User talk:Colin

Click here to leave me a new message. Please remember to always sign your messages with '~~~~'

Archives
6 December 2005 – 14 July 2006 4 August 2006 – 18 March 2007 19 March 2007 – 8 November 2007 11 November 2007 – 26 June 2008 1 July 2008 – 28 September 2008 1 October 2008 – 24 November 2009 16 December 2009 – 4 July 2010 30 August 2010 – 30 September 2012

Hi

Hi Colin. I hope you're doing OK. I just wanted to say how much I appreciate all you've done here at Wikipedia. Your work on autism has been stirling and I believe your contribution to WP:MEDRS has been a significant step forward in the evolution of Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice in thanks for your efforts. Your comments are always worth reading, and I fervently hope they'll return soon. More importantly, I hope you're well. -- Scray (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Colin°^Talk 11:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Big sigh of relief! Welcome back! -- Scray (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my

I scanned your contribs, hoping to find that the Education Project issues with medical articles have come under better control this term (the spring 2012 term certainly made editing here unbearably unbearable); alas and alack, I came across this, and worse, saw that the same issues persisted in that article after you cleaned it up once (I started to clean it up, and decided it was too much work). From reviewing the talk page, we don't seem to have made any progress at all on this front, and we seem to have another problematic class. Has there been any progress in what you're seeing this term? It seems that whenever the Foundation gets its personnel on board behind something, it goes all to heck since they are invested and defend the faulty edits, so I worry about these other medicine ventures that are cropping up, and I'm aware of the WMF using donor money in ways that will further problematic editing in other areas-- most discouraging. I hope some medical editors have seen some improvement somewhere; I'm done with my summer busy-ness, but if the medical situation has continued to deteriorate, I should consider unwatching all of medicine-- we seem to have lost MastCell, and I wonder where we go from here. I hope you are well, and I hope you've got some good news, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes looks like big issues. I have more or less limited my editing to 80 articles. Keeping an eye on more is simple too much. While see if we can attract some more positive contributors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I kept meaning to mail you over the summer but neglected to. Sorry. Will catch up later. The class editing that epilepsy article is here. Actually their list of tasks and assignments look quite well thought out and much more promising than the "Add a sentence to Wikipedia" assignment we were hit with last year. There were three issues:

• The student didn't have a clue about plagiarism, and it isn't really our job to teach them that. This is one of the problems with doing assigments on the worlds biggest online encyclopaedia: when your ignorance causes you to break the law, or exposes poor knowledge of ethical standards then it has serious consequences for us. In the old days, that copy/paste article would just be sitting in some prof's drawer with a big red line through it.
• Students really need to orient themselves round the hyperlinked collection of articles concerning their topic. Far too much effort is spent writing content Wikipedia already has and in the wrong place. Or effort spent trying to expand a subject that is possibly just a classification artefact into a full article.
• As normal, I wanted to help, didn't have the time, forgot about it. I tried posting for help (as did the student) at WP:MED but got no respose at all. This isn't a complaint about the folk in the project but just emphasises we don't have people qualified to help who have the time. We have a scattering of specialist experts (virologist, A&E, etc) who know Wikipedia well and can write to FA or GA standard, but no neurologists at that level. And I suspect the folk who can help with plagiarism are more literary than science/medicine types. The idea that students will get help from the Wikipedia community is a myth.

The talk page on that article got blanked/replaced so my comments and those from the prof were removed. The prof did support my necessary revert, though and is at least a little bit active on Wikipedia. So I do see some improvement in class design but not enough in other areas. Colin°^Talk 09:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Applied behavior analysis

Hi Colin,
I wanted to know if you could reply to my comment on the talk page to merge the Behavior modification article into the Applied behavior analysis article, as ABA is the new term of Behavior mod.
See here: Talk:Applied behavior analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification.
Thanks!
ATC ^{. Talk} 03:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really have any knowledge of these terms so wouldn't offer any insight. Have you tried WT:MED or Casliber? -- Colin°^Talk 12:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to try contacting Casliber first. Thanks for the advice! ATC ^{. Talk} 14:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Imagine"

Thanks for taking the time to comment on the article. It is greatly improved due to your input. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Education program metrics

Colin, I have a bit more time now so I wanted to add a little to what I posted on my talk page in reply to your note.

