User talk:MarcoTolo/Archive 1

Welcome
Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Nice contributions so far, hope you will continue!

I have some questions regarding the image you uploaded, Image:AgaroseGel.jpg. I have also sent you them in email. Please get back to me, preferrable at my talk page. / Habj 05:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The most important thing is, that all images need info on source and copyright status. I guess this gel is your own work? so then you are the source. The most common versions would be to issue the image under GFDL, like all the text on Wikipedia. You could also just give up your copyright and say it is in public domain, plus there are a couple of more versions. I could tell you about them, if it is interesting.


 * Secondly, a bit more info on the pic would be interesting. I am planning to put it on Wikimedia Commons, and although a quite simple gel electrophoresis a couple of details could be fun to add, for use as caption etc. I assume it is an agarose gel. To be able to separate fragements from 500 to (I guess) over 20 000 base pairs, is is a gradient gel? What are your samples - digestion products, PCR product (if so, huge chunks), something elso? What kind of DNA sample it is is kind of trivia in context, but still it adds some value to the image. / Habj 08:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:AgaroseGel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AgaroseGel.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Larry Gonick
Thanks for your expansion work on Larry Gonick. Anville 12:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I'm accused of vandalism? Please check the history logs before making such statements.--Hooperbloob 02:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (Resolved. Copy of User_talk:Hooperbloob below) MarcoTolo 22:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa
 * My abject appologies for accusing you of vandalism on Hermogenes of Priene; the attribution was incorrect and entirely my fault. MarcoTolo 02:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, happy editing!--Hooperbloob 20:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

S.Aureus
Thanks - I now quite understand the use of italics for organisms (I had just thought this was the article's title being repeatedly emphasised). I did not change (as far as I am aware) S.Aures to Staph.Aureus (see overall edit comparison here). "S.Aureus" is shorter (useful given how many times it is repeated in the article) and I'll happily defer if this is the standardised biological abbreviation - I hope the italics reinsertion was not too onerous :-) I would state though that all UK doctors I have ever heard in spoken speach use "Staph" or "Staph Aureus" when discussing this - do you know if such "slang" terminology is used in US, Australia etc ?

I have just edited the intro which seemed to imply that the abbreviation used are so chosen to prevent confusion with the term "streptococcus". This did not seem to make sence, the name is abbreviated because it is quite long and a shorter form is easier. Use of "S.Aureus" rather than "Staph Aureus" might be confusing if a non-specialist was trying to work out which group the "S." was referreing to, but this is not how the intro was worded. Generally patients are not confused by the "S." of "S.auerus" as this term is never used by their doctors (at least in UK) when talking to them (instead "Staph" or "Staphlococcus" is used). What is confused by patient is "staphlococcus" vs "streptococcus" (or "Staph" vs "Strep"). It seemed simplest just to point out that staphlococci are different from streptococci. David Ruben Talk 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now - you are correct, the "Staph. aureus" entries were a holdover from another editor: sorry for the mis-attribution there. I've been meaning to overhaul the S. aureus entry for quite sometime but luckily my procrastination has paid off and you've done much of the work . I also fully support your most recent changes to the introductory paragraph&mdash;much clearer.


 * A couple of thoughts on the Staph aureus vs. S. aureus issue:
 * a) Written vs. spoken - by-and-large the journal articles and textbooks I've seen stick with the standard nomenclature while, for the reasons you've aptly noted above, in scientific talks or conversations people tend to use the Staph  format. At least in the States the same is true when looking at any Streptococcus species (S. <species in print, Strep  verbally).


 * b) Clinical vs. Basic science - while less pronounced than (a), I've also noticed a tendency for clinical staff (including most physicians) to use the Staph moniker on less formal written material (in, say, Morbidity & Mortality PowerPoint presentations) compared to basic science researchers or faculty. Curiously, I recently attended a lecture in which the physician presenter consistently referred to "Staph aureus" (both written and verbally), but when referring to the two other Staphylococcus species in his talk would say S. epidermidis and S. saprophyticus (i.e. he pronounced the S-sound, not "Staph"). Very strange - and quite jarring, actually.


 * MarcoTolo 02:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... in the less rarefied air of General Practice, one can generally simplify further - sore throats are strep or viral, wound infections are either staph. or strep. and often best treated for both (flucloxacillin + amoxycillin); else one is referring to a chronic leg ulcer with pseudomonas. Urine reports are less notable for what is reported, as what is suggested as a sensitive antibiotic (species sensitivities seems to change monthly – i.e. empirically one is always wrong). Of course sputum reports are usually negative with comments that salivary samples were provided (vs. sputum).

The only sub-differentiation that matters is S.aureus from MRSA, but we’ve generally already gathered that when the patient failed to respond to the initial flucloxacillin and we took the swab in order to find out what to try next. Funnily enough MRSA reports never in the UK give the sensitivities, but ask us to phone the lab the next day for “specialist advice” – which generally amounts to a long list of iv options that are irrelevant in a community setting, with sometimes a final throw away remark that the particular MRSA in question is also highly sensitive to oral cefaclor or the like (which would have been useful to know the previous day when the report arrived at 5pm and the patient could be 12hours into the appropriate antibiotic) – but that's my "biased" rant over microbiology :-) David Ruben Talk 03:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Peptidoglycan
Nice edits on Peptidoglycan. Mushintalk 15:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks&mdash;now if I could find a decent diagram of PTG (pictures being worth ~103 words or somesuch), I'd be happy.... okay, happier . MarcoTolo 21:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's something I've been looking for too...it would add a lot to the article. Mushintalk 23:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Axel Heiberg Stang
Glad to hear that, for a moment there I thought you were some sort of nazi freak. Eixo 21:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mumps edits
I archived this off my User talk page. Heathhunnicutt 06:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mumps
There is a PubMed reference there as well - 16 I think - which is to a CDC report giving the duration as 2 years, peak as 56000.

