User talk:Bob247/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Grcampbell/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 17:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Algerian Genocide

You should not delete Algerian Genocide contribution. You refer the discussion yet tehere is no aggrement there and the contribution contains the Algerian claims. It does not say that French made a genocide. It just says that the Algerians think so. Please do not be so nationalistic in Wiki. By the way, the French politicians blame any country except the whitemen in genocide issue.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Falcon (talkcontribs).

Maybe you should look around first. See Talk:France#Genocide.3F.3F for the discussion on this. One persons claim of a genocide is hardly proof enough. --Bob 02:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

AIDS article

Thank you so much, not only for the contribution to the article, but also for using references and placing them in the references section. I have taken to keeping up the refs section for AIDS, and it has over 50 cites. People adding things willy-nilly and not using refs/not adding them to the refs section is hell. So, I thank you. :) JoeSmack (talk) 21:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Arab culture

Thank you for your substantial improvement to the rag state of the current article. Would you agree the dump of names should be removed? lots of issues | leave me a message 16:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am moving the names to the "discussion" workspace so whatever can be used later can be picked out. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


Your depth of knowledge surrounding HIV/AIDS is quite impressive. Do you happen to work in the field? JoeSmack (talk) 20:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do work in the field of HIV. --Grcampbell 20:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
No, it certainly isn't too drastic. We need more expertise like yours around HIV/AIDS. I am only a undergrad student and as far as I can tell there are only a 2-3 people who are associated with the HIV sector on wikipedia at all. Lately creationist challenges have called out a sort of source war on all 'facts' about HIV - even the most basic scientific concepts need empirical I'm glad to see someone bust out with the hard science. So by all means, be drastic! :) ... JoeSmack (talk) 20:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
...and enter scene left: User:Sci guy. He's got quite a history with distorting information. He doesn't have many fans. He'll demand proof for which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Just revert him - his strats revolve around keeping people looking for journal articles that proove every intricacy of medical science that make them give up and accept his changes. So easiest thing to do: just revert. JoeSmack (talk) 17:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
That's what I've done. I think both him and Fred2005 are either the same person, or come from the same egg... What I put here is the official line from WHO, the CDC, UNAIDS supplemented with data from the respected scietific community. -Grcampbell 17:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Im pretty sure Fred2005 is a sockpuppet too. Keep it up. JoeSmack (talk) 17:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
The current focus of Wikipedia is the UNAIDS official line: AIDS occurs in people infected with HIV, about 40 million people world wide would be expected to test positive to an HIV antibody test based on studies of preganant women in sentinal hospitals. Specifically, Wikipedia editors have consistently rejected "Bangui" style definitons of AIDS and studies based on these definitons, because such studies typically include many people who would not test positve on an HIV antibody test. Sci guy 15:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Good, lets keep it that way. --Grcampbell 22:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Surrogate markers

I think this article honestly presents the facts in an unbiased way:

"An ideal surrogate marker still does not exist for HIV/AIDS. In fact, after two decades of looking, only two assays, CD4+ T-lymphocyte count and HIV RNA viral load, have been widely adopted as imperfect surrogates for monitoring and predicting the course of disease in people with HIV. These markers have been fairly well correlated with the natural history of HIV infection and progression to AIDS, but each has limitations." [1]

A more recent article, July 2005, is suprisingly frank about the fact that "we honestly don't know when and how to best treat HIV infection." [2]

It is not the task of Wikipedia editors to create certanty where none exists! Sci guy 15:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Which is why, if we post the CDC/WHO/UNAIDS/NIH line, then the article will be good. --Grcampbell 22:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Your scientific approach

I can see the logic in your idea that the HIV article is about the virus, its structure and function, genome etc and the variations in these that influence infectivity or progression to AIDS - and the AIDS article is about what you call the severe manifestations of HIV infection whether defined by the CDC, WHO or others.

I also see your point that as most of the people with HIV or AIDS are in Africa, it is logical to focus on scientific evidence from Africa.

But is we look at documented HIV or AIDS cases rather than UNAIDS estimates, where are the majority of cases? How do we compare a million cases of HIV infection in the USA based on HIV antibody tests and Western blot confirmation, with an estimated 25 million HIV infections in Africa based on a small number of tests on pregnant women.

Also where do we put issues like, HAART, condoms, safe sex, and antibody tests?

As you know, Africa has been slow to introduce HIV screening of blood transfusion and the debate continues about how many peole have been infected in this way. And needle sharing remains and issue in many parts of Africa.

As a scientist, you must find it ironic, that twenty years ago the press in the US was entranched by the idea of a gay plague while Mother Theresa was spreading HIV in health clinics around the world through unsafe medical injections.