A class's impact on Wikipedia should be looked at in terms of how much it improved the articles it worked on; the cost of that class is how much effort and trouble regular Wikipedia editors had to go to to assist that improvement.

The quality metric you were looking at here does have real value, I think. It's in the area of medical articles that I have most concerns about it, because WP:MEDRS is not something most editors are familiar with, so it's quite possible for an editor like me to assess an article superficially, seeing that it's been expanded with what appear to be reliable sources, and not realize that MEDRS is being violated and that the article has actually been made worse. However, I think the general statement made there, that the majority of articles have been significantly improved by the work of the students, is true. You've probably already found this page, but just in case, here are the reviews on which that 64% was based. You'll see there are several medical articles there; some, such as Brunner syndrome, were assessed as having been much improved; others, such as Heritability of autism, were assessed as not having noticeably improved. It's worth spot-checking a couple of the before and after versions of various articles (not just the medical ones); I think it will reassure you that at least some of the students are doing good work.

At the time that the quality metric was being used for the spring semester, we were unable to think of a good way to measure the burden on the regular editing community, which as far as I can tell has been the most common complaint about student editing. That is, the students may damage an article, but it does get repaired, so the problem is not that we now have worse articles, it's that we wasted time fixing those articles to no benefit to the encyclopedia. That's what led me to the burden analysis, here. That looks at two sample students from every class, and reviews every single edit they did. The page includes a diff for each edit, so you can check to see if you agree with my assessment of the value of the edit. Then I assessed whether, overall, the student was an asset to Wikipedia. For some of the medical or psychology-related edits, I wasn't sure of my ground, so I asked at WP:MED; that conversation is here.

Finally I took the results for each student and made a table to assemble the overall quality contributions and burden of each course, and put a metric on the courses. Though I wouldn't place a lot of faith in the exact ranking, I do think the classes with the worst scores are definitely problematic, and the classes with the best scores are very beneficial to Wikipedia.

For the education program to show it has value, I think it has to perform this kind of analysis, and then it has to do something with the results. We can't forbid a professor from teaching on Wikipedia, but the classes that are clearly problems need to receive feedback to that effect. The education program ought to be a mechanism for finding, fixing, and if necessary discouraging or stopping troublesome courses, as well as a mechanism for encouraging and equipping beneficial courses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to look at your links later. MEDRS is an issue but not the most important one and I think the problems I found with the two medical articles linked from the talk page of the Outreach wiki are surely going to happen with any technical subject:

• Students who are absolute beginners in their subject writing at a level that is beyond their ability. The assignment is, after all, a test of the student's grasp of their subject, or ability to research and write about a subject, and many of them will fail to some degree.
• Students assignments creating articles that contain material that is already better placed elsewhere on Wikipedia. Part of this comes from the lack of groundwork done by the student or prof in choosing articles. Part of this also comes from the choice of stubs or even redirects as the subject on which to expand. There may be a very good reason why the topic is a stub or redirect: expansion to an large article is not a good idea.
• Students still copy/paste or close-paraphrase. This is a significant burden on WP because we are compelled to do something about it.
• Students work for a short time then disappear. Since the work is for marks, there is pressure on other editors to not interfere (either by improving it or deleting it) but also there is no incentive to develop a relationship with someone who's heart never was in the subject and has now gone down the student bar.
• Students do work that isn't repaired. This is especially a problem with the stub/redirect expansion choice: nobody is watchlisting those pages. A redirect will have a watchlist of 1 editor, who probably left long ago.
• There's an assumption there is a WP community who can review/repair the articles, or who think doing such work is a good use of their time. This isn't true. Psychology is very weakly covered by Wikipedians and I'm among several WP:MED editors who have now taken all such articles off their watchlist. It is a wasteland. But even a topic of my own concern: epilepsy has exactly zero experts on Wikipedia. My interest is lay and severely limited by my free time. If students make mistakes in such articles, nobody will fix them.
• You repeat the "Anyone can edit" line with your "We can't forbid a professor from teaching on Wikipedia" comment. Actually we can and we should. We've seen classes so badly designed and run that they constitute an off-wiki-organised attack on Wikipedia. Like some radio presenter asking their listeners to go vandalise some WP article. These bad classes are asking their students to, effectively, make Wikipedia worse. It would be trivial for WP/WMF to formally request the class stop and to enforce it if necessary. Wikipedia is not a homework assignment. It is an encyclopaedia. If someone was running a class like that psychology one did but on an area I care about, like epilepsy say, then I'd be jumping up and down to get them blocked.

