User talk:Delldot: Difference between revisions
reply 2 |
|||
Line 241: | Line 241: | ||
Delldot, I think my last response to your GA review comments on [[Mental status examination]] might have been ungracious. Your comments and advice have in fact been very helpful and I think the article is vastly better as a consequence. I have also learnt a lot from the process. I was just getting a bit tired of the whole thing, and had other stuff to do, but I have since gone back and done a bit more (including adding some cool images) ... and I've had another look at [[WP:GACR]] and I do think it is good enough for GA ... would you mind having another look? [[User:Anonymaus|Anonymaus]] ([[User talk:Anonymaus|talk]]) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
Delldot, I think my last response to your GA review comments on [[Mental status examination]] might have been ungracious. Your comments and advice have in fact been very helpful and I think the article is vastly better as a consequence. I have also learnt a lot from the process. I was just getting a bit tired of the whole thing, and had other stuff to do, but I have since gone back and done a bit more (including adding some cool images) ... and I've had another look at [[WP:GACR]] and I do think it is good enough for GA ... would you mind having another look? [[User:Anonymaus|Anonymaus]] ([[User talk:Anonymaus|talk]]) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks for your kind words Anonymaus, no, you weren't ungracious at all. Lots of people would have been though, since I'm sure it was frustrating to have your work critiqued by someone with so little familiarity with the subject. Sorry, I don't think I'm the right person to give you a review, and I'm glad we decided I should step back: I don't know enough about the subject. I found myself only being able to give superficial advice about the prose and appearance of the article, not enough on the content. It isn't fair to you, or your work, to give it only a superficial review. I had a vague feeling that the article wasn't comprehensive enough, but I couldn't prove it because I don't actually know anything about the subject. When I stepped back, I asked [[User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff]] if he would have a look because he's a doc who knows the subject and had shown interest in reviewing it before. He said he might be willing after some GANs and the FAC of [[subarachnoid hemorrhage]] was over, which they are now. Maybe you could drop a request on his talk page. Also, I notice [[user:Stevenfruitsmaak]] has taken an interest in the article, a lot of times potential reviewers leave a comment or two before jumping in to see if they'll get a response (if not, we figure it's a waste of time to review). Maybe you could ask him for one on his talk page. You could also put a request for a review at the talk pages of the relevant wikiprojects, or I would be glad to. Sorry for the long wait Anony, I'm sure I did you a disservice by partially reviewing it, it'll probably have to wait even longer than (the already very long) average. While mine were languishing up there, I consoled myself with the knowledge that they'd probably come down pretty quick once they hit the "oldest GAC" list, and they did. Best of luck, I'm glad to help with anything you need if you let me know about it. Peace, [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">talk</font>]]</small> 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== 'ello Gov'ner! == |
== 'ello Gov'ner! == |
Revision as of 14:04, 22 July 2008
Ok I set mine up
You suggested that I mention when I set up for my own review so I have done so now, also I have a few people who I am waiting on replies from using the template that I mentioned on the WP:ER page. Even after I have got my review I will still be happy to help other Editors out (especially if I can get better at it) because I have enjoyed the 3 I have done so far. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
SAH
Hey there! Subarachnoid hemorrhage is on the edge of FA status, and I was wondering if you could provide a source (sources?) for Image:SAH incidence graph.svg (both inline and in the image description page, please :) Thanks, and looking forward to your next GA/FA, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for catching that. How I could have failed to do that boggles the mind. Anyway, done now, thanks for the thorough reviewing work (as usual). delldot talk 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
DYK - Level of consciousness
--Mifter (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Pulmonary contusion
I've done a bit more. I'm afraid real-life is interfering with my WP time and I'm also trying to respond to a GA review of ketogenic diet. So, I'm going to be real slow. I see you've got another review and there are plenty other folk if you need feedback quickly. If you have concerns about your sources being up to FA level, try User:Eubulides. Cheers, Colin°Talk 13:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- No worries at all Colin, take your time. I don't really even have a time frame in mind, plus I have a lot of real life stuff too. I appreciate whatever you can do to help me, but if you end up not having time for it I completely understand. Peace, delldot talk 15:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, delldot, I haven't found time to continue reviewing it. I won't have time in the next couple of days and then I'm on holiday for a week. Have you tried printing the article, and reading it out loud? You could ask User:GrahamColm for an opinion. Good luck! Colin°Talk 14:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem Colin, you've been very helpful already, you certainly don't owe me anything. I was just asking if you thought it was it too sorry a state to bring to FAC without any further reviewing from you. Peace, delldot talk 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you have a look...
