferenced sentence inside that paragraph it is really hard to know if it comes from the ref or not and check it when some time has passed from the addition. On the other hand if there is a ref for every sentence, somebody adds an unreferenced sentence, and it is not checked in that moment, it is much more easier later to see what has to be checked up and referenced if needed. (Of course they can always rephrase sentences and you would have the same problem, but at least we make it harder) Since in wikipedia referencing is one of the main problems I would rather overreference than undereference. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Derm
Do you have any interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) ---kilbad (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Thankyou so much delldot - has some twists and turns, but got there in the end with a lot of help - including thy fineself! L&there4;V 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations to you too: I would not have been interested in the article if I had not found it so close to GA status thanks to all your efforts with it. It's been a pleasure to fight at your side; and of course thanks for the barnstar... How do you feel about FA? ;-) --Garrondo (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As you say this would be my third FA attemp; and both of the other ones reached FA status. I believe that facts and references in each section are of enough quality to get the star. Regarding prose; as I am spanish is not my strong point; however, taking an article to the FA proccess is usually enough to attract some editors to help you with prose. From my point of view if facts are good enough the FA process is a great way of improving readibility. I may agree with you that we look for some data for a new subsection about caregivers and maybe also something on sufferers quality of life but I am not sure on how much we will find. On the other hand I do not feel completely comfortable with the prognosis, prevalence and history sections and we should try to find some review articles to factually check and improve them. I usually try to focus my efforts in high-importance articles with high levels of traffic, and not so much in secondary articles; so I don't think I will help you much with the the merging and caregiving article. I believe that if we work together all the work in the HD article could be done in about a month and then take it to FAC. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hunting ton!
Excellent work on the HD article. I so wished I could have helped more, because it's truly a fascinating and multifaceted disorder. But there one goes. To tell you the truth, I wasn't even sure if keeping it MCOTW made such a difference, because you and Garrondo would have achieved GA regardless... Keep up the excellent work. JFW | T@lk  16:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

FA nomination
I know I have been quite away the past month..., I had a lot of work before the summer came and now I go on holidays until the 15th of July. However I have been thinking to nominate the HD article for FA after I arrive (We should both be co-nominators). I believe right now it is a great article, and from my point of view it should pass the nomination. Nevertheless I will need your help to address reviewer comments. What do you think? Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, I've been family crisis, acclimatising to the heat and just got back from Glastonbury festival, should be acclimatised soon! I've still got some of the points I've listed on talk page to address, but I may be a perfectionist so it should pass without them.. depending on the weather and work I may not log in for several days, but if you'd like to use the email user to get my attention if the ball starts rolling I'll get to it :) L&there4;V 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am back, and I am going to nominate the article. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent - I have some spare time ... L&there4;V 11:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah; really nice time. Problem is I did not slept much ;-)... The first reviewer of the article has proposed that we could include the scale of the neuron images. Since you obtained the image directly from the authors maybe you could ask them for the scale.--Garrondo (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. When a FAC goes switfly is real fun; but I promise that it can also become hell. Hopefully this won't be the case.--Garrondo (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Huntington's disease at FAC almost done
I think we are very close know since there are 5 supports, there are no opposes, and we have addressed most comments by reviewers. I did not want to FAC to finish before I told you that it has been an honor to work side by side with you and that you have made an incredible work in the HD article in the past 3 years. The work you have done will last for many years. THANKS FOR EVERYTHING.--Garrondo (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou ever so kindly, Garrondo, a big warm feeling now flows inspite of the last vestiges of 'flu-like symptoms' I am ridding myself of. The article is the result of Wikipedia at it's best - team work - I've really just been holding the pieces together inbetween. Without your extra impetus the article would have wallowed for quite a while, if not indefinitaly, around the GA mark! I am still in denial that we might actually achieve FA, but maybe I'd better start planning to celebrate :) It's been a pleasure for me too, here's to further team efforts - you'll often catch me on the MCOTW, which I hope is about to get a second wind!L&there4;V 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We have done it. I believe its your first FA. Congrats...--Garrondo (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally; had you seen this ? The article is visited every day between 4000 and 5000 people, and this puts it between the 6500 most visited of all wikipedia. Therefore the social education work we have done taking the article to FA is really important.--Garrondo (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * :) err um .. logged on to address the next couple of bits ... how did that happen !!! Will have to celebrate with a beer ... but just the one, the flus not yet gone Fantastic ! L&there4;V 21:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Amazing work on Huntington's, and congratulations on getting the coveted star. It's a great feeling, even if few people in meatspace understand the actual relevance of a GA or FA pass: weeks or even months of hard work, discussion, research and sometimes gentle frustration. Congratulations! Let me know of any upcoming projects. I've just managed to get diabetic ketoacidosis to GA status and am wandering around aimlessly. JFW | T@lk  21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou JFW! I've noticed Parkinson's Disease is at GAN, pneumonia is at FAR, a few points to come on HD, and I'd like to devote more time to the MCOTW ... isn't that the place to go when direction is sought? I'll try to think up something special ! 23:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
That's so exciting! Congratulations. I was so impressed by your hard, tireless work and your patience and equanimity in the face of some of the more... interesting events with that article. Sorry I missed the rest of the FAC, I haven't been editing much lately. delldot  &nabla;.  00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, kindly, I'm flattered ! and I get to learn a new word - I like it ! think I'll adopt it along with serendipity and Mu! L&there4;V 22:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

