User talk:Una Smith/0000.00 - 2008.02

misc
http://www.old-dairy-online-saddlery-shop.co.uk/acatalog/Riding_hats.html

Sacrococcygeal teratom (Steissbeinteratom)
Hi Una, you wrote on my (German) user talk page. I was surprised - what was the intention? Have you visited my homepage? Another question: are you a doctor? And sorry about my English - it isn´t so good. By the way - I´ve a user account in the English Wikipedia, too. Greetings from germany --Grimmi 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Una and thx for this fast answer - now I understand. My daughter had a teratoma, and after a few years it came back. That´s why I´ve this questions´. Have a good time --Grimmi 06:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Teratoma notes
Japanese (ja) also 奇形腫

Serbian (no wikipedia) Teratom also Čudo.

interwiki links
I'm still not used to this new wikipedia interface... I've replied you on Talk:Alpha-fetoprotein. Should I have posted my reply here instead? Samantha 03:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fetal intervention
Many thanks for explanation, makes sense now :-) David Ruben Talk 02:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

TFD and experts listening
Concerning My comment on Meta --Una Smith 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Una, could you tell me, have you ever prompted an expert to make a change to a Wikipedia page? I'm trying to find examples of how Wikipedia has encouraged experts to listen to, and respond to, people from outside their own field. As a biologist, would you consider yourself to be inside or outside the field of clinical research? Open Research 13:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if your edit to ovarian cancer was meant to add that article to molecular and cell biology's collaboration list, but I have removed that tag. The nomination appears to have been incomplete and I can not find any mention of the article in past or present collaboration nominations. If it really was fully nominated re-add, and please show me where I missed it. Optigan13 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Using undo
Hello, I am sorry for immediately removing "cancer bacteria" from the "see also" list on cancer. This is an issue that we've been debating for weeks.JFW | T@lk  20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. Regardless of the validity of the theory of "cancer bacteria", I think the theory itself is very real and merits a page.  Its own page, apart from cancer.  See for example prolotherapy and fetus in fetu, two other pages on controversial topics. --Una Smith 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is generally regarded as very poor form to punch "undo" or "revert" on an edit that is not obvious vandalism or some other policy violation. When I removed cancer bacteria I gave a legitimate explanation, and pointed to a discussion on the talkpage. JFW | T@lk  20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All reverts are automatically marked as minor, and with manual reverts I personally follow the same practice. All this is no excuse whatsoever to reinstate the link that we disagree on. I suggest you WP:COOL and participate in the discussion on Talk:Cancer. JFW | T@lk  21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry: should have added "see talk page."  Talk:Cancer has a prior explanation for my adding a link to cancer bacteria.  I have now restored the link with an edit summary. Maybe I need to do it again.  And maybe it is time to request mediation. --Una Smith 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings. I'd much rather we have an open discussion on this. I doubt we need to go straight to mediation. On Talk:Cancer I have outlined my numerous objections against Ronsword's agenda, and I think I would be wrong to create an article just for him and his buddies to run rampant.

I do not dispute that there is some evidence for mycoplasma, and neither do I dispute that some alternative people have gone on the run with this. I don't actually think there is enough of a trend to start a dedicated article on this; there are many other weird & wonderful theories that we do not honour with their own article. The best place for the relevant content would be in Victoria Livingston and Alan Cantwell - given that the whole thing is rather personality-driven. JFW | T@lk  21:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, honor has nothing to do with it, and someone else having an agenda has nothing to do with it. Some people here want to write about the topic, so let them have an article on that topic.  No skin off your nose.  Cancer is already too long, and covers another, related topic, and Talk:Cancer is also too long.  Arguments there about cancer bacteria are distracting everyone from the other editing work that needs to be done.  Let the arguments for and against cancer bacteria happen on the talk page of an article devoted to that topic. --Una Smith 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of cited material
Do not remove cited material from articles. It has been explained to you before that we use secondary sources, not primary sources. Your disagreement with this doesn't change it. If you continue removing cited material from articles, you will be blocked.  AK Radecki Speaketh  02:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, as I explained to you before, TV news programs are not authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (Reliable_sources) when the subject is science. You have had more than a month to produce reliable sources for the questionable claims, and you have not done so. Yet you are very quick to wholesale revert other contributors' productive edits. And now you try to intimidate me by threatening that I will be blocked. --Una Smith 02:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

