User talk:Rcej/Archive 1

Minor Edits
Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." Removing any text or altering text to change its meaning is not considered a minor edit, its an easy mistake to make but when used properly the minor edit flag can signifigantly help users patrolling new changes. Cheers. -- DennyCrane Talk 01:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!
Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

You have been added to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:
 * Read our Manual of Style for medical articles
 * Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is )
 * Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess
 * Have a look at some related WikiProjects
 * Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on.

Again, welcome! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

T:DYK.

 * Awesome. Thanks for telling me.--Rcej (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Brugada
You have added a box regarding congenital malformations in the Brugada page. I have a little problem with that since Brugada is not a malformation (although it is congenital.) Hence I believe that the box is not the right one to place

Jørgen Kanters (jkanters@mfi.ku.dk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.130.221 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Actually, Brugada syndrome belongs on that navbox per ICD9 classification 746.89... but you are right in that it is not specifically called a malformation. ---Rcej

Citation formation, Month, Number ranges
When I've been copying in Template filling output, I've been removing the month - when I get my act together I'll send a patch to optionally remove the month if there's an issue= value - or cut it down to 3 characters. I've just looked at my IEEE Software. It only has the issue number on the spine that I can see quickly and gives the May/June 2008 on each page, some maybe a terse month is better for at least some hardcopy research. My preference is for terse, I'll try 3-char month names, since long month names don't add much when you have a long DOI as well as the PMID. Eliminating month only for those journals where the page number isn't reset by issue could be done. Number ranges, is preferring terse and copying the PubMed style, similarly removing punctuation from the author first name abbreviations. I'd prefer the DOI bot to use the PubMed style when formatting from a PMID or PMC, even if it finds a DOI to use. I think the format= tags I've removed have been things like Free Full Text - which I'm unsure adds anything, especially when there are a number of references. I'm open to suggestion and may be a bit less lazy about replacing existing Cites with template filling ones when I can find a PMID. RDBrown (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like the way DOI bot formats author's names, and it is formatting the PMC wrong too, such that it isn't always visible. Good job on your template filling around those 'free hand' refs, btw. As for the format= tags, other than the minor 'all at a glance' convenience that the DOI people probably just threw in because the cross-ref grabs it, I'm seeing that it's probably just one of my nitpicky things... so feel free to do whatever with those. heh. --Rcej (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Emptying one category to fill another
Before you continue to simply undo all of the articles I have edited, how about discussing it first? I understand the difference between congenital and genetic disorders. I am not emptying one category to fill another. I am diffusing huge categories and sub-categorizing the articles. Category:Genetic skin diseases is a new category and is actually meant to include genetic and congenital disorders. At the derm task force of WPMED, we are still sorting out categorization. However, reverting all of the category changes to the articles is not necessary. If an article is in Category:Genetic skin diseases, it should NOT also be in Category:Genetic disorders. Although templates should not typically transclude categories, by adding Category:Congenital disorders, you have added all the articles back to that category...so you should not need to add back Category:Genetic disorders and Category:Congenital disorders from the articles I removed them from. Please discuss before reverting further. Are you trying to have one huge category containing every single congenital disorder? This is not a good way to categorize things...having further subcategories by system makes for easier navigation. --Scott Alter 02:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force
I saw the discussion about recategorization, and wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force, which, as one goal, aims to better categorize derm articles? Right now the current state of derm content on wikipedia is pretty poor in my estimation. kilbad (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. kilbad (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hypertryptophanemia
Hi, Robert. I've seen some of your contributions. I'm a doctor too.

Autosomal Recessive Disorders
Hi - Thanks for your comments on how to do proper edits on Wikipedia -- I am relatively new to this and sometimes it's hard with the code if you know what I mean. I ma still having a terrible time with the references -- at this point I am putting in proper content with the hope of going back to reference it properly. I have been trying to update the lysosomal storage disease (LSD) category now -- LSDs are autosomal recessive diseases. My kids suffer from one of the worst LSDs - Niemann Pick Type C. I have updated the NPC pages with help from Marc Patterson at the Mayo Clinic - my goal now is to move on to the LSDs and then into the symptoms of each diseases and add in images and graphics to all the pages. Anyhow, it would be great to work with you on the autosomal recessive category since we both have interest in this. I would love to be able to send you some papers that I have absolutely no clue how to reference properly -- I have access to some of the most amazing papers because of my twins condition. Chris | T@lk  28 November 2008  —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