help project
Hello transhumanist! I've been messing around with the Help Project and just realised I hadn't introduced myself to its founder :( !Hope you don't feel too disgruntled ... After fixing / or attempting to fix the intro pages in a valiant attempt to convert casual readers / interested parties into new, constructive editors - keeping the complexities of wikipedia hidden to avoid confusion, whilst hinting at the complexities of wikipedia to avoid confusion ;) I noticed a number of the help pages get an occasional editor with a good idea and some motivation, but the pages aren't watched and subscribed enough. My answer was to point them all in the same direction - there is currently no real central discussion, so currently I'm working on slapping a project banner on the numerous intro pages to this end... I might instigate a few other ideas e.g. why not assess help pages ? keep spreading the knowledge :) 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. I think I might be a transhumanist too, my own intention is to try to prevent unecessary stress and suffering due to lack of quality knowledge .. L&there4;V 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy that the help project has found a new leader - I've been far too busy with the WP:OOK and WP:WPOOK to work on much of anything else. I look forward to seeing what you do with the help project and Wikipedia's help system.


 * It looks like you've captured the attention of Quiddity, and that's a good thing. It appears he has touched up the project page to assist you.


 * Keep up the good work!


 *  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S.: See also WP:TIPS, and the pages listed on Template:WP nav pages (header bar). -TT


 * Thanks TT, but I wouldn't quite class myself as a leader ( except maybe by example) .. more of a wp:bold editor - if I think something needs doing, I do it. We will see what happens - hopefully as we tag the pages and accrue more participants a better picture of goals and collaborations will form ... L&there4;V 14:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Page authors and history
Hi Leevanjackson. On a related note about the Help Project, I noticed that you removed numerous "Meta:Help page authors and history" sections from help talk pages while you were adding the project banner. It was my understanding that those sections give attribution to the original authors of the help page at meta-wiki. Do you know that is okay to remove those? Cheers,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dislike removing any type of history, but the text was making the talk pages unusable ( trying to clean up so we can catch all non-experienced users). I have left the link to the original mediawiki page which can be used to find the authorship info. Double checking mediawiki terms of re-use I see that this was wise as one of the methods of providing attribution is: '


 * Re-use of text:


 * Attribution: To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using,'


 * So I think it is covered. I was thinking of going back through and changing those links to something a bit more meaningful. Do you think I am correct or do you suggest I ask confirmation somewhere ? L&there4;V 17:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm not sure exactly how it works either. I just assumed that it was something important because it was put on so many help talk pages nearly four years ago. I'll try to find someone to ask about it. If it does need to be kept, an idea might be to put the history in a collapsible table such as this:
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