 * Hi Una. Akradecki has asked me to look at the dispute you are having. I would like you to state clearly on the talk page of the article (or here if you prefer) exactly what your objection is to the information he wants to put in the article. In the meantime I'm going to remove the tag you placed on the article; I don't think that the dispute justifies it. I am hoping that we can come to a compromise that everybody can live with. Best wishes, --John 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again Una. I am disappointed that rather than treat my suggestion with the respect it (I think) deserved, you have made a further complaint at AN/I. The possibility exists to improve the article, something we should all wish for. Basic courtesy would have had you at the very least inform me that you were complaining about my actions on a centralised message board; I find your decision not to do this rather disappointing. Tell me, what exactly do you want from this process? --John 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * User:John, I apologize. I just finished informing User:Akradecki;  informing you would have been my next step.  I can type only so fast. --Una Smith 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see it there are two issues here: (a) a content dispute and (b) Akradecki's behavior in response to that dispute. I would prefer that the AN/I to focus on (b) and this talk page focus on (a). Do you have knowledge of or an interest in fetus in fetu? As demonstrated by my contributions, I have been working on many medical topics relevant to fetus in fetu intensely for over 6 months. I would be willing to put a lot of work into fetus in fetu if I thought it would not be rejected as POV-pushing. --Una Smith 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. On (a), my background is in Chemistry rather than medicine, but I hope my interest in the subject and my experience on Wikipedia (>30k edits) will convince you that I can make a meaningful improvement to the article. What did you think of the changes I made? On (b), I don't think your post at AN/I will help. I urge you to forgive and forget any hurt that the dispute has caused you and move on towards improving the article. Best wishes, --John 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Article assessments
I noticed you added an assessment of GA to Talk:Medical cannabis, an article that hasn't been through WP:GAC, is not tagged with and is not listed at WP:GA. Articles can't be assessed as GA by a WikiProject, they must go through the GAC process. Can you review the instructions for assessing, and if you've assigned any other articles higher than B-class, pls re-do them? Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now found and reversed five, but there may be more. I don't think the articles I reversed would meet WP:WIAGA and would pass the WP:GAC process, so they should probably be highest B-class.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that, SandyGeorgia. --Una Smith 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem (I did the same once myself :-) I hope I got them all. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

French Wiki contrib : horse SAR ?
Hello, I did'nt understand your link + blank page concerning the item (on subject) which one i've revert, cld u explain pse ?--better answer on the French user:Klipper)--Atchoum 19:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Radiology report
Send CR to the patient

Indication (reason for this study)
Patient with a history of surgery for sacrococcygeal teratoma in the neonatal period, presents now with disorders of rectal evacuation.

Technique
Slices in mostly T2 high resolution in the three planes of space, dynamic image sequences acquired in the sagittal plane during rectal pushing and holding.

Result
The static series show important morphological remodeling of the sacrococcygeal area. There is a dislocation (rupture) between the sacrum and the coccyx, and the coccyx is deviated to the left. On the level of this dislocation, there is a meningocele of 22 mm in the presacral space, this meningocele not appearing compressive. The meningocele is on the left side of the left root of S4. The various sacral nerves can be followed, the last nerves are difficult to follow on the left side.

(To be continued.)

Your recent edits
Would you mind reverting this edit which deleted part of the talk page, and substituted some unrelated content? Please do re-insert your own comments after restoring the original content! Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I think it is fixed now. --Una Smith (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Choking assessment
Hi there,

Thanks for rating the article on WP:MED, but I find it hard to see what information from the talk page you want integrated in to the main article. Most of it is flippant comment, or disproved by other comments. The only one with potential note, which I can't find a reference for, is that back slaps are discouraged in Canada, and I suspect this isn't true due to collaboration on WikiBooks First Aid with a Canadian author.

What from talk should I look to include?