DYK for Iminoglycinuria
&raquo; \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot tip
Hi, I noticed that you'd been using the Citation Bot on your sandbox - just a tip, there's an even easier way to cite articles using their PMID - just use the template and the bot will automatically detect and create the reference. I've found this avoids the laborious process of calling up the bot. Hope you find that helpful! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  18:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool! Thanks for the info. Also, you've been doing such awesome work keeping the bot working through several bugs over the past few months, I've noticed. Just thought you should know that everyone really appreciates it... thanks for that, too. --Rcej (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

List of skin-related conditions nominated as featured list candidate
I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Batten Disease
Hi Rcej, Thank you for your attempt to fix the reference in the treatment section of the Batten Disease article. Unfortunately, that link appears to be non-functional! I have been struggling with the way this entire section is written, primarily because the references cannot be verified or are completely absent. I found two references for the gene therapy trial and was planning to add them instead of the non-functional technology review article currently cited. Please review these links and let me know what you think. Additionally, I wanted to add a line or two regarding the outcome of this trial, which is also currently missing in this section. Finally, do you have any information regarding the first neuronal cell transplantation study mentioned in this article? It does not have any references and I was not able to find any information about it online. Thank you for your help in improving this article. Wiki emma johnson (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC) http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May08/wcmc.crystal.batten.html http://nyp.org/news/hospital/batten-disease-trial.html

Hello... good work you're doing on the Batten disease article. About that one ref, I did not check that url, but just wanted the url to show in the ref without the title hyperlinked as if it were a headline from an actual newspaper website. But, you were correct in removing it if its a dead link. BTW, you can find tons of medical journal article abstracts regarding any disease at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; and when searching there, select 'pubmed' on the menu. When you find the abstract you want to use as a ref in a Wiki article - which are more prefered than internet references - look for the journal abstract's PMID number. To add the ref to your article where needed, type on the page, and in a few minutes/hours the Citation Bot will automatically complete the reference for you. Pretty cool... a saves soooo much time.-- Rcej (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help and advice Rcej :) Wiki emma johnson (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rajasaurus
Hello, Rcej;

