User talk:Delldot

Archives

1: 10/05–12/06 2: 12/06–01/07 3: 01/07–02/07 4: 02/07–03/07 5: 03/07–06/07 6: 06/07–09/07 7: 09/07–11/07 8: 11/07–11/07 9: 11/07–12/07 10: 12/07–01/08 11: 01/08–02/08 12: 02/08–03/08 13: 03/08–04/08 14: 04/08–05/08 15: 05/08–06/08 16: 06/08–07/08 17: 07/08–07/08 18: 07/08–08/08 19: 08/08–10/08 20: 10/08–04/09 21: 04/09–01/10 22: 01/10–11/12 23: 12/12–03/13 24: 05/13–12/15

Thanks for dropping me a note! Don't be shy about asking questions, I'm always glad to help. I will reply to messages here, so you may want to watchlist this page.

If you'd like to undo an action of mine and can't get a hold of me within a reasonable time, go ahead. If I disagree, we can discuss it when I'm back. This applies to admin actions too.

why did u do this?

Ok I did vandalise some pages like the spider one so i understand why u undid my additions. But why did u undo my edits on Sopranos character pages? Those were totally legit. Did u eevn check before u deleted them or did u just assume?--Chop Top (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Card fan?

I'll have to admit, I've not (yet) ventured outside the Enderverse. Funny comic. It's been so long, I can't remember which one is my favorite after the original. Probably Speaker. cheers =) xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Huntington's disease

Well done on the comprehensive review and edits you made on Huntington's Disease you seem to have got stuck in for several hours ? Many thanks. I would've dabbed a med barnstar but I'll wait 'til you haven't had one for a bit ( unless you keep getting them all the time :) that is ) keep up the good work *, LeeVJ (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for the kind words Leevanjackson! I was at work, so I had to keep logging off and back on, hence the delay in the "reviewing" post and the decision (I was working on it in my sandbox). I've never had a med barnstar, though I once got a standard one for work on neurotraumatology articles. It's my most prised one because it's the only one I've gotten for my content writing. :) Are you going to work on Huntington's Disease? If so, definitely give me a heads up when you're ready to have me look at it again, I can let you know if I think it's ready to go back to GAN. Thanks again for the note. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 03:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been for a couple of years now, since I found the original article had something I didn't know, and was lacking somethings I did, what a great resource wikipedia is ! As you say , quite a broad scope so may take a while - I had been referencing secondary sources but breaking them down into primary , blast - but your note on primary/secondary has pointed the way, cheers! I expect that there will be extra bits to look by the time I have addressed your review points - whilst doing just three, I turned up a new HD animal model (monkey). I will let you know when article is ready for a second pass. LeeVJ (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aargh, I know what you mean about breaking the sources down into primary, I've done a ton of that same thing! In fact, about half of my work on concussion involved undoing the other half. :P Awesome progress on the review, you're really tearing through that thing! I'm glad my review's pushing you to find more stuff, I look forward to seeing the new, improved version! Wikipedia was lucky the day it managed to attract you with the HD article. Hey, have you read much about excitotoxicity? It might be interesting in the pathophysiology section (on the other hand, it might be too in depth for this already detailed article). delldot on a public computer talk 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou :) and I'll check it out ....LeeVJ (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Subcutaneous emphysema

On 22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Subcutaneous emphysema, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:CavidadePleuralDrenada.JPG

This figure [1] is one of the first anatomic computer made that I saw about 1995s. I have no more the source of it, due to my old hard disc brokes. This figure was colored and I have transformed it into black and white and add a chest drain on it by myself. Thank you for your kind attention. Best. RobertoLyra (discussão) 13h37min de 22 de Maio de 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roberto, thanks so much for getting back to me. I'm so sorry, but I don't think we can use the image! Even if it was modified, we can't use it without permission from the copyright holder of the original. :( It really is unfortunate, because it's very good, and it illustrates the chest tube very well. It's a good idea to modify an image of a chest to put a tube in, though. I can work on making one from one of the other anatomy images at commons. Sorry Roberto! delldot on a public computer talk 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Delldot, I agree with you. The idea to work on making one new image from one of the other anatomy images at commons is really better. Please do your best. Thank you for help. If possible visit this page I start: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistema_coletor_de_drenagem_pleural_ou_mediastinal]

Than you.Roberto Lyra (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so kind and understanding about it Roberto, I definitely will work on it. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: SE GA