Owain.davies (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Choking. --Una Smith (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"See the problem?"
Could you clarify your use of the words "See the problem?" made in this edit? JFW | T@lk  17:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input, JFW. --Una Smith (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You've confused me more. Are you simply agreeing with Colin that contributors should be thanked for their work on articles, especially in collaborations? Then we're on the same side. JFW | T@lk  21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotavirus
Dear Una, I have more-or-less finished the re-structuring and I did as you asked re: Diagnosis and treatment. Best wishes. G. --Graham Colm Talk 19:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Una, you have left a very strange looking link on Rotavirus. I'm not at all sure why. --Graham Colm Talk 18:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Meaning the phrase about severe diarrhea and death? I couldn't think how to express it, so I made it really ugly.  That at least gives others a chance to come in and edit something obvious here and there... --Una Smith (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Una, I've deleted the whole phrase. It's redundant given it was preceded by usually.--Graham Colm Talk 18:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Edits like that you can just go ahead and do. Be bold. --Una Smith (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Food poisoning article
Una: thanks, I'd be glad to help. I've done a lot of Wiki articles, edits and translations. What concerns me in a lot of Wiki medical and biological/botanical articles is that articles often read like the answers to a University microbiology exam. My motto is "Wiki is for laymen" and I'd like to see a lot more clear, transparent articles that lay out the most important information in the first sentence and first paragraph and minimize obfuscating technical language. Links are used too frequently in lieu of clear explanation. Many times I'm looking for some simple basic info and I have to just give up. Issues in diseases like transmission, morbidity, vectors, and so forth should be spelled out right away at the very beginning. The more technical data is very helpful to many but the article, in my view, should push the more abstruse material further down for the reference of those who want it. The whole article should read smoothly and clearly and be coherent as a whole. Basically, I'd like to see a more journalistic (as in newspapers!!) approach. Thanks so much for answering. NaySay (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Bonaparte Crossing the Alps
I have added more info on the mule, and why it was used etc. Please take another look at the article, and the FAC, to see where I have made the changes. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Herpes Zoster
Hi Una,