I think the analysis metrics are missing a score for accuracy, and this needs to be gauged by a subject expert. They are also missing a score for appropriateness: was this material appropriate here or did we already have it or is it in the wrong place. The two medical articles I discussed had basic mistakes. This isn't some MEDRS fine point. The students just wrote stuff that was wrong. And did those doing the analysis check for plagiarism? Colin°^Talk 10:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points. I think the analysis that was done addresses some of your points, but not all of them -- I didn't check for plagiarism in either the quality review or the burden review, but in many cases it wasn't possible as they were using offline sources, so yes, some copy-paste may have survived undetected. Your point about unrepaired work is good, though that's something I did try to address in the burden review; I assessed not just the response to the edit but the edit itself. (I think there was only one case out of several hundred where I found something bad enough for me to have to stop and fix it.) You're also right that "anyone can edit" isn't a license to encourage damage to the encyclopedia. However, I do think it's worth separating the education programme from the classwork in this discussion. The education programme is likely to encourage more classes to work on Wikipedia, so if classes are bad, the EP is bad -- I get that. However, if the EP is a resource to find and stop the badly performing classes, and improve the work of the existing classes, isn't that a good thing? Professors were assigning work on Wikipedia before the education programme, and they'll continue to do it if the EP is abandoned. I think we need to manage those classes to stop the problems you've been seeing.

You mention psychology as a problem area; I completely agree. The psychology student work I've seen has been among the weakest, and I agree that oversight from Wikipedia editors is likely to be weak. The one psychology class I've looked at in detail was not editing as a result of education programme outreach; they were part of the APS's Wikipedia initiative. One thing I would like to see the EP do is reach out to the APS and talk to them about the problems with student editing, and come up with a plan for avoiding those problems in future. Outreach from professional societies like that to improve areas of Wikipedia can be very valuable, but we need an organized response to help them avoid problems.

I'll be interested to see what you think of the analyses. It became clear to me after reading a couple of dozen pre/post links to student articles that some classes are well-run, with good outcomes and well-trained students who are cooperative online and stick to Wikipedia's guidelines. There's real value there. I would like to find a way to cut the problems down to a tolerable level, and keep the good classes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I'm very concerned if those statistics don't include any investigation for simple copy/paste or plagiarism. In the infamous psychology class, 8 and 17% of edits were affected by this in the groups looked at by Doc James and myself -- and many of the students used class textbooks for which we didn't have access so the number is likely to be higher. The myoclonic epilepsy example I came across recently, which is a more ambitious assignment, had a 1000-word section that was essentially a reproduction of the source. The impact on the stats is significant as copied text is likely to be correct, sourced and well written, so score highly. What does this say when even a serious analysis of the student work is unable to detect copyright/plagiarism issues because us Wikipedian's don't have access to the sources, nor the time to conduct these sort of investigations. Surely this means that relying on Wikipedian's to review and fix student work is misguided and we should expect the profs and their supervisors to do this job? And how can they do that if they aren't proper Wikipedian's? Colin°^Talk 20:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to investigate some of the medical article edits in your analysis and burden reviews. I'm hampered by lack of access to the sources. The Heritability of autism edits which produced a marginal improvement according to the reviewers should have been scored negatively IMO. The very first statement added can be summed up as "The text that was copy/pasted from the source is correct; the few words written by the student have significant issues". The sources used are very much not MEDRS compliant which is a big issue for autism because there's so much research and dead-end hypotheses floating around that picking bits and pieces from the introduction sections of not-particularly-recent research papers is no way to go about making improvements to that article. It is quite likely that all the additions fail our policy on WP:WEIGHT. There is absolutely no shortage of recent reviews on this subject so why these poor sources were chosen is strange. I see Sandy reverted all the additions so that was a waste of time for all concerned.