! Meta:Help page authors and history
 * Long article history here.
 * }
 * I'll let you know when I find out. Cheers,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll let you know when I find out. Cheers,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I was asked to provide some feedback here. I've looked at Help:Special page. As long as the original link is intact, attribution is satisfied. Uncle G's bot did the right thing--at least the minimal thing--back in 2005 by linking it in edit summary. While a note at talk page specifying that content was copied and from where is good (within this project, I currently lean to copied), it isn't mandatory. The only reason to require a full list of contributors is if the original attribution history is lost. I can see that the lengthy list of names might hamper the talk page. If I were doing it, though, I'd archive it instead of deleting it, and I'd probably go ahead and use copied for clarity. I'll go ahead and do that with this one, and if you agree that this is a simple and usable solution you might want to implement it at any others that have been blanked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your input Moonriddengirl! Here's a list of what looks like the pages that need modifying (based on your recent contributions):
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

! Help talk pages to add copied/archive
 * 1) Help talk:WordToWiki
 * 2) Help talk:Multilingual support
 * 3) Help talk:Testing
 * 4) Help talk:CentralAuth
 * 5) Help talk:Special characters
 * 6) Help talk:Calendar
 * 7) Help talk:Wikitext examples
 * 8) Help talk:Transwiki
 * 9) Help talk:Dummy edit
 * 10) Help talk:Printable
 * 11) Help talk:Calculation
 * 12) Help talk:Magic
 * 13) Help talk:Export
 * 14) Help talk:URL
 * 15) Help talk:Piped link
 * 16) Help talk:Installing Japanese character sets
 * 17) Help talk:Edit toolbar
 * 18) Help talk:Recent changes
 * 19) Help talk:Inputbox
 * 20) Help talk:Subpage
 * 21) Help talk:Page name
 * 22) Help talk:User style
 * 23) Help talk:Interwiki linking
 * 24) Help talk:Pipe trick
 * 25) Help talk:Collapsing
 * }
 * I'll start with the first 13 or so as soon as I get a chance. You're welcome to handle the others, Leevanjackson, if you're up for it. Happy editing,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed... and thanks for that much appreciated offer of help - I'll work from the bottom up next time I'm on, and I'll know when I see you've got there before me ! L&there4;V 21:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've done up to 13 for now. Thankfully, less help pages had been transwikied from meta than I thought :D  I'll finish some more when I have the time (unless you already have).  It's been great working with you!  Cheers,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, a couple weren't transwikied and one has since been turned into a mere redirect, cheers for the help... I'm sure I'll come across more of these as I continue taggin the project banner around the place. L&there4;V 20:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! It's been a pleasure working with you - let me know if there's anything I can do to help the project out. Cheers!    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, a couple weren't transwikied and one has since been turned into a mere redirect, cheers for the help... I'm sure I'll come across more of these as I continue taggin the project banner around the place. L&there4;V 20:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! It's been a pleasure working with you - let me know if there's anything I can do to help the project out. Cheers!    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Huntington's disease
Rather than replying at both Talk:Huntington's disease and my talk page, I figured I'd just write one reply here. Thank you for your kind words. It is always nice to be reminded that we aren't simply mindless drones banging away on our keyboards. I too enjoyed this collaboration. Prose reviewers such as myself have the pleasure of bearing witness to proofs of concept of the Wikipedia model: people with who know nothing about each other and (as is usually the case for myself) know nothing about the subject at hand can still work together to produce excellent results. The "extra fine-toothed comb" that I have used thus far is, sadly, the only tool I have to offer when it comes to peer reviewing, meaning that I am not particularly good at examining the bigger picture. Unless there are blatant flaws with the organization or weight of an article, I am unlikely to notice anything other than minute details. I do know a physician assistant and some psychology majors. I can ask them to look over the article if you'd like. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

== hi--Tiia malone (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC) --Tiia malone (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)tiia malone ==

hi how are you today
 * Fine, thank you! :) Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs) 12:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it
I don't get it. As quoted Karanacs is a mile off WP:LAYOUT. Am I missing out on the holy war or something? ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I really hope not, I enterred the discussion on Outlines about a week ago and wasn't too impressed at the behaviour going on, no straight answers to questions, deviation accusations and cracks at one editor in particular. not sure editors style is unusual but i didn't think it was in bad faith. I think the debate got heated a while ago and rational talk suffered. I'm not sure I hope that it isn't a campaign against outlines per se, just a minor hiccup in collaboration. I'm not sure if any hand slapping is required but I have seen somebehaviours that are leaning to the dark side... but its complicated and I don't know the full picture. I'd recommend you take it on a case by case basis, but if you'd like some further insight the thread i started seems to present a fair representation of the situation and how its being discussed. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs) 22:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Search page
Funny you should ask - there's a discussion on this at WP:VPT! The suggestion there was WP:Searching. Help:Searching is slightly better, but I still think it needs a complete rewrite to be much friendlier before I'm keen to send people there. Rd232 talk 08:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As one of the more egregious things: it actually points people to a Mediazilla bug! Not friendly, not helpful. Not good enough for the prominence the page would have. Rd232 talk 08:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

