User talk:MLHarris

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

FASD
Thanks for your good work on the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder page. Nunquam Dormio 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A problem has been raised on the FASD talk page. The article might be under the wrong name, with the page fetal alcohol syndrome now being a copy of the content of the fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder page. TimVickers 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A note of encouragement
Hi, ML. I've been intending to respond to your post on Talk:Fetal alcohol syndrome all week, but kept getting stalled by other work and my desire to put together a cogent, encouraging, thorough and well-composed note to you (as you deserve :-). If I keep waiting for the well-composed part, it will never happen, so I'll put my thoughts out in no particular order, and apologize in advance for the chaotic writing.

You've done spectacular work and are verging on featured article status, but the final tweaking is always the killer. I had hoped more people would come forward to help, but it looks like, as relates to content, you're the expert :-) I had a similar situation when I wrote Tourette syndrome; I found no one else on Wiki who could help, so I took whatever bits and pieces of advice I could get from anyone who would give it. Someone reminded me, then, not to worry about the vagaries of writing in Wiki-style; just to get the content nailed down, because I knew the content and others could fix the "other" Wiki stuff.

So I'm here to tell you the same. Don't get hung up on the parts of Wiki WP:MOS you might not know (although you'll learn it as you go); others (like me) can fix footnotes and Manual of Style issues all day long, but can't write the content. Others can even fine tune the copyediting as you get closer to featured status (but if you can, while you're writing further, try to minimize the e.g., i.e., and etc. :-) You clearly know the material through and through, so don't be sidetracked from the writing.

As you get further along, I suggest the following order to optimize your efforts: 1) finish this business of sorting out FAS from FASD; 2) submit the article to a new peer review (which usually takes at least a month); 3) after completing items that come up on peer review, post to the Medical groups asking for further review; 4) then ask TimVickers or another good medical copyeditor to run through it;  5) then approach WP:FAC.  I had to keep hounding people to get extra eyes on the TS article.

I've been frustrated that the work to get the separation between the two articles was stalled, so I just went and did it. That doesn't mean anything is set in stone; I just wanted to get the ball rolling. I hope it hasn't left you too frustrated.

If you "struggle with the basic conceptualization of FAS as it relates to FASD", imagine those of us who don't know the material as thoroughly as you do :-) I suspect that you know so much on the topic that it's hard for you to step back and conceptualize how much the rest of us might not know.  (At least, that's what happened to me with TS, and I just kept getting more and more eyes to look at the article, so I could see where things that were completely clear to me weren't clear to previously uninvolved readers.)  Your task is to lead the mildly-educated through the minefield.  Try to write for the "rest of us" who don't have it all sorted out as well as you do.

There is some separation needed between FAS and FASD, but it's not as clear to me as it may be to someone with your level of knowledge. I'm not sure if the diabetes analogy is a good one, as both seem to be recognized medical conditions, while FASD is in some nebulous definition territory, which isn't that clear to me. You've got to make it clearer to the average reader. The FAS article has to tell us how the condition is currently defined according to what diagnostic system, and then branch into everything else. FASD isn't a recognized medical condition, but I don't know why, I don't know exactly and succintly what is in the diagnosis of FAS, etc. The article is trying to combine multiple conditions and four different diagnostic systems, so the average dummy is lost.

Maybe you can put together a navigational template similar to to help the average reader with the terminology and interrelationships and all those acronyms. I'm not clear on the four diagnostic systems, what is "official" and what is still seeking medical consensus, why the controversy, and so on, but there needs to be a basic article that says, "here's what is current consensus" before moving in to the lesser-defined realm of FASD. You're correct that you might be able to sort some of that out by utilizing summary style to branch some of your content that might be common to both articles. For example, is Treatment the same whether the condition is labeled FAS or FASD? If so, you could write a Treatment article, and link it to both, or include it in your navigational template. These are just ideas; as you said, it may help to have "summaries and supporting articles on the diagnostic systems, outcomes, and treatment". All tied together by a navigational template. (I don't like the vertical navigational templates like diabetes; I did.

I do have a sense you're trying to pack too much info &mdash; a lifetime of knowledge &mdash; into one article, so focusing on summary style may help resolve a lot. But, as a semi-knowledgeable layperson, the status of FAS vs. FASD still isn't clear to me. Lay out clearly what is in the accepted diagnosis of FAS before telling us about FASD, and then tell us the consensus/acceptance status on FASD, and why it's not fully accepted or if it's controversial and why. Spend some time considering article (parent and daughter) structure, and then the dummies like me can help you put that structure and navigational template in place, while you write.

I'm here to help however I can; again, I hope my bold changes to the articles didn't scare you off. You really are off to a great start, and remember, you can't break Wiki, so don't worry too much :-) Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ¡Que disfrutes de España!, and ping me whenever you need input or help (I'll vandal watch in your absence). Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder
Hi. I've nominated this article for FA. I'm hunting for knowledgeable people to review it and you look just the ticket. I'd be awfully obliged if you would take the trouble to look it over. Thanks. Fainites barley 21:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bill O'Hanlon


The article Bill O'Hanlon has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Just lists. Minimal encyclopaedic content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bill O'Hanlon


The article Bill O'Hanlon has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not demonstrably notable as the subject of any reliable, secondary sources."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Bill O'Hanlon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill O'Hanlon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bill O'Hanlon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)