If you can get hold of the source papers for any of these medical subjects, then I would be prepared to check them. I think the work I've seen from graduate students is of a much higher standard. For the undergrads then the rule seems to be that if the text is of a professional quality then it was plagiarised and if it is confusing and vague then it is original and regardless of these there's a good chance Wikipedia already had that information somewhere else or shouldn't have that "information" at all. Colin°^Talk 22:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker.) Colin, thanks for taking the time to look into this. Biosthmors (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The section of the burden analysis that looks at the class which worked on Brunner syndrome and Heritability of autism is Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Research/Spring 2012 burden analysis#University of Western Ontario: Genetics of Everyday Life. I scored one of the two students I looked at as a net positive, and the other one as marginal. I'd like to get your take (and any talk page stalkers' takes) on some of the diffs I evaluated, such as this one from that class, on a biochemistry topic, or this one from the same editor, about a model. I was trying to see if the overall set of edits from each student added up to a net positive for the encyclopedia, and I regarded those two edits as positive.

Your points about medical subjects seem reasonable to me. I don't think we can assume that well-written text from students is plagiarized, but I agree that's what plagiarized text would look like. Do you think this problem is likely to be limited to medical articles, and related disciplines such as psychology? Do you think that classes on medical topics should be actively discouraged, or that the professors should be asked to vet sources prior to student edits? I wonder if the relevant campus ambassadors for those courses have any understanding of MEDRS (they should all be clear on the subject of plagiarism).

One class that did very badly was a Kentucky class on psychology. Two edits evaluated, and both were strongly negative. I would like to see the instructor of this class given some feedback about the negative performance of their students; we can't expect instructors to avoid repeating mistakes if they don't hear about them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Stale draft since 2008

Hi. User:Colin/Brain seems to be stable since 2008. What happened with this page? did it ever move to the mainspace? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The ketogenic diet is a featured article now. I just kept that draft page thinking I might use it for the draft for something else. Should I get it deleted or marked with a notice or something? Colin°^Talk 14:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great. I never managed to create a FA! It would be better if it gets deleted. If you need to create a new page, use a different subpage name. Edit history is retained anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Article access

I saw this[1] and if want me to try and find you an article for Wiki purposes sometime, just let me know. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Should I find the time to do some serious article editing... In the past I've relied on a couple of wiki friends but they aren't so active on WP any more so having someone else to ask is good. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Colin - I'm happy to help you with this as well (I know that having a few people to ask is good, because any of us might disappear intermittently). -- Scray (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Me, me, me :) :) To repair a student-edited article, I'd love to have PMID 22807284 ... I am hoping our JSTOR access will come through soon, but am unsure if JSTOR has many medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just downloaded it for you. Send me an email? -- Scray (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Should be in your inbox now. -- Scray (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Colin/Brain

User:Colin/Brain, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colin/Brain and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Colin/Brain during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick note

I'm at work, so can't post much, but just wanted to say that the quality analysis you cite in your most recent post at the EN is not my team -- I'm one of the people on the team. That analysis was organized (and analyzed) by the WMF, just like the PPI analysis. (The burden analysis, on the other hand, is entirely my work.) I thought you might want to change your post to that effect. Thanks -- more tonight, and I'll be thinking about your comments on the source analysis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've tried to fix it. I'm aware that all this analysis is a huge effort and in good faith. Of course my essay is biased itself. One could have noted how the students didn't vandalise articles, or rip high-quality ones to shreds. And they did of course often add worthwhile stuff. But "Are students improving Wikipedia" is a complex question that isn't answered by the "64 percent" figure. I'm not sure that numbers will ever really answer the question.