Thank you for your review, and your patience, at Rajasaurus! J. Spencer (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Zygoballus sexpunctatus GA review
After scouring through Google, I managed to find one additional reliable source that had unique information. I've added that info to the article and divided it into sections. I also created a distribution map. I'm really at a loss for anything else I can do to improve the article. There are 5,000+ species of jumping spiders and the smaller ones tend to have little or no information available about them unless the genus has undergone a review (which Zygoballus hasn't). I'm afraid no one's actually published anything substantial about this species since 1912. Anyway, if you feel like rereviewing the article, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll guess I'll renominate it on the GA page. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Moldy barnstar
Please accept this mold-covered trinket as a token of my appreciation for all the time you've spent reviewing fungus-related GANs recently. Come Jan 1st (the start of 2010 Wikicup), there will be a massive influx of new mushroom articles at GAN, so I hope will you be able to maintain your enthusiasm for reading about this Kingdom! Sasata (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Diffuse panbronchiolitis
Hey, someone has brought up a serious problem with the article at Talk:Diffuse panbronchiolitis. Can you look into it and address it if possible? There was talk of delisting it but hopefully we can just adjust the definition so everyone's happy. Let me know if you need my help, I'm happy to offer what I can. Peace, delldot   &nabla;.  04:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thx for the heads-up. I'm on it... Rcej (talk) (Robert) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Poikiloderma vasculare atrophicans
I posted a couple photos of this condition at the medicine talk page. Perhaps we could collaborate to make this article a DYK? ---kilbad (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to get this article up for a DKY nomination? ---kilbad (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think we can get a FA out of this? I can get you whatever sources you want? ---kilbad (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can eventually get it to GA; I'm not sure about FA... let me wait until GA before we decide, if that's ok :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied on my talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let me get the original source, then I will extract the images for you. ---kilbad (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bazex-Dupre-Christol syndrome
You've added incomplete ref tags to Bazex-Dupre-Christol syndrome recently, which has produced two error messages on the page. I assume it was just an easily corrected accident, but if you need help fixing them, please let me know what the sources are. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops... thx for the heads up. I accidentally pasted refs from another article... heh.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology-related content progress
Thanks again for your help in the past with the dermatology-related content on Wikipedia. We have continued to make significant progress with the Bolognia push. Also, the most recent project popular page statistics are out, and the list of cutaneous conditions continues to rise, now #49, up from #65 last month. Thanks again for your support! ---kilbad (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Rcej, I just wanted to say again that I highly appreciate your copyedits and reviews of the numerous fungi articles. Now I have to get to work reviewing, and writing some more to put in the queue! Cheers, Sasata (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome... fellow Robert! Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering a few new categories
I dropped you another e-mail. Also, I am considering adding a few more dermatology-related categories. I have posted a thread at: Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions. Could I get your feedback regarding this issue? ---kilbad (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted some replies on that talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have created a working section for "Cutaneous congenital anomalies" (which I think is a name perhaps we both can compromise/agree on?) at List_of_cutaneous_conditions. Perhaps you could help us with some of the redlinks? ---kilbad (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Nominees
Hi Rcej. I'm just wondering if you could please try to note on the GA nominee page when you've agreed to review an article. It's absolutely admirable that you work so hard to review a lot of the Biology and Medicine GA nominees, but when you don't note that you're reviewing them, other reviewers may go through the steps to initialize another review. I've run into two this evening (cookiecutter shark and midazolam) which you've either already passed, or you've already begun to review, which weren't noted on the GA nominations page. Again, thank you so much for clearing the backlog; having had an article sitting in a GA queue for ages, I know how much nominators appreciate all of your hard work! Thank you! Jhfortier (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooops... okay, I see what I did; I was reviewing Cookiecutter shark, but had erroneously signed with the ga-rev template underneath Midazolam! I can't believe I hadn't noticed that... thanks for pointing that out :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries at all; I think it's really great that you're so diligent about clearing articles out of GA nominations, if only some of the other back-logged subcategories had such dedicated editors! Jhfortier (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Schwa
Thank again for taking the time to review Schwa (restaurant). I am curious as to what drove you to review it since it seems to not exactly fit into your "normal" area of interest. (Not that I'm complaining or anything - I was shocked to see it reviewed so quickly :) )

P.S. You might want to add future passes to Good articles when you're done. I'm sure most authors will be paying enough attention to add "their" article themselves (like I did), but just in case its a good idea for the reviewer to do it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * heh...I am first and foremost a medical person, but I'm also a foodie! The article was just so interesting and so together, that I hated to see it sit in the queue or be overly picked apart by an egocentric reviewer. Anyway, good work :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Could I get your feedback
Perhaps I could get your thoughts on my first feature picture nomination at Featured picture candidates/Pyogenic granuloma 1.jpg? Please know that I am not asking necessarily for your support, just your thoughts on the image and possible feature status. ---kilbad (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Szczerbiec
Thanks a lot for your effort, Robert! I hope you enjoyed reading and reviewing this article as much as I did writing it. — Kpalion(talk) 10:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

MBI
To answer your question about the second MBI review, your review was archived as an inappropriate quick fail, hence is not part of the article history. Geometry guy 08:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An inappropriate quick fail as based on what criteria? Rcej (Robert) - talk 09:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * GA nominations should be listed or not listed in reference to the GA criteria by a disinterested reviewer, not according to opinions, however well-intentioned, on whether an article should exist or be merged. Additionally, it is normal to place nominations on hold to allow for article editors to respond to or fix concerns. Failing a nomination without leaving a detailed review or allowing for a hold period is often referred to as "quick failing" and is generally linked to WP:Reviewing good articles: none of these five criteria apply in this case.
 * I hope this clarifies your question. Thank you for contributing to GA reviewing. Geometry guy 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Disinterested' is your subjective assessment; but still, I'm not certain if you should have deleted the second review page then archived it. I'll be taking this further, just to defend my experience if nothing else :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 02:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to defend yourself, Robert. Sure, you made a mistake, but that is fine: this is a wiki and mistakes are allowed. My actions were purely clerical and not based on a subjective assessment of your impartiality. Your review did not refer to the GA criteria, nor did you follow due process for quick-failing. I did not delete it either. Your inappropriate review, complete with edit history, is available for all to see at Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA2/archive. The only thing I deleted was a redirect, to allow a fresh review to take place. Nor did I renominate the article. I simply restored the nomination by Moni3, again to allow a fresh review to take place. Thanks for your attention. Geometry guy 08:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