At Magnetic resonance neurography? I was cleaning up the references and it turns out that clearly the contributor (Afiller (talk · contribs)) is one of the inventor of the technology. While I don't think there is much COI going on, I figure it'd be best if someone with a more medical background had a look. Circeus (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I can have a look. I don't have much of a medical background though, just a bachelor's. I'll let you know what I think. delldot talk 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's better than me. My (almost entirely non-academic) background is in plant science and languages :p Circeus (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done, I thought it was pretty good, if a little heavy on the advantages and light on the disadvantages. I left a note on the talk page. Good catch, thanks for bringing it up! delldot talk 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoa
SAH is FA. I'd stuff your userpage with barnstars, but I think even that would be an inadequate sign of appreciation. Keep up the brilliant work. JFW | T@lk 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hooray! :D Congrats JFW, you did terrific work. Thanks much for the kind words! It was your work, though, that brought the article to the high standard it is now, no question. Peace, delldot talk 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
July 11 DYK
--Bedford Pray 09:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for everything
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
I award you this barnstar for helping me to learn the process of reviewing other editors, and for giving me great advice on my Editor Review I have learned alot from you through both processes and just wanted you to know that I appreciate it%%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC) |
I am just waiting on trying to get a map but have the content just about right. A quick look-over to alert me to any grammar or flow glitches would be much appreciated... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyright
pick 1 from the following: 1/you have been exceedingly busy, mostly with subarachnoid haemorrhage. 2/ you have just been letting me figure out for myself that the idea i proposed 10 days ago was too clever by half (with clever, in this case, not being a +). 3/ i have somehow given offence. that said, i have an odd situation here. i have a reference with an only copyright date of 1928. (don't worry, it's not on medicine.)i know for sure that my copy dates much later than that. on the copyright page it has the usual 'all rights reserved, no reproduction ,blah, blah, blah. my understanding of copyright law is that the copyright on this should have expired in 1998. i would like to be able to make pretty much free use of this in an article, including some pix.it's one of the major references in its field. any thoughts? advice? pax vobiscum.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm really sorry Toyokuni, I just forgot to respond! I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to ignore you, and you definitely haven't given offense! I didn't really know how to respond, so I thought I would look into it later, and I forgot. I don't have any experience with lists, so I wasn't sure if that was a cohesive enough thing to base a list on. Did you check WP:LIST and look at other biography-related lists for similar themes? I can try to help with this if you like, just give me an update.
- I'm not really sure about the copyright question either, but I believe it's the death date of the author that's important, not the publication date. It sounds reasonable to say that if it hasn't been changed in the more recent publications, it's still public domain, though again I'm not sure (In other words, a Shakespeare play would still be public domain even if it was republished, while for a new textbook edition the clock would start over, but I'm just making that up). But copyright law is very complicated, and it depends on a lot of variables, including country of origin (see Wikipedia:Public domain). For images, the copyright expires after the death of the author plus 70 years I believe, at least if it was published in the US first. Sorry, wish I could be more definitive help. Did you try asking at the help desk? I can ask around more, and I can probably help more if you give me more info. Peace, delldot talk 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Update: I asked in the commons IRC channel, and others confirmed that unchanged republication would not reset the expiration date: it would be based on original publication or the death date of the author. It was also confirmed that the copyright expiration is the death of the author + 70 years, not the original publication date, but that it might be different depending on the country. Peace, delldot talk 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- many thanks. not the answer i wanted to hear, but it kept me from putting in work that just would have had to be removed. back to the drawing board. paix. Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Great suggestion!
So I spent some time playing around with the image map extension. I have already put it to use. with the help of Wikipe-tan and the Trifecta I have created a great little adaptation to the image on the WP:TRI page.
