User talk:Garrondo

/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3

See: Help:Archiving a talk page

GA review

Any interest in doing a GA review for Dengue fever? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it. Instead, could I persuade you to offer comments on the FAC page of thyrotoxic periodic paralysis? JFW | T@lk 14:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Failed GA

The article is a violation of WP:DUEweight. The article should of never been nominated for a GA review when there is an ongoing content dispute. Most editors want to include the systematic review. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are more problems with the article. The article does not give enough examples of traumatic events. "VADs are associated with a variety of minor traumatic mechanisms including painting a ceiling, yoga, chiropractic manipulation of the spine, and driving. These events cause injury to the vessel wall either by shearing forces secondary to rotational injuries or direct trauma to the vessel wall on bony prominences, especially the transverse processes of the cervical vertebrae." This is from a reliable 2010 journal. I thought you may be interested in this source. I'm sure editors will have many excuses why a recent source from a journal is not reliable. I won't bother proposing a summary of the article on the talk page because if I propose it editors will edit against the editor rather than for improving the project based on the current stonewalling at the talk page. Editors have repeatedly ignored the conclusion of two Ernst reviews in favor of the fringe view against WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to ignore the conclusion in favor of the fringe view. A good GA reviewer will try to ensure the article is neutral. The Vertebral artery dissection article is obviously not neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think hassling Garrondo is going to get you anywhere. The content dispute was dormant by the time I nominated the article for GA candidacy, and the status quo was that "Ernst-death" was not to be included, or only with loads of contradicting opinions. I don't think that giving long lists of potential traumatic causes of VAD in any way enhances the article beyond the current version. As you will see I have now cited Ernst's conclusion from the 2007 paper prominently, and I suggest you continue any further discussion on WP:FTN rather than going forum-shopping. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Garrondo, you have made false accusations against me. See WP:HONEST. You accused me of being the only editor who believes the 2010 systematic review should be included in the article. Actually, it seems consensus is leaning to include the reference when most editors made reasonable arguments to include the source. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 20#Vertebral artery dissection. Other editors have made proposals on the talk page too. See Talk:Vertebral artery dissection#Proposal and Talk:Vertebral artery dissection#Proposal 2. So I am not the only editor. QuackGuru (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't partially represent my view to make your point. I included Ernst 2010 in my proposal along with 4 contextualizing studies that seriously qualify the connection between CSM and VAD. Also, leave Garrondo alone. What's good article status have to do with this? It's good, not perfect, and gets increasingly better the less time we have to spend on stuff like this. Ocaasi (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I think you did a great job trimming the fat off the tutorial. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

On Parkinson's disease making GA. JFW | T@lk 15:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can count on my input during FAC. The article has travelled a long way, including battles with General Tojo, and your dedication has brought it to its present level, and I trust it will become FA in the end as you have done with Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis. Neither of us will be academically credited for Wikipedia work, but in the final analysis the benefit on a larger scale is immeasurable. JFW | T@lk 15:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

AH, very fantastically done Garrondo! You are the bests ;) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 15:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Miami Project

Whatever help you could provide in finding suitable secondary sources would be appreciated. We have gone from my adding a {{notability}} tag in December 2009, to a UM student removing the tag, to my trying to rescue and improve the article in response. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talk page and the article talk page. If you have access to Medlars or some other medical data base, it might be easier for you to find the articles in question. I am in Virginia and have no connection to the Project nor access to specialized data bases and would appreciate your help with this. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

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

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

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

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

Hi Garrondo,

Just wanted to check in and see whether you had the support you needed for evaluating the WP:Invitation to edit trial. What's the plan for getting the data to you? Have you decided how you'll be evaluating it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Garrondo and Whatamidoing. I'll collect the stats for the first 10 days and present them at the project talk page in a couple of days. I'm worried there may be so little activity on the trial pages that 30 days of figures may not yield enough data for meaningful interpretation. If someone with a better understanding of statistics can give me their opinion on that point, we can decide whether to proceed as planned or propose extending the trial. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

AD in cats

Hello, Garrondo. You have new messages at talk:Alzheimer's disease#Other species.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK to zap the PD retrieval dates?