His "quick fail" was entirely appropriate. The whole article is based largely on a single paper from an obscure medical journal. It probably should not even have a separate wiki page. For the wikilawyers reading this, "The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way" is a quick-fail reason. An elaborate article written primarily from a WP:PRIMARY source (see WP:MEDRS) that attempts to invent a whole separate "syndrome" is an obvious failure of WP:NPOV, so it should be quick failed that way. Pcap ping  07:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Obviously non-neutral" is something that many editors would dispute. The review did not give this as a reason for quick-failing, and in any case, contentious issues are a matter for discussion, not quick-fails. You are welcome to add your opinions to the article talk pages. Note that I have not expressed a view, so any allegations of COI are entirely unfounded. Thanks for your attention. Geometry guy 08:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment, Pcap. I wrote the article and I have found every source available on it. The sources used are limited, this is true, but it does not have a large body of literature that address the issues. The person responsible for either authoring the med articles or being interviewed, Marc Feldman, is an expert in the field. He helped write the entry on Factitious disorder in Textbook of Psychiatry and has written at least one book and many scholarly journal articles on the disorder. Pcap, if your assessment is that a subject must have a threshhold of notability beyond what is spelled out in WP:N, that means that there is a separate notability criteria for GA. The GA project may not agree with this.
 * Furthermore, the merge idea was ill-considered according to the sources, which do not state that MbI is related to Munchausen by proxy, but Factitious disorder. MbI is not a diagnosis; no one has ever been diagnosed with this. It's a pattern of behavior and this is stated explicity in the article. The discussion about online identities and communities, however, adds an aspect to this article that does not belong in Factitious disorder. This article has its own issues and deserves its own space. Rcej should have stated his opinions about its appropriateness when giving the review, but he did not. He closed the review without any discussion, and in my opinion he was wrong in his assumptions about where the material should go and closing the review.
 * This is added to a previous GA review where another editor decided to take it on without any experience reviewing before at all. He also improperly quick-failed it and it unfortunately attracted a three-ring circus when another editor with whom I've had conflicts in the past took a position that unequivocally opposed the article also based--as far as I could tell--on notability. I refused to place it up again for review for 8 months just so it would not attract this kind of attention. Job well done, eh?
 * The bottom line is this, however: if an article belongs on Wikipedia and the writing and sourcing are excellent, it has the ability to become GA. Not FA, but GA. If you disagree, this should be clarified at WP:GAN. Otherwise, the article should be deleted from Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the premise of it as a psychological disorder or significant phenom. was not enough to make a GA... but I could have handled it better. Regardless, I have no ill-wishes to anyone involved :) I stand-by what I did, tho. Rcej (Robert) - talk 02:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Brachytherapy
Hello, Rcej;