Thanks again for all your help! %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 21:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome! Now why didn't I think of that? :P I bet there's a ton of stuff like that that you'd enjoy playing with, that was just the first thing that came to mind. You should talk to the bot type people, they might have more ideas for how to put your skills to good use. Do you ever use IRC? You should join #wikipedia-en on freenode and ask around some time. delldot talk 01:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I am on there right now, just wanted to check my watchlist while I was at it :) I may indeed bring it up. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Aww, too bad I missed you, but I'm on there all the time. Maybe next time. delldot talk 04:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, the article has been reposted and is virtually identical to the original one that was deleted. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. If it gets re-created a third time I would suggest blocking it from recreation. Zazaban (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, good catch. I hate to salt it though, since there could conceivably some day be a notable thing called "Anarchist International" that could deserve an article. I'll just watchlist it. Thanks for your vigilance and for handling this so well. delldot talk 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Anna
She's now trying to argue that the deletion of the Anarchist International article is an act of vandalism and I am being called a vandal. Also, she's claiming that the anon who blanked my userpage and tried to sabotage the vote is not a vandal. Zazaban (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear it. I'll try talk to her, I don't know if she'll see it my way though. Are you able to ignore the unpleasantness, or are you going to want to take it to ANI or whatnot if it continues? delldot talk 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to ignore her, she misrepresents her organization to an incredible degree (She claims it to be somehow related to the IWW) and generally uses underhanded tactics for reasons only known to her. She hasn't even ever been able to prove her organization really exists beyond its website. Zazaban (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear it. Anyway, that's my advice, take it or leave it. delldot talk 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've asked her to take it to deletion review. Zazaban (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Does she have a problem with the process by which the consensus to delete was decided? Or with the fact that Wikipedians decided to delete? If it's the latter, DRV isn't really appropriate, it's just for review of the way the AFD was carried out, not for the article's merits. Seems like a pointless exercise anyway if the article doesn't have any RS, you know? I suggested that she work on a new article in her userspace with RS. delldot talk 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- She disagrees with it no matter what the process, so it would be the latter. She claims I'm a vandal and that the people who voted to delete are 'ochlarchists' and therefore their votes are invalid to her, if only because they contradict her. Zazaban (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Does she have a problem with the process by which the consensus to delete was decided? Or with the fact that Wikipedians decided to delete? If it's the latter, DRV isn't really appropriate, it's just for review of the way the AFD was carried out, not for the article's merits. Seems like a pointless exercise anyway if the article doesn't have any RS, you know? I suggested that she work on a new article in her userspace with RS. delldot talk 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've asked her to take it to deletion review. Zazaban (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear it. Anyway, that's my advice, take it or leave it. delldot talk 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so not DRV then. It's too bad about the conflict, but I wouldn't worry about it. If she edits disruptively, she'll be blocked. If not, she can be safely ignored. delldot talk 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have reason to believe that the IP that was attacking my userpage and such was her using a meatpuppet, it talks just like her, nobody else uses the word 'ochlarchist'. I'm thinking about reporting her as a suspected meatpuppeteer, but I can't prove she is. Zazaban (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so not DRV then. It's too bad about the conflict, but I wouldn't worry about it. If she edits disruptively, she'll be blocked. If not, she can be safely ignored. delldot talk 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess if the disruption continues you'll have to report it, but I don't know how effective it'll be if you don't have any proof. I mean, if someone's being disruptive, they can be blocked just for that, whether or not they're a meatpuppet. delldot talk 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
G&A
The pulmonary contusion stuff from Grainger and Allison is from Ch 20... I don't know how to indicate this with the template. I use an online edition so I have no page numbers. Antelan 02:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK, no problem, thanks again Antelan! delldot talk 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Rebel!
"sometimes I eat peanut butter and jelly with no bread"
Yeah! I saw that! :O
— CycloneNimrodTalk? 16:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- :O Busted! Also, when no bread is available but tortillas are, it's PB&J burritos! delldot talk 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- You disgust me! — CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not really :D — CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- You disgust me! — CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's only disgusting when you spread all the way to the edges and PB&J squishes out. Any real burrito maker can tell you that. :P delldot talk 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Pulmonary contusion FAC
Good luck! Although I'm not sure who your "chest trauma experts" are. I'm a pulmonologist, not a trauma surgeon. ;-) Axl (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much Axl! The chest trauma experts are an author and editor of an emedicine article on penetrating chest trauma and the author of one of the reviews in the references section. I don't know how thoroughly they read the article, but each declared it good, and two made minor suggestions (this was all done through email, though). delldot talk 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The Anarchist International Wikipedia page again
At my "user talk" I have quoted several newspaper-articles (~from paper editions, etc) and a book as independent sources to the Anarchist International page. Take a look at it and see if it is enough independent sources to put up the Anarchist International page again. In case you have other comments I would be glad to hear it. I can of course change the content a bit if you mean it is still not compatible with the Wikipedia standard, just give me a hint.(Anna Quist (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
Proposal to Anarchist International Wikipedia article in "sandbox"
I have recreated the Anarchist International Wikipedia page in a Anna Quist sandbox page for discussion and perhaps changes, to reach a consensus, for later to publish it (based on general consent). Feel free to make comments. The sooner we can reach consensus and publishing, the better. (Anna Quist (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
The link to the proposal to Anarchist International Wikipedia page for discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International
(Anna Quist (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)).