The HIV/AIDS articles have developed around the social and political interests of Wikipedia editors. These include a gay male who has been circumcised to reduced his risk of getting AIDS and a few editors who like argue about the safety of oral sex! Then there are the mass of reverters who remove anything that does not agree with the safe sex course in the US mid west. They consistently remove statements by UNAIDS, WHO, Fauci, Gallo and others. They also believe that hetrosexuals cannot get AIDS unless bleeding occurs during sex! They consistently rejected any reference to T cells as too technical. 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This IP is a sockpuppet for Sci guy. JoeSmack (talk)

Treatment guidelines

The 2003 WHO guidelines are not an update of the 2005 guidelines Sci guy 16:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Accodring to WHO, it is their most current guidelines, they have not issued guidelines for 2005 as yet - see their website. --Grcampbell 17:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

AIDS reversion

If you check the edit history of the article, you should see that I am anything but an apologist for AIDS denialists. The reason why I did such a big revert is simple; I have been trying to deal with Sci Guy and his cronies/sockpuppets for months on and off, and after a while you get to the point where there is no point debating with them; the only way to deal with their perpetual rubbish reinsertion was to simply revert to a known good version. The easiest way to identify a known good version was the last version of an editor I know and trust; that happened to be Raul's version. If I blew away a more accurate version in the process, I'm sorry.

That being said, while you may be happy with the scientific accuracy of the present version I have some concerns about its readability. What's wrong with calling AIDS a disease caused by HIV, at least for an introductory paragraph? --Robert Merkel 16:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

read the newest version, it states just that!

"AIDS is an acronym for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and is defined as a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the depletion of the immune system caused by infection with HIV." --Grcampbell 17:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


I see you have been busy, but there are several aspects of Wikipedia you need to understand. First you are making articles too long. 32K is the suggested size. Longer articles are difficult to edit, slow to load, and difficult for most people to read. Secondly, multiple large images simply prevent most people from accessing the page - I counted over 200K on the HIV page. Thirldy, other editors need to be able to see the source of the material you are adding - I know it is tedious to reference "facts" that "everyone knows" - but there are very few of these in HIV/AIDS. Finally, I do not know if is you who is removing other editors sources. Finding good sources is slow work and it is not helpful to the article to remove them. Sci guy 02:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see the talk page - Sci guy is wrong about a few things, and shouldn't have reverted like that IMO, but I think it's time to start streamlining the article and possibly factoring out some stuff into separate pages.

Separate issue: I'm not sure why some of those image files are so big. For instance, this map in PNG format is 376K; I don't know what software you used to generate it, but when I bring the full-sized image into Photoshop and save it again as a PNG with the maximum number of colors, it's 246K at most! There must be some extraneous information in there that doesn't contribute anything visually. Hob 08:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, just a general request: it would make it easier to follow the edit history if you used edit summaries more consistently. You've got a large number of recent edits in the HIV article, all marked minor, with no summaries. It's hard to say what's "minor" but I think many of those clearly aren't - see Wikipedia:Minor edit. Inserting images and expanding sections are things that make an article significantly different, and edit summaries help to show how an article evolved to its current state... especially when someone's done as much work as you have! Hob 09:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Contrary to your asertion, I have not been taking a chainsaw to this article, but putting in place the changes proposed by other editors in the relevant discussion page.

I accept that you are publishing in this field, and may therefore have access to data that has not yet been published. Wikipedia is not the place for these insights or suggestions.

It would be helpful if you could use your knowledge of HIV to assist the other editors to understand what is important today about our current understanding of HIV - and whether this knowledge is based on experimental data, the consensus of expert committees, or suggestions. So many things have been suggested about HIV over the last 20 years, do we need to record every blind alley? Also we need some logical allocation of the 30K across the main isssues - and other articles to explore some issues in greater detail Sci guy 15:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

And yet you don't give me the time requested, and take a chainsaw to the article yet again. If you leave it alone for a couple of hours, I will bring it back down in size, without tearing the article in half and simply deleting and ignoring a lot of information --Grcampbell 15:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This issue was raised by [LAboy] 13:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC) and after various editors had made various suggestion, I actioned them on 6 October 2005. Since then there has been no further discussion. But lets move on and decided how the 30K is to be allocated and which issue need other articles with more details Sci guy 15:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The article is now only 35kb total including about 8kb of references. If it were cut down more, the external sites and references will make up more than the actual article! Surely that is wrong? --Grcampbell 15:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This is an improvement. A month ago when we began this process the HIV article was over 600K long including images and took up to 5 minutes to download. I note your point that external sites and references will make up more than the actual article. This is why I am suggesting that we need to reach agreement on how the 30K available is allocated to the most important aspects of this article. Sci guy 00:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comment on moving the genome details. Thanks. Hob 01:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi there!

I'm the Director of IT at Merchiston Castle School and have been asked to find out who wrote the article! Can I ask what your link with Merchiston is? I'm impressed with how much you know about the School.