Our DoH website is essentially useless for any real purpose, but I found this

It still seems a high number to me, but I suppose if we regard it as 100 cases in a city of 100 000 then in a population of 56 000 000 it begins to look more likely. Midgley 02:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also supporting the 100k value is this excerpt from the JCVI minutes on 22 June 2005:


 * 13. MMR
 * Department of Health gave an oral update on MMR London catch up campaign. The final data is not complete but a substantial number of children have been immunised further details should be available by the October meeting.


 * The current position of mumps is about 30,000 cases with about 2,000 cases per week. The estimated increase on coverage is by 3% which suggest the amount of measles vaccine used is more than mumps.


 * Assuming (dangerous, I know) the same incidence rate gives ( (2,000 * 4 weeks * 10 months) + 30,000 ) = 110,000 cases. So, not so ridiculous, I guess. -- MarcoTolo 02:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for digging up useful references. I notice there is now getting to be a revert war over whether Ireland is in the U.K. or is a Republic, or what.  So I take it there will be more first-hand reports from G.B. soon.  If you talk to insiders in the U.S., there may be a lot of news.  I think what the article could use now is more information about current (now) vaccine efforts (Merck, CDC) and more linking to vaccination articles. Heathhunnicutt 19:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a BBC news article from the beginnings of the outbreak in U.K. Heathhunnicutt 19:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Heathhunnicutt 19:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we move this to the Mumps page discussion subpage?

''I have compiled this thread and moved it to Talk:Mumps. Please continue discussion there. Heathhunnicutt 17:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)''

Thanks for voting on my RfA
--M e ts501talk &bull; contribs 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments
Thanks so much for your comments. I am still feeling my way around here. SallyB 21:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
Dear ,
 * Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M   o   P-_  22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The new and third article about Legionnaires' disease
I am writing to you because, in the past, you have contributed to the article Legionella and therefore might be interested in the following:

Wikipedia has had two existing articles for quite a while named Legionella and Legionellosis. About two months ago, User:Noigel2000 started making changes to both these articles with no prior discussion on the talk pages. When his changes got edited, he became quite perturbed. After quite a bit of discourse, (during which his need to use proper Wiki syntax and guidelines was pointed out to him), he became even more perturbed. He made a number of derogatory remarks about other editors and about Wikipedia, and kept insisting that his Internet website (devoted to Legionnaires' disease) was the best source of information and better than anything in Wikipedia.

Finally, Noigel got tired of having his edits to the two existing articles corrected and of being admonished for some of his remarks. So he wrote a third, completely new article entitled Legionnaires' disease. It is composed entirely of material taken directly from the many pages on his Internet web site. He made absolutely no attempt to "Wikify" the article. There are no references, no external links (with one exception, a link to his web site), no embedded Wiki links, poor organization, no use of Wiki section headings, etc. In my opinion, he is using Wikipedia as a billboard for his web site (and I admit that I am biased, because I do not like his attitude).

Here are two of the pages on his website: and

Here is a direct copy of his self-introduction from his User talk:Noigel2000 page: "Who am I or what am I. Some call me a Legioneela Advocate, Others a Legionella Nut or Legionella Fan some stronger than that."

Do you think that this third article by Noigel is really needed? Please let me know what you think.

Clary
Hey there MrcoTolo, I noticed that you voted against the Johnny Lee Clary article and I was wondering that you would be willing to help with an article or perhaps help with getting it out of its deletion tag. Any help would be appreciated. I have drafted it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary Nick. Potters house 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article
– ClockworkSoul 22:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethylene
Hi: I had deleted the section on theoretical chemistry because I felt that it was virtually devoid of content and misleading, referring to some spectrum as if there were one. But maybe I am missing something that you are picking up on, so I'd be real interested in what you think that spectrum might be and would be willing to provide a reference. Thanks for your interest in this neglected article.--Smokefoot 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, ethylene does have a spectrum (the NIST example is here). I'll add a link to it from the Ethylene article, though really the theoretical issue is one of "our models don't explain this spectra well". -- MarcoTolo 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete as vicarious vanity
Do you think your V or something? :) Whispering(talk/c) 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Now there's a thought - maybe my mild-mannered alter ego needs an upgrade..... "VE is for VendettaEditor!". No, wait: suddenly that sounds like a failed Saturday Night Live skit . -- MarcoTolo 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bacterial categories
Marco, I'd like to suggest that instead of trying to list individual bacterial genera and species in Category:Gram positive bacteria and Category:Gram negative bacteria, we should simply add groups as subcategories. Otherwise those categories will get too large to use properly anyways. Thanks, Josh


 * I came to exactly the same conclusion - a conclusion which should have occured to me about half-an-hour earlier..... -- MarcoTolo 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/DeFRaG
Hi. You have recently voted for deletion of DeFRaG article. I have cleaned up it and added some references. I also added some proofs of game's notability here. Please, check out this article and discussion about its deletion once again and reconsider your vote. Thanks ;) Visor 14:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article
– ClockworkSoul 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject
Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – ClockworkSoul 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is proteasome!
– ClockworkSoul 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

wikEd


Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus:• syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • morefixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages• convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjustthe font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Usually it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA interference!
– ClockworkSoul 14:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)