D Awesome! I'll get working on them today, too, and hopefully we can have the article 'pimped' out in no time :) Nice work. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 09:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Treecreeper

Many thanks for the prompt review and the useful comments which I'll address before GA. I didn't altogether understand the comment about sources. The refs were all from

• the standard texts for (a) tits, nuthatches and treecreepers, and (b) European birds in general
• peer-reviewed scientific journals
• The website of the BTO, a prestigious national research organisation with it's own peer-reviewed journal, Ibis

I can't really see where the problem is? Jimfbleak (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Yeah, the sources are definitely good enough for WP:V, that's not the concern. The issue is that secondary and tertiary sources are better than primary studies. The papers I was talking about were "Molecular phylogeny of treecreepers (Certhia) detects hidden diversity", "Forest Fragmentation Increases Nest Predation in the Eurasian Treecreeper", "Effects of male removal on female foraging behavior in the Eurasian treecreeper", and "Behavioural responses of Eurasian treecreepers, Certhia familiaris, to competition with ants". I didn't read them, but I strongly suspect from their titles that they're primary sources, i.e. that the information being reported in them is the original findings of the writers or their group. Especially with the sentence about the removal of males, I thought the article might actually be reporting these findings, which could be a problem because one study may not be enough to generalize (though you could say "a 2006 study found that...", though it would still be better to have a review article if you can get it). I've been told that though using the background info from the intro or discussion of a primary study is better than reporting its results, it's still not as good because those parts of the papers may not be getting as thorough of peer reviews as review articles do (reviewers of studies tend to focus on the methods). I agree that them being in peer-reviewed journals is a good thing. It's just that secondary and tertiary sources are better. Just a suggestion for FAC. Definitely let me know if you want to discuss it more, I'm glad you brought this up and gave me a chance to clarify. delldot talk 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about presentation, I'll make it clearer that it may not be generalisable, at least in theory. In practice, there's little choice to using journal research for some of these less-studied groups, usually there's nothing much else on the web, and you're stuck with BWP and the family monograph. Ironically, at FAC I've sometimes had to justify a book or the BTO, but never a journal (yet). The tricky thing is getting an acceptable ref for some of the cultural stuff eg swallow tattoos in Barn Swallow.Jimfbleak (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean about the difficulty finding secondary and tertiary sources, I'm actually facing that same problem with Subcutaneous emphysema. As I might have said, the article is very good so I made an effort to be very picky. Best of luck in the FAC! delldot talk 05:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

why did u delete my sopranos edits?

Ok i admit I vandalised some pages such as the page on spiders but my edits to characters on the sopranos were totaly legit. Why did u delete them?--Chop Top (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry Chop Top, I didn't realize you'd left me a note earlier, I only saw it just now. Yeah, I wasn't sure if those were vandalism, but some of them looked a little suspicious. It's unusual to have an account that both vandalizes and contributes constructively, so I suspected that they may have been sneaky vandalism--vandalism that is made to look like legit edits. But you're right, I should have been more careful (maybe researching whether they were correct on google). I guess I was just tired and in a rush, which isn't really an excuse at all. Go ahead and replace anything you did that wasn't vandalism. Again, I'm sorry for that. delldot talk 02:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

*huggles*

-- Gurchzilla (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

*many, many huggles*! :D delldot talk 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pesticide resistance

Hi Delldot:

I looked at the article and it's not too bad although I would edit the language about a "pesticide treadmill" which is not really an accurate description of what happens. I have some good references on resistance and will try to work on this "sometime" -- retirement is currently a lot busier than I had hoped.

Are you by chance anywhere near Washington DC? I am organizing an symposium on the environemtal fate of pesticides for an American Chemical Society meeting there in August '09. Maybe we could get together and recruit some more scientists for Wiki work in this area. Maybe you could show me how to get around the Wikipedia, I find it daunting.

Don --DonWauchope (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely know what you mean about the dauntingness, I've been around for >2.5 years, and I'm still daunted sometimes! But, absolutely, I'd love to show you around! Have anything in particular in mind? I don't really know how to get started, but I can definitely offer my services as question answerer any time you need help with anything.

I'm in Florida right now, but my boyfriend's family is from near DC, so we might go up there at some point. But August 09 is waaaaay to far ahead to know. But that's a great idea to recruit more scientists for the 'pedia, I'm always psyched to recruit people, especially ones with expertise!

Good luck with your busy retirement! (Hint: cut out doing all that work!) delldot talk 03:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)