Survey request
Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.
Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
What a pleasure it was to see your image added to traumatic diaphragmatic hernia, only moments after I created the article. Keep up the good work. --Arcadian (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing! I noticed it when you added it to the injuries template. I had it around anyway for something that's been languishing in my user space. Weird cooincidence, huh? Keep up your amazing work yourself Arcadian, you're a tremendous asset to the project. Peace, delldot talk 04:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Anarchist International Wikipedia page again
To delldot. You wrote:"If you want, I can mark the sentences in your sandbox that I think need citations." I think this is a good idea. Hope you have time soon to do it, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International for placing comments. I have also updated relevant information on my talk page(Anna Quist (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC))
Another question, this time about how to find out if images are for free use
Hi again Dell, I hope you are well. I know images aren't your area but I thought I would ask anyways. :) On the article Quackwatch there is the logo there for the official website. How would I go about finding out if it should be in the article and not copyright protected? I would appreciate your help if you know. If you do not know, not a problem either. I am just curious how to do this for use overall in Wikipedia. Thanks and no rush, I won't be online here for much longer. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I got this one! I think the image is copyright protected, logos usually are. A copyrighted logo can be used, but only under Fair use. For each article it's used in, there needs to be a rationale for that article on the image page. So the Quackwatch logo is not cutting it now: it could actually get deleted, because there's no rationale for the article. So let's add a rationale! You basically need an explanation for why you need to use it and to fill out each item on the list in Template:logo fur. How about you try to fill in the template as best you can and I'll explain anything that needs more explaining and help fill out any fields you have trouble with. This is from Template:logo fur, they have some explanations on that page. Cut and paste it into the image page Image:QuackWatch logo.png, and fill out each of the fields. Let me know what you need help with!
{{logo fur | Article = | Use = <!--Choose: Infobox / Org / Brand / Product --> | Used for = | Owner = | Website = | History = | Commentary = | Description = | Source = | Portion = | Low_resolution = | Purpose = <!--Must be specified if Use is not Infobox / Org / Brand / Product--> | Replaceability = | other_information = }}
- Peace, delldot talk 16:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the help again. I was going to delete it but I think fixing it to comply is even better.
How would I check if pictures in articles are Fair use and not Copyright protection though? Is there a system to check this or would I have to go to the download site and then see where it came from and go there to see if it is protected? It's too early for me to do this now, need a couple cups of coffee at least, but I will try what you told me and get back to you so you can check what I did to make sure I did it correctly. Thanks my friend, I always appreciate your help, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem Crohnie, always glad to. You would have to go to the site and see if it says anything about the image itself. A lot of the time they'll have something at the bottom of the page asserting that everything on the page is their copyright. It's a safe assumption, though, that any logo you find will be copyright protected. That's the thing about fair use--it's for using images that are copyrighted, like album covers or logos. We can use copyrighted images as fair use, but only in a very strict, limited set of circumstances. That's why we need the rationale on the image page: we have to be able to explain why this is one of those circumstances. Luckily, it is: use of a group's logo on the group's article to illustrate the group is well established. So let me know if you have any trouble filling out the rationale template and I'll help out! Peace, delldot talk 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Mmmmmm, coffee sounds good
The Anarchist International Wikipedia page again
Thank you for the comments Delldot. I will change my proposal to a new Anarchist International Wikipedia page according to your advice. I will also work with the anarchist historian H. Fagerhus and the International Institute for Organization Research to get sources to the relevant documents regarding the decisions of IFA-IAF-AI congresses and other meetings and from the International Anarchist Tribunal. We also have the e-mail source where the southern IFA-federation's secretary states the AI is lunatic. That speaks for itself. When I have made a new proposal I hope you have time to take a look at it, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International , again, for new comments. (Anna Quist (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)).
- Glad to Anna, thanks again for putting in so much work to bring this up to a high quality. If the source for the 'lunatic' quote is an email, it shouldn't stay in the article. Remember, only information from reliable, published sources like books, journals, magazines, and newspapers. Email would be considered original research or, at absolute best, a primary source, which I don't think would cut it here. I may not have been clear enough, but I feel that the whole couple paragraphs that discuss that conflict should either be removed or pared down to a couple, extremely neutral sentences. I can't see how the 'lunatic' quote has much relevance anyway. I look forward to seeing your changes to User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International! Let me know when you're ready to have me take another look. Peace, delldot talk 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
OK - we will drop the quote from the e-mail stating the AI is lunatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good Anna, thanks much. delldot talk 18:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
When I read your discussion, I can understand the problem. Now I am editing this topic (INTI College Sabah - Programmes) all over again. Also now I am trying editing to explain what this courses are all about by using my own words and not from the advertisement and brochures. So please check and see whether my work is alright or not so that I will be on a right track.