Hi Garrondo. in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parkinson's disease/archive2#Arbitrary break 0 someone, possibly Axl, urged that the retrieval dates be removed from the references to printed publications which have a publication date. This would be refs 67-78. Is it OK if I remove these retrieval dates? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Gold Star job Garrondo

An amazing editting marathon on the PD issues, very well done Garrondo, we're proud of you - enjoy your break :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me add my congratulations. Your patience through all of that is especially admirable. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to offer you the Medicine barnstar, only to find you already have it. Congratulations on a job well done. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done on getting through FA. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Stats question

I'm going to ask you, rather than waking up these old neurons: Do I remember correctly that a correlation co-efficient of ~0.5 is pretty much random chance? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A correlation coefficient of zero is random chance -- correlation coefficients run from -1 to 1. Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PTEC

Not a bad idea for April. There's a small article on de here. Have a look at this for what appears to be a CC-BY-NC licensed source. That NC may be a problem, though. If you want to work the idea, you might look through the history of previous iterations. Usually they're worked up in userspace subpages first.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Garrondo, thanks for writing. If we need an expert we will definitely ask you some questions. Also, feel free to change information we write if you think it is incorrect! The initial draft of this project is due March 25. -Danny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleasoda (talk • contribs) 12:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pia Mater Help

Hello Garrondo,
You had reached out to me a few weeks ago offering help with my class project in neuroscience.
Our topic is to upgrade the Pia Mater wikipedia page, and we were hoping you could offer some insight.
Our ideas for the outline of the page can be found on my user page under the Pia Mater Proposal link.
If you have any information or ideas which you could share, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for your time.
Finnry (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Garrondo,

Thank you for your support! If I have any questions, I'll be sure to connect with you. Good luck with your endeavors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbelai (talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Boston College Neuroscience Project

Hi Garrondo, if you're still willing and able to help review a few of the students' topics, I'd appreciate your expertise. Here are the details again: I have an 8 point rubric that you can use to make quantitative judgments about how much improvement to the stub has been made by the students (and any other editors that help out during our course period) between 3/1/11 and the "final" version at the end of the course (~2nd week of May). Would you be willing to review Alcoholic polyneuropathy, Athetosis, Autotopagnosia, and Cushing reflex and score them using the rubric? I would be most appreciative, and of course would acknowledge your efforts in the manuscript that will be written up detailing our project. Thanks much, NeuroJoe (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Neuroscience project

Hi Garrondo -- I understand the temptation of course, but students get the most value out of a project if mentors give them feedback but avoid directly changing the work. It's actually more work for us to advise the students than to fix things ourselves, but I think until at least March 25 that's what we should try to do, if we can. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pia Mater

Hello again Garrondo,
We took your suggestions into mind and began to update our page that we are working on (pia mater). The goal for our group is to create a good article, and I see you have a few featured articles. I was wondering if you had a chance if you could take another look at our page, and let me know what you think. We still have editing to do in order to make the content flow better, but if you could comment on the material included, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help.
Finnry (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Garrondo, I am working on the Pia Mater page, and was just wondering whether the function section should be broken up into more discrete subcategories, and also whether or not we are starting to get into obscure detail tailored to people in the sciences rather than a general audience? 98.216.10.95 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

BC Neuroscience project articles

Hi Garrondo -- I'm sorry if I offended you with my previous comment -- if I had realized that might happen I would never have said anything. Anyway, regarding the articles, there are a couple that I would be interested in taking over, if I can have your permission: excitatory synapse and synaptic gating. Those fall within my domain of expertise and I think I can give some very specific feedback on what ought to go into them. I also have some thoughts about vestibulocerebellar syndrome, but they come from knowing about the cerebellum, not from knowing anything about this condition in particular. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for the input. Our new glia limitans page is up, and I hope you have time to take a look and provide some feedback.