Thanks for all your help on HZ. We seem to be pushing in slightly different directions at times but overall we want the same result. At times, I'd rather you'd proposed edits rather than being bold, especially when we have so many subject-experts to ask. We all have different methods of working and attitudes, I suppose. Cheers, Colin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Same to you. :-)  --Una Smith (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Virus Introduction
Dear Una, thanks for telling me about the request for a peer review. I didn't know about it. Your questions were very apt, (as usual), it will be interesting to see if Richard discovers vectors. Re: HZ it seems that much of our hard work is being cryptically reverted. OM is a difficult editor to work with. I hope you have a thick skin, (which I suspect you have). What are your thoughts on Rotavirus for FAC in 2008? Can it be done? My best wishes, Graham. --Graham Colm Talk 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is time to let some other editors have a crack at HZ. I will keep an eye on the FAC nominations page.  I don't know about thick skin, but for sure I don't have time, energy, or inclination to play tit-for-tat.  Noblesse oblige.  As I said before, of course Rotavirus can reach FA and I will help to get it there.  Remember, though, if you don't get my point you need to say so.  We are operating from very different disciplines and at times we have very different POVs.  Confusion often points to precisely those aspects of a topic where a good encyclopedic article can excel.  That is why I try to answer readers' "off the wall" questions on talk pages. --Una Smith (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch
On the perpetual laten ten cy, or reactivation to Herpes zoster edit. I did want to ask you to consider whether "for life" might be redundant in the sentence. I have no strong desires one way or the other, I leave it up to you. Ward20 (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I think it is important to say in the lead that although almost everyone has VZV, most people never get HZ.  What was redundant was the "after decades" part.  I have edited the lead again;  is it better now?  As written now, is it clear that some latent virus persists even after reactivating?  So multiple episodes of HZ are possible?  --Una Smith (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, some VZV persists and some VZV returns.--Graham Colm Talk 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I know. The question is, does the lead convey that?  How about "some of the latent VZV reactivates"...?  Hm, I think the first paragraph of the lead may need to be reorganized.  Again. --Una Smith (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't consider the "after decades" phrase could be eliminated, but you are right, the statement is clearer without it. Too bad though it was a nice attention grabber. I think the edit makes it much easier to read. I plan on posting a few proposals later to the talk page that may make it more clear "some latent virus persists even after reactivating". I want to put it on the talk page because the lead changes so often with all the multiple editors working on it, I find it hard to recall the versions I thought were better. Maybe that is just me.
 * I see three statements right now that I think could use some work. First there is a sentence that says "painful skin rash with blisters." Soon after there is somewhat similar yet contradictory wording to the previous sentence and to itself, "a painful rash with or without blisters. The blisters usually heal within two to four weeks." Last; "if the treatment is started within 72 hours" is not actually supported by the cite because it discussed that the viral studies set an arbitrary 72 hour window of treatment. Efficacy is proven there but not disproven at other points. "Typically treatment is started within 72 hours", I believe would be more correct to the cite. Ward20 (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually there is an RS reference that says the average latency period is 40 years (see my posting on the HZ talk page under USA centered) so "after decades" is correct and I have personally experienced multiple re-activations (that is not RS of course!) I don't know how 'arbitary' the 72 hours is as there does not seem to be 'evidence' for later commencement that would not have to be heavily qualified with 'if', 'maybe', and 'but' statements. Una I will e-mail you some further information in the coming days. Jagra (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oversimplification re important clinical details is unacceptable, because it can so easily lead to missed or delayed diagnosis. How is "average latency" calculated?  For what population?  The data is heavily censored (meaning, most people die without ever having a reactivation).  Also, how large is the standard deviation?  Do you see how silly this is?  At least one monograph on HZ says if someone in their thirties who appears to be healthy gets HZ, they need to be checked thoroughly for undiagnosed major diseases that damage the immune system:  HIV, certain cancers, etc. --Una Smith (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Typically treatment is started within 72 hours": that is not supported by the citation;  72 hours is an arbitrary cutoff used in that study. --Una Smith (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What wording would you recommend that supports the citation? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The correct reference for the HZ statistics is and I will correct the talk page accordingly. The full text contains the following statement “The proportion of zoster episodes in the evolutionary history will be lower, first because of the lower relative infectivity (0.07) and second because only around 15% of cases reactivate as zoster. The latent period for varicella is only around 14 days, whereas the mean quiescent period before zoster activation is around 40 years.” But no primary references are given. The calculation formulas then given are relevant for the ratio of time spent quiescent along an evolutionary lineage and they estimate 96%. Which presumably is calculated using 40 years latency? This is adequate for their purposes, but would it support "after decades" in the Article? HIV is certainly significantly affecting HZ reactivation rates in the developing world, should not this rate a mention in the Article under epidemiology ? Jagra (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion would be more usefully conducted on Talk:Herpes zoster. If a troll breaks in there with ad hominem remarks and accusations of POV etc., simply ignore those remarks. Do not feed the troll. If the troll is too disruptive, then it would be appropriate to file a complaint about incivil behavior and request a block to make the troll go away for a time to calm down. --Una Smith (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology. Ward20 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Graciously accepted, although no apology necessary. --Una Smith (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Equine
This is the official word: WikiProject Equine was quietly created by someone while the rest of us were endlessly discussing a WikiProject Horse. We have an official project! So let's go with it, and I am officially inviting you to formally join! Go to WikiProject Equine, add your name to the list and see what you can contribute. If you haven't already joined WikiProject Horse breeds or one of the other "child" or "affiliated" wikiprojects at WikiProject Equine, please feel free to do so. Just trying to tag articles with the new templates has awakened me to the fact that there are over 1000 equine articles in Wikipedia! (My watchlist alone is now at something like 700+) There's much to do and plenty for everyone! Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected sex
I've responded to your merge here. LyrlTalk C 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes
Dear Una, I will be working at the the hospital over the New Year's celebrations, so may I wish you now all the very best for 2008 and thank you for all your kindness and support. Graham. --Graham Colm Talk 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Graham! Happy New Year to you too.  May your time on call be peaceful. --Una Smith (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Graham's edit summary made me smile. Happy New year to you, Una. Colin°Talk 23:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Colin! (I didn't see the edit summary before you mentioned it.  :-) --Una Smith (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Seton hall
I need your help moving this to a ga nomination for the same reason i wanted it fa.. im also looking for a wiki mentor if your willing Rankun (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is nice of you to ask, but I must regretfully decline. I have too much work already, and the article topic does not interest me. --Una Smith (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Phage therapy
Please revisit that article. This is a fringe therapy that is regarded as experimental at best in all of Western Europe, the US Canada and other medically advanced nations. DGG (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you want me to do there? --Una Smith (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * to consider whether it has the necessary balance. You seem to have said its a good article. I think it way over-balanced towards promoting the therapy, and that it might fall under WP:FRINGE. DGG (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See my mini-review on Talk:Phage therapy. --Una Smith (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * DGG, you could do to stop threatening to delete text lacking citations. --Una Smith (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
for your comments at Featured article candidates/Dartmouth Medical School/archive1. I've been away and was unable to address them before the nomination was closed, but they do look very helpful and I'll work to incorporate the changes for a future nomination. Dylan (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

MEETING
If possible theres a meeting going on in irc.freenode.net in channel #SHU about seton hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankun (talk • contribs) 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For Una