accessible nav box
I aim to please, glad to help. :) I do like the slow yet steady progress we're making! It is so long over due! JoeSmack Talk 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me
JoeSmack Talk 04:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Huntington's disease and CAG repeat disorders
Hi--

I don't know if you have the time/knowledge/ inclination for this, but I was hoping to talk to someone more knowledgeable than myself about all some things that aren't making sense to me.

My grandmother died in 1976 (at age 55 of a 'heart attack'), brain autopsy by the U of Kansas indicated what they then called Huntington's Disease. My father just died at age 67 and was tested a month prior to his death and had 43 CAG repeats. However, his disease did not track with typical Huntington's -- to the extent that a person, whose family is riddled with Huntington's and saw my father about every week for years, never would have guessed that he had it. She knew something wasn't normal, but nothing about him reminded her of the disease in her own family.

I have a billion teeny 'clues' that make me wonder if some other CAG repeat issue was at hand -- since you seem to know a lot about CAG repeat disorders, do you have any interest in hearing them all and playing armchair diagnostician of a deceased person? And if not, do you know anyone who might think this is a 'fun' hobby?

Thanks! Meira Voirdire (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear of your loss. I'm not really qualified to help, but the article does point out the variation due to repeats and exact symptoms vary, what is described is a general pattern and there will be many exceptions to the rule. If you follow the article's external links to the open directory project, there are a number of groups that will be able to help, ( eg. HD Lighthouse ) - I recommend you find one you like the look of and see what you can turn up there ...good luck and peace. Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll check those out. Thank you. Meira Voirdire (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Meira Voirdire, I don't think wikipedia is the right place to ask for medical advise (about yourself or another person). But, after such loss, I can certainly understand you pondering about it and i'll give you a little bit of advise. Perhaps you could find out about the specificity of the tests that were used back then. Also, be careful in dividing everything you know about him in "evidence pro HD" and "evidence contra HD". Every human body has it's peculiarities, some things might not be clues. Perhaps there are patient organizations that can help you answer your question. Good luck with that. PizzaMan (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

been a little behind lately
...sorry Lee, as it turns out I'm moving to Philadelphia to chase a job, so I've been a bit remiss on the Help Project as of late. I'll be more in it in a few days when I get all my moving company stuff arranged. Viva la helpspace! ;) JoeSmack Talk 17:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, gives me a chance to catch up with some other stuff... good luck with the move !

(Problem with) Editing Tutorialpage about Formatting
Hello,

I found that you were the last human who editet the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Formatting)

since I apparently have no right to edit this page, I would like to point out some necessary editing and / or ask about how I could make that change myself:

In the section about headlines it means to say if you put "[equal][equal][space]HEAD[space][equal][equal]" it will render HEAD as a Headline.

The problem here are the spaces. If the user sets his text size in his browser to a higher level, this instruction appears like: If you put "[equal][equal][space]HEAD [equal][equal]" it will render HEAD as a Headline.

The extra linebreak, which results from bigger textsize, makes the instruction incomprehensible and the user has (at first and may be forever) no idea about this happening, much less about that it is is happening due to his own setting. Same applies to SUB-HEAD.

My suggestion is, to simply remove the spaces between the [equals] and HEAD resp. SUB-HEAD in the example - it will look slightly less pretty but be a lot more comprehensible for a bigger text-size-setting.

Cheers, AmigoCgn (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Once you have a few more edits to your name, you'll be able to - I have removed the spaces for you, cheers! Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year
I don't see you around wikipedia so much these days but I would like to wish you and your family a Happy New Year. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  10:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks muchly for teh fantastic answer to my talk page query.
I had absolutley no clue you had replied to my qeuery on Help_talk:Talk_page untill you told me, so thanks for that. Couldn't have answered better. if onli my spelling was as good as teh answer you gave! XD

J (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)