I noticed that the brachytherapy article was nominated for GA status, but that it appears the nomination was removed in January. I just wanted to ask if the reason for the removal was annotated anywhere? (Apologies if this is included somewhere that I have missed). I'd be very grateful on any feedback you can provide on how the article could be further improved. Many thanks in advance.Rock mc1 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the removal here :) I delisted it initially because the article was nominated by an unregistered IP address, the user having never contributed to the article and possibly being uninterested in the review process (a 'drive-by nom'). As for the article, its pretty good and can be re-nominated anytime, preferably if the nominator is willing/going to work on improving the article during the review. I can't really say what the article needs specifically to be a better article, though... I haven't read it in enough detail. :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Tail Reborn
How is Red Tail Reborn now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re at GAR :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Rights
Thanks for doing the GA Review. I responded, at Talk:Cyber Rights/GA1. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyber Rights
 * ur very welc :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FA nom
Hi Robert, I've expanded The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman, which you recently passed for GA status, a little more and have now nominated it for FA. I thought you might like to comment, and if so, the FAC page is here. Cheers, -- JN 466  15:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx for the fyi, and good luck with the FA :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Poikiloderma vasculare atrophicans
Hello! Your submission of Poikiloderma vasculare atrophicans at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx! My re is posted there. Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem with okaying the article is that I don't fully understand it -- despite the fact that I used to work in a related area -- and your edits since my query have not made it any clearer to me. I think the article would benefit from rewriting particularly the lead in a simpler fashion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there -- it looks like the article was removed from the suggestions list on 3 June because it hadn't been expanded enough (see ). For expansions you need to increase the prose size 5x within around 5 days, which can be pretty tough for longer articles. Sorry, I should have checked that before going into other details about the hook; I just assumed it was a new article. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. Thank you :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hydrogenosome organelles
Why was a notice of hydrogenosomes present in Loricifera animals removed from minor eukaryotic organelle table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.124.154 (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't supported by a reference, and it was unclear if they are exclusively present in that organism. Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Destroying angel
That was easy! Once again, thanks for the copyedit and review. I'll be spending the next two weeks in the Canadian north with my new toy, so hopefully I'll find some new interesting fungi to write about! Sasata (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have fun, young man :D Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Kawasaki disease/GA1
Hi, this has been on hold for two months - what is going on? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator has some personal matters that have come up, so I'm allowing him some extra time. Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cansema Help Request
Hello, would you look over the cansema article. There is an WP:RFC up on it, but I am afraid no mechanism to get to derm experts. The article is currently being edited to reflect non-science, non-peer reviewed opinions on the efficacy and dangers of the material. Thanks. Jettparmer (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Solid start on the article! I don't have much to add, other than wondering: since cansema usage is considered to be quackery, should the article be included in the general Category:Oncology? hmm. Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Abantiades latipennis
Hi Rcej, I'm going to be away soon from Wikipedia for over a week and so far haven't had much opportunity to address the issues at Abantiades latipennis. Is it okay to leave the review until I come back and have more time to work on it? I wanted to let you know so you didn't think I was just ignoring it! I've done further research and have made a few teaks but it still needs more—fingers crossed, in a few weeks, :) Thanks,  Mae din\ talk 12:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll put the review on hold, and you can resume whenever :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Mae din\ talk 06:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I wasn't available to give you a response yesterday. I don't think I will be able to add any more to the taxonomy section—when I mentioned adding further information from the document Stemonitis found, I was referring to other useful bits and pieces. But I'll try to put a fair amount of time into the article today so that you can get on with reviewing it, :)  Mae din\ talk 09:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, just wondering if you are waiting on me? Because I'm waiting on you, ;)   Mae din\ talk 06:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that... I lost track in my watchlist :-/ I'll see where we are and we'll finish up ASAP! You've done really good work!! Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's okay. Thanks!   Mae din\ talk 08:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Workhorse
A fungus-reviewing workhorse is what you are, and I have to say again that I am highly appreciative of your efforts in helping bring our taxon articles up to GA-quality. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to :) Seriously, I sometimes feel doubtful about just being an interested layperson in the science/medicine arena at Wik; but the fungi article reviews have taught me that squinting beneath what you easily see from above has a valued place as well! To future reviews, fratello! Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Auricularia auricula-judae/GA1
Thanks very much for your thorough review and copyediting. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Glee template
Oh, that's no problem! I thought maybe you thought the episode didn't have an article and removed it because of that; it has been added many times before by IPs, but an article was just created yesterday! And it's not only that, but so many links with no articles (which should not be added because of WP:NAVBOX). But it's alright, Robert; you don't have to apologize! :) Yves (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aseroe coccinea
Orlady (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted at LSU
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Louisiana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Louisiana State University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live near Baton Rouge and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hygrophorus bakerensis
Orlady (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mycena aurantiomarginata
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Inocybe cookei/GA1
Hey, I've responded to the issues you raised as best I could. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Gymnopilus maritimus/archive1
Hey, thanks very much for your review. I went ahead and nominated it at FAC. It's a little unusual in terms of FAC nominations, but I'd like to hope it deserves a star :) J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Note
G'day Robert. Just wanted to give a quick thankyou note for reviewing my DYK (Template_talk:Did_you_know). Regarding the redundancy... Geez, mate. I read it and reread it and was wondering why it just didn't sound right. Thanks a lot for that. I should also let you know, I've removed the leading "the", because it Murray Farm, as a locality, doesn't require it. Cheers. - danjel  (talk to me) 08:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey :) You're very welcome! btw, Happy New Year! Rcej (Robert) - talk 09:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lidia DYK
I added a citation for the Tropical Storm Lidia (1981) DYK. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded. Basically, the hook is implied from the death totals given in the source. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 07:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded again. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK review of Mary de Morgan
Oh, it's no problem. There are a lot of rules to remember when reviewing DYK noms, and I've certainly made my share of mistakes. - PM800 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Guillaume de Dole
Hi Rcej, I hope I have addressed your concerns; see Talk:Guillaume de Dole/GA1. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! My first! Drmies (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review
Hey Robert, when you have a moment (or two), could you have a look at The Land of Green Plums? It's been under review for a while, and the reviewer just informed me that he's got a bit too much going on. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will work on completing this review :) Gimme a couple days to see where we are at.. Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Malpuech facial clefting syndrome
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK nomination for Go Big or Go Home
Thanks! I've added a ref to the part of the lead that addresses this. Please let me know if this is what you were looking for, or if anything else needs to be done. And thanks for the GAN suggestion, but as you can see, I'm already one step ahead of you! ;) If you'd like to give it a review, I'd be much obliged, but if not it's no biggie. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  06:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Land of Green Plums
Thanks for your help, Robert! I really appreciate you jumping in and improving the article as well. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the P&R review! I really appreciate your quick attention to it; I can't believe it's going to be a GA before it formally makes it to DYK! :) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK nomination for Flu Season (Parks and Recreation)
When you say ref the lead, do you mean add references and citations to the lead section? Because my understanding was that WP:LEADCITE only requires references in the lead where information is likely to be challenged, and that I don't have to cite the rest if it's already in the body of the article. Let me know if you agree or not, or if I'm misunderstanding ya. And if you still want me to add citations, I'll do it, just let me know. And thanks again! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  13:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You got it. (And just in time for Time Capsule (Parks and Recreation)! ;) ) —  Hun  ter   Ka  hn  06:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way
I'd really dig it if you signed my autograph book. I don't ask everybody, just people I've had positive wiki-experiences with. :) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow... cool! :) Glad to! Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks (for the sig and the review)! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  07:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man!
You're reviewing them almost as fast as NBC can produce 'em! :D —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