Orourkcd (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks/Question about Headings and Expanding

Garrondo, thanks again for your constructive advice for our page Hyperkinesia (neurology). I would like to know which areas of the article could use much more expanding (obviously the history section but that will be done soon), and if there are any other headings that would be appropriate (or if any of the headings could use editing) - specifically, which heading would Diagnosis be able to replace, "Types of hyperkinetic movements" or "Diseases presenting with hyperkinesia"? Thanks again-- JCal2011 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Garrondo, We've been taking the constructive criticism into account to improve the page from both you and our peer reviewers. I'm adding to the History section today, but is there anything else that can be fixed or improved? We'd certainly appreciate any extra advice. Thanks, JCal2011 (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Synaptic gating

Hi Garrondo, you seemed to express interest in our topic and I wanted to thank you for your input. I was wondering if you knew of any other research regarding our topic, synaptic gating, because that's what we're having the most difficult time with. It doesn't seem like there has been a lot of research done on the topic. But if you could offer us any help, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Dbaush (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 11, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement (BC Project)

Parkinson's disease is an age-related degenerative disorder of the human brain. It rarely arises before the age of 40, but afflicts more than 1% of people over 60 and 4% of people over 80. The most obvious symptoms are movement-related, including shaking, rigidity, slowness of movement and difficulty with walking gait. Cognitive, sensory, sleep and emotional problems may also occur, especially in the later stages. The most noticeable symptoms are brought about by the death of brain cells that produce the chemical dopamine. Some cases are caused by genetic factors, but for most cases the causes are not known. Diagnosis is based on assessment of symptoms. In spite of extensive scientific research, no cure has yet been found. Modern treatments are effective at managing the early motor symptoms of the disease, mainly through the use of levodopa and dopamine agonists. In the later stages, however, these treatments gradually lose their effectiveness. The disease is named after British apothecary James Parkinson, and his birthday, April 11, has been designated Parkinson's Disease Day. (more...)

Boston project

Hello, Garrondo! Thank you for all of the support you have offered thus far for many of the students in my neuroscience class at Boston College. I am hoping that you or one of the other editors that have been helping us out could look at my group's article Satellite cell (glial), as we have not yet received any feedback from Wikipedia editors. Thanks in advance! LaurenMalishchak (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page

Hi -- haven't seen you around; I hope you had a chance to enjoy the appearance of your article on the main page! Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

Hello! Thank you for expressing an interest in the assignment the BC481 Neuroscience class is taking on this semester. We have put a lot of effort into our article since you first contacted us, and have done (what we believe to be) the majority of the editing we will do on the article. If you have time, we would certainly appreciate any last suggestions for improvement you may have on the Autotopagnosia page we have created. Thank you! KellyCardinal (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

BC Nueroscience Project - Cushing Reflex

Hello, I wanted to say thank you for your contributions to our school project. My groupmates and I are slowly but surely going through all the comments that the article has amassed since beginning this process. They should all be addressed to some degree in the upcoming week.

Also, I have a quick question. I would really like to add some images to the article, but I am having trouble. First, I am not sure how to even upload an image. Second, I am not sure how to assess the 'license' or 'copyright' information of the image. Third, If I need to email a journal, I do not know the proper format with which to ask. Right now, I want to email the Journal of Neurosurgery and request to use an image from one of their articles. I want to go about the process the right way, and I have been getting lost within all the various related wikipedia articles. It would be greatly appreciated if you could point me in the right direction. Thank you again for all your help. Your comments have been instrumental in our revision process. Sean J. Dikdan (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

Hi again Garrondo, We've been taking the constructive criticism into account to improve the page from both you and our peer reviewers. I'm adding to the History section today, but is there anything else that can be fixed or improved? We hope to nominate our article for Good status ASAP. We'd certainly appreciate any extra advice! Thanks, JCal2011 (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Do you think it would be possible for you to check out our group's article on athetosis and reconsider it for a good article nomination. Our semester is almost up and if it has earned a good article status, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, BrianJLike (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hola Garrondo!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 4, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-08-04. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is wanted

Please provide your input here on the legitimacy and desirability of accepting external links in relevant Wikipedia articles to MedMerits, a new and freely accessible online resource on neurologic disorders. Presto54 (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A new medical resource

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). Presto54 (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)