Also, there is one question I would like to ask, is it ok to plot down the list of subjects for each course (except English Improvement Programme) so that the people who surf the Wikipedia website will know what this courses are all about?
Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisceslalena (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Pisceslalena, Thanks much for contacting me to learn about Wikipedia and for working to improve the article. It's good that you're using your own words. However, I think the content you have added back will have to go. This is because it is not backed up by reliable sources that are independent of the subject (i.e. the school itself had nothing to do with writing or publishing them). In fact, I doubt this information has ever been published in a reliable source such as a newspaper, journal, or book. In Wikipedia, every fact must be backed up by a reliable source in order to comply with our very fundamental verifiability policy. I also recommend checking out What Wikipedia is not to get more of a feel for the type of content that is supposed to be included. You can also look at other school articles such as Baltimore City College to get a feel for the kind of information that's usually included. It is fine, however, to include the school's website with all this information in the External links. You could even include the main website and the website(s) with all this course information in an "External links" section, with a note explaining what information the page holds. That way people looking for this information will be able to find it, while people looking for a more general encyclopedia article will have a concise article. Would you like to remove the course info, or shall I? Sorry to ask you to do it, I see you've put a lot of work into it. Definitely let me know if you have any questions or anything to discuss, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot talk 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Pulmonary contusion
Congratulations on bringing it to FA. [And thanks for the barnstar. Much appreciated.] Axl (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are most deserving! delldot talk 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
OK so let's try flattery now
Delldot, I think my last response to your GA review comments on Mental status examination might have been ungracious. Your comments and advice have in fact been very helpful and I think the article is vastly better as a consequence. I have also learnt a lot from the process. I was just getting a bit tired of the whole thing, and had other stuff to do, but I have since gone back and done a bit more (including adding some cool images) ... and I've had another look at WP:GACR and I do think it is good enough for GA ... would you mind having another look? Anonymaus (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words Anonymaus, no, you weren't ungracious at all. Lots of people would have been though, since I'm sure it was frustrating to have your work critiqued by someone with so little familiarity with the subject. Sorry, I don't think I'm the right person to give you a review, and I'm glad we decided I should step back: I don't know enough about the subject. I found myself only being able to give superficial advice about the prose and appearance of the article, not enough on the content. It isn't fair to you, or your work, to give it only a superficial review. I had a vague feeling that the article wasn't comprehensive enough, but I couldn't prove it because I don't actually know anything about the subject. When I stepped back, I asked Jfdwolff if he would have a look because he's a doc who knows the subject and had shown interest in reviewing it before. He said he might be willing after some GANs and the FAC of subarachnoid hemorrhage was over, which they are now. Maybe you could drop a request on his talk page. Also, I notice user:Stevenfruitsmaak has taken an interest in the article, a lot of times potential reviewers leave a comment or two before jumping in to see if they'll get a response (if not, we figure it's a waste of time to review). Maybe you could ask him for one on his talk page. You could also put a request for a review at the talk pages of the relevant wikiprojects, or I would be glad to. Sorry for the long wait Anony, I'm sure I did you a disservice by partially reviewing it, it'll probably have to wait even longer than (the already very long) average. While mine were languishing up there, I consoled myself with the knowledge that they'd probably come down pretty quick once they hit the "oldest GAC" list, and they did. Best of luck, I'm glad to help with anything you need if you let me know about it. Peace, delldot talk 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
'ello Gov'ner!
Not much up with me at all, my friend. On-wiki, I've been spending most of my time trying to diversify my skills. Off-wiki, my life kind of revolves around my upcoming wedding in a couple of months. So I guess things are peachy.
So, 'sup wit u? I see you're still kicking butt left and right on this delldot-pedia. Hope everything A-OK off-wiki.
Thanks for hitting me up the way you did. I think it's sweet that you remembered.
Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear back from you! Congrats on the wedding, hope it goes well! Those things can be stressful, or so I hear. Everything is A-OK off wiki, but I'm going to have to impose a limit on the amount of time I spend on wiki because it's taking over my life (again). My off-wiki life kind of revolves around trying to get a van converted to run on vegetable oil, with zero mechanical knowledge or skill. Best of luck with everything! Peace, delldot talk 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)