GAR for Aldimir
Hi, thanks for the heads-up and for taking up the review. It's a pleasure working with you!  — Toдor Boжinov — 09:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Berry (Glee)
Hello. ;) I noticed that you provided numerous Good Article reviews for a lot of Glee related articles. Do you think you could do a review on Rachel Berry (Glee) if you're not busy? If so, it would be much appreciated. HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be glad to :) We'll start in a couple days. Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate it. HorrorFan121 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Myco-thanks
We thank you for another GA review, and DYK nom! Slimy, and Sasata (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Comeback (Glee)
Small problem at T:TDYK requiring your attention. Should be quickly fixable. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Comeback (Glee)
The DYK project (nominate) 06:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cortinarius vanduzerensis
The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel
Hey, Robert. What's up? I have a question to ask. I've put work into another Glee character related article (Kurt Hummel) and nominated it for GA status. If you're not busy, would you be willing to review it? HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey! How are ya? :) I can't right now, because one of my medicine articles is under GAR... and I want to focus on that, and I'm having to add a lot of new stuff. When I get a chance in a week or so, though, I will be glad to review Kurt if he's still available! Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm good, you? And that's perfectly fine. There's no rush on it. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Gymnopilus maritimus/archive2
Hey- just to let you know that Gymnopilus maritimus (which you reviewed at GAC) is back at FAC- your thoughts, if you have any, are very much appreciated :) J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Parks
"I laughed out loud at least 8 times while watching this one. That last car scene with Ann and Leslie was awesome." Couldn't agree more. :D —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Domonique Ramirez
Hi, I have fixed the issue on the article. Anyway, I was wondering if you could possibly find an image of Ramirez. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gleen some from Flickr. Best bet! :) Google imgs has a ton too. Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Emma P
Hey, Robert. Would you be willing to review Emma Pillsbury if you're not too busy? HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! I will wash my hands first, of course ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You're the best. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nasodigitoacoustic syndrome
The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Nasodigitoacoustic syndrome
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Regards, MacMedtalk stalk 23:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Opsismodysplasia
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)