You may be aware of the problem with comedians performing on TV. In their live show, they can repeat and revise old material and be fairly sure most of the audience won't have heard it before. Once their show is on TV or video, that material is no use any more. I wonder if the same will happen with student essays. Once the classic essay material for undergrad assignments has been done to death on Wikipedia, what topics will they pick? Colin°^Talk 15:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a conversation about that with Brian Carver, the UC Berkeley law professor who Kevin Gorman cites as an example of a good professor. He told me that it was getting harder for him to find good case studies for him to set the students to work on. Of course that's an excellent outcome for us, since it means that Wikipedia now has good coverage of case law for intellectual property law. I think he has a few more semesters before he runs out, but one thing I suggested to him was to take a curator's approach to the area of Wikipedia he's interested in. We looked at the article on intellectual property, and he immediately noticed that there were subarticles on the history of copyright law and patent law, but not on the history of trademark law. I pointed out that that was an obvious opportunity: if he surveyed the body of articles in that area for gaps, he could work with a sequence of classes, and perhaps some graduate students, to systematically plug holes in Wikipedia's coverage of that area. He didn't say yes! But I think it's a model we should encourage. And if we truly run out, that would mean there were no more articles to write, and Wikipedia is finished. I wouldn't complain, at that point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Monoamine oxidase A

Colin, I don't know if you have access to the sources, but if you're interested in reviewing a student's use of sources, as we discussed at the education noticeboard, here's a diff you might take a look at: [2]. The student added four sources, number 17-20 in this version, and used them to support four statements. If you are able to take a look, and would like to add the analysis here, that would be great; otherwise let me know what the outcome is and I'll add it. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Actually I think it would be easier, if you are able to do this, to work from here rather than the diffs -- there is another diff ([3]) showing some extra material added, and I think the table layout shows it in the most straightforward way. I did notice they put a same ref in twice in slightly different formats. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this class; I just finished formatting the student refs in the table there. This class finished just about dead last in the burden analysis I did, because I gather from Sandy that much of what was added didn't really belong in this article and had to be ripped out. If you'd like to see whether the student was sourcing correctly, the refs are listed in that table. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Will try to look at this some time this week. Colin°^Talk 22:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Deja moo

This old page at WT:MEDRS looks familiar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI

See here; it's not the first time I've found this. Three FAs need to be checked. I have been remiss of late, but I hope you and yours have a wonderful Christmas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/St James's Park Lake

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:St James's Park Lake – East from the Blue Bridge - 2012-10-06.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 00:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Dear Colin and family, Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

FPCs

Colin, maybe this shouldn't be true, but it is: If I'm not motivated to work on images at a certain rate, I don't. So if I'm being throttled back in nominations, I probably won't make more than the throttled rate. The thing is, making an image, uploading it, and putting it into an article is a completely thankless task, since one can't even be sure anyone has seen your image. At least if they're on FPC, someone's seeing them, and might be encouraged to reuse them, and, as such, FPC provides the needed minor reward that I can use to keep up the rate of work for Wikipedia, and, frankly, a few noms failing isn't a major issue, unless it starts disincentivising categories of restoration work. If "Is your home worth fighting for?" fails, I won't care much. I knew when I did it that it might not interest others as much as it did me. If "Don Quichotte" fails, a nom I consider extremely strong, on a subject I enjoy, and for which I have a similar nom half-done, that would possibly be problematic. (Though I'd likely renominate it a few weeks later before panicking too much) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I should probably copy this to WT:FPC, leaving out the examples. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand that when your existing nominations are struggling to attract reviews, you make the problem worse by nominating more images (of a similar category). I do value your contributions to Wikipedia. I worry that if FP is your only motivation then it won't last. People will grow tired if every sixth nomination is a technically excellent restoration, much like lots of folk are already tired of Google art images. Colin°^Talk 23:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That would imply 5/6ths of the nominations would be photos, and noone objects to photos. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Cameras

Hi Colin. I'm thinking of getting back into photography. My last good camera was a Pentax Spotmatic, your basic 35mm slr, some years ago. Do you know enough about dslr's to recommend something that does a good job? Maybe with HD video too? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Email problems

I'm having problems receiving email from Wikipedia at the moment. If you post here, I don't get a notification email. If you email me via Wikipedia I don't get the email. Hope the problem fixes itself soon. Colin°^Talk 16:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Howdy