 * She can be a real pain, but no pain no gain. Thanks Una. Best wishes Graham Colm Talk 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the orchid. --Una Smith (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Horse templates
Check out the changes I made with the WikiProject Horse breeds template. I did a copy and paste from the WPEQ one you did up, changing what looked like the relevant syntax. But I may have screwed something up; my thinking is that the horse breeds assessments can go into the same categories as the WikiProject Equine assessments, but I don't know if that's possible or not. But the thing is that the Horse breeds template is already on a couple hundred articles, so editing the existing template was vastly preferable to creating a new one. Anyway, I have no idea what I'm doing, so can you take a peek? Template:WikiProject Horse breeds and where it appears and I popped in an assessment, such as Talk:American Quarter Horse? Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you want to merge the projects, or maintain separate projects but merge the assessments? I would merge the projects and create collective categories and navbox templates for horse breed articles.  See for example WP:MED, which has many categories and navbox templates. --Una Smith (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge assessments but not projects. The Horse Breeding project has been around for a couple of years (often inactive) but has so many issues unique to the breed articles, that I think it is "big" enough to stay separate (300 and some breed articles, for one thing, and most of them crap) but maybe we could look at the categories as well, I know someone wanted to create a separate sport horse project, there is a separate horse racing project and a separate horse training project. --Now I DO think the horse training project could be merged, perhaps...partly because someone said I should be in charge of it a long time ago, but it's such a disaster (natural horsemanship crowd dominated it) that I don't even know where to begin and think wiping the slate and starting over might be the way to go. But anyway, you get the tech stuff better than I do, so I guess my thoughts are to ease the grunt work as much as possible as there aren't that many editors working on the actual organizational tasks.  (And too much of our time is spent reverting vandalism (sigh)  Montanabw (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution
Does the change in the lead sentence satisfy your objection? Note that this article's target audience is not sophisticated about science. There is an FA level article called Evolution for the science geeks. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment question
Una, I noticed that in the ranking lists, "A" ranked articles are listed above "GA" articles, yet nowhere in wikipedia can I find anything for doing formal assessments of A - it appears to be just a tag we can use. I am rather confused, can you point me to anything that explains this better? Thanks, and by the way, consider this a blanket apology for all past, present and (probably future) snarkiness, you've been doing a GREAT job. Montanabw (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Peer review/Concussion
Hi Una, thanks much for the review! Do you think the changes to the lead and definition sections address your concerns? What do you think it would take to get it up to GA standard (or farther)? I wasn't able to find anything on the three concussion rule, but I'll work on it more later. Thanks again, delldot   talk  18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WPEQ tags
Hi. I just took a glance at the recent discussion at WikiProject Equine. Are you asking for assistance in tagging horse-related articles with WPEQ? What I did for CMedWikiProject → WPMED was use AWB to simplify the task. Using AWB, I made a list of articles that transcluded CMedWikiProject, and did a search and replace to change the template. It is still a somewhat manual process, in that as AWB goes through the list of articles to be changed, I had to look at each article's changes and then click a button to okay the changes. For WikiProject Equine, what are the conditions you are using to try and tag articles? AWB can be used to tag based on links on a page, pages in a category, pages that transclude a template, and a few more. --Scott Alter 01:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm hijacking Una's page for a partial answer. What we have are about 1000 articles to tag (guessing), we have gotten through a couple hundred that are within a sub-project, plus probably another couple hundred in the main WPEQ project, but all manually, I think.   The organization of the whole thing is a real mess.  We are basically going through most (though not all) of the articles that are under Category:Horses and its dozens of subcategories (except for the race horse article, which have their own project and there are hundreds more of those :whining: ).  We also have a template for the articles as well.  Una has been extremely helpful in all this, as the rest of us find all this syntax to be utterly mystifying (or at least I do!).  So any tips or help, please feel free to offer further suggestions.  Montanabw (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine, so please reply there. --Scott Alter 05:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Everglades National Park FAC
I responded to your oppose for this FAC, although admittedly it may not be what you want to read. However, I have been collecting books to tackle Everglades itself, as I recognize the issues of the Everglades cannot be addressed in the article for the national park. As it stands now, the Everglades article is sad, and a disservice to the land and people of South Florida. I need help in writing the Everglades article - which I'm inviting you to do, but I don't think the issues you brought up in the FAC are appropriate for the ENP article. I ask you reconsider your oppose. --Moni3 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Suzuki: The Autobiography
Much of the article has been re-developed from the guidelines you left. Could you please re-assess the article accordingly? --maclean 06:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)