Saw your note at WP:MED suggesting ketogenic diet for the JMIR deal, and wanted to let you know that I'm still around in the event that any copyediting/cleanup is wanted (I looked at it when I returned to WP a few months ago, and made a few small tweaks). I'm not averse to tackling epilepsy too, if it's to be a serious target for improvement. Maralia (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your ongoing maintenance of ketogenic diet. It can't be on many folks watchlists so I'm grateful for those who help out. Yes, I should round up some up-to-date sources and see if the article needs some improvement. As for epilepsy, well I've been promising and disappointing folk on that subject for years. But you never know... Would you be interested in doing more than just copyediting? Colin°^Talk 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to dig into the research and writing with you, sure, but given the scope of the article and the mountain of literature available, without expert guidance I would definitely fall down a bottomless research rabbit-hole. If you're willing to identify some relatively focused aspects I could tackle—like a specific new treatment or research direction that needs to be incorporated, or some particular aspects of the article's coverage that need to be improved—I'll happily put some time in and see what I can accomplish. Maralia (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Chris Claremont photo

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the discussion on whether to include a 1990s photograph of Chris Claremont in his article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links

What do you think about Vaccine-induced encephalopathy? Well-sourced and well-written it sould shut down some unnecessary talk page ranting. I've seen this brought up several times over the years. I know nothing about it myself, of course, but would be willing to knock up something based on those sources you just linked to and a PubMed search. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I want to create a guaranteed battleground article. I wondered about re-creating Dravet syndrome which got turned into a redirect to something that is related but not quite the same thing. Then that article could have a small section covering the syndrome's role in the vaccine controversy. Colin°^Talk 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Natural / artificial

Hi there - I left a note for you on the water fluoridation talk page. Thanks! Tilapidated (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages

It would help me to keep track of conversations if you could kindly refrain from reverting edits to article talk pages, thanks, Tilapidated (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that's the last time I try to edit Wikipedia with my mobile. I didn't mean to do that at all. Colin°^Talk 21:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Colin - let's chat on the talk page. Thanks Tilapidated (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Colin, thanks for your message on my talk page. I do understand that you are passionate about this issue, and its very obvious that you don't want changes to your article. I would encourage you to take a deep breath and look at the changes - they are well sourced corrections to factual errors in the article. Let's focus on the actual science, and try to let go of our personal beliefs around the issue - I think you'll find its not as scary as you think! Tilapidated (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Em, it's not my article. I didn't write any of it. I don't have strong views on WF - there are valid arguments surrounding the issue both scientifically and ethically (though most of the vocal anti-F folk are complete nutcases). As for focusing on science rather than personal belief, well you are by far the worst culprit here e.g., "I understand that you don't like the conclusions that the York Review authors came to". I have no opinion on their conclusion at all. Time and again you are misinterpreting both what other people have written, and the studies you are citing or even what the citation is (Worthington is not "a study about topical fluoride"). I can only repeat. Stop editing the article until you gain consensus for the changes. Colin°^Talk 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI please report problems with mobile editing at WP:VPT and draw the attention of User:Okeyes (WMF) if necessary to relay issues to the mobile team. At least that's my impression of how to provide good feedback. Biosthmors (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Colin, I'm trying to understand your motivation in not wanting the conclusions of the original study that's being talked about to appear in the article, and instead wanting to substitute completely different ones, and I'm really unable to come up with any very charitable ones. Please take a serious look at what you're doing, and whether you really want to be distorting the findings of major studies in the way you are. Thanks, Tilapidated (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You can think what you like about me. I sleep at night. Colin°^Talk 17:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

COI insight

Hey Colin, thank you very much for the heads up on COI. As you can see, I'm a bit of a newbie and have only create 4 pages with a limited amount of edits - still finding my way around. Trying very hard to write the sandbox article from a neutral point of view; it's a smaller town and the office employs a significant number of people. I beleive the article to be worthy when comparing it to other businesses that are included but find it doubtful someone else would/ would be able to write it. Any advice is appreciated. Regards. Ian Furst (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)