Gayle Cordiner

I attended MCS a while back and was surprised that there was no entry on the school, which remains one of the best in Scotland in almost all fields. --Bob 00:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


If you think I can be of help, I certainly would. If you've indentified any missing areas of coverage, I'd be happy to work up a first draft for them. I'd be more anxious to do that than work on "defending" the article against what I fear will inevitably follow any attempts at improvement - namely, attempts at inserting disinformation.... - Nunh-huh 04:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just overhauled the article completely, could you give me some feedback? --Bob 00:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation and the kind words. I'm certainly interested in helping with all the HIV/AIDS material, but I may not have much time or attention span in the next month - so I'm more likely to be able to do reorganization and copyediting rather than anything requiring research. Hob 00:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, do what you can! --Bob 00:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Emergency department plea

This article needs only a few votes to be next weeks article at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. I think it would be beneficial to medicine-related topics in general if emergency department was chosen for this. Many patients with HIV have to access emergency services in the ED, perhaps you could expand on this in the article. To vote, click on WP:AID and add your signature to the list of voters.--File Éireann 18:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia screw up with codes

It is nothing to do with my signature. Its codes are correct. It has remained unchanged for months. Something has gone wrong throughout WP. It is misreading sigs from people all over place, mucking up codes, screwing up codes in templates, not recognising close commands, etc. It has not the first time this has happened. The last time some bod went and screwed up hundreds of commands. It is probably some fucked up bot again. It is nothing to do with me. It is up to the technical guys to find out what they did and undo it. They have been told by a lot of others who have also have their sigs suddenly screwed up independently by WP. FearÉireann. (I'm not using sig until they undo their screw up. BTW there is no point telling individual users that there is something "wrong" with their sigs. They can do nothing about it. It is nothing they did. Wikipedia's technical guys created it, probably with one of their infernal bots. They are the only ones who can undo their own screw up.)

Wild Haggis

You recently edited the page called Wild Haggis. In doing so you removed the section called Alternate version. With out replicating its information else ware. There is no longer any mention of the flying haggis in the article, which is the version I heard growing up (in Scotland) I was wondering if you had a problem with me adding part of this section back in as well as some of the other variations of the legend you removed. You have over simplified the complex myth far to much IMO.--Elfwood 13:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


I corrected your category. It now uses your name on the category page.--Nomen Nescio 07:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

JBH, sigh

I responded to your message re:JBH and his 7th post with a 'So?...". Then I went and looked at this user's edit history. I guess it's pretty obvious... Just be assured that it's not me. --Elliskev 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I just wondered why you placed a note after all the comments I posted on the deletion pages? JBH 01:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Emergency department

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Emergency department was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Many thanks for your support!--File Éireann 23:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Monsieur, l'infomation de CFII est existe sur la page «Chaîne Française d'Information Internationale», car ça. Je change l'infomation. 159753 18:26, le 30 novembre 2005 (TU)

Steve Jobs

I reverted your addition of Steve Jobs to List of African Americans. Is there something I'm missing, or was that a mistake? —BrianSmithson 20:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Please cite why Matâ'Utu is preferred over Mata-Utu at Talk:Matâ'Utu. Chanheigeorge 00:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi. I saw that you took a lot of content out of the Époisses article, and I reverted it. Did I make a mistake? I didn't notice any discussion on it or any note in the edit summary box, so I wasn't sure why you did it, and that's why I reverted it. If you were doing something like creating another page, sorry! In that case feel free to change it back. Peace, delldot | talk 20:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, now I see your edit summary. Sorry about that! Peace, delldot | talk 20:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Accusations

You just accused me of vandalism and "weasel wording" on Duesberg hypothesis. I consider your judgement incorrect and ask you to discuss this on Talk:Duesberg hypothesis where I gave reasons for my edits. I think we can settle this in a civilized way.

help with citations?

Hi - if you have a minute, would you mind taking a look at JC virus? I just added a lot of references and wanted to make sure they look reasonable, in both format and scope. I've decided to make JCV and PML the focus of my literature review and citation efforts here for now. Thanks! ←Hob 03:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, I see you've changed the references to use abbreviated journal titles. Now I'm a little confused. We're not really using journal style here, are we? What I see in the HIV article is like a cross between journal style and Harvard style. I understand the WP citation guidelines are still in flux, but can you point me to any page where medical editors have discussed the preferred format? Thanks again. ←Hob 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
In HIV, the references are cited using the BIOSIS or Chemical Abstracts formula. This is the way that most journals and texts prefer the citations to look like --Bob 22:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi. I've created a new infobox for you to use with the map.

Template:Infobox Scotland place with map Template:Infobox Scotland place

Kind regards. Mrsteviec 19:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


You voted for AIDS, the current Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker 07:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

AIDS dissidents

Stop censoring AIDS dissidents on Wikipedia. Promote your orthodox views on AIDS orhtodoxy pages! PLEASE. You deserve to have your say where it belongs. And we deserve to have our say where it belongs. I've lost too many friends to AIDS to stand by and let you try and censor AIDS dissident positions. People are dying. by User:Sgactorny

You fail to realise what Wikipedia is. It is not a forum or discussion place. Your recent vandalism falls into WP:NOT. I am rewording the article to be more NPOV, but inflammatory edits like you do are not helping matters.--Bob 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We do not want your orthodox edits! We want to have dissident positions on the dissident page. Mind your own business. I will revert the article to ACTUAL dissident positions and NPOV until somone overrules me and tells me YOU, an orthodox AIDS doctor, should WIN OVER an unbiased article that ACTUALLY presents dissident positions. Dr., you CANNOT edit the article from NPOV because it is OBVIOUS you do not actually know what dissident positions are. If you'd like me to explain EXACTLY what you misunderstand about dissident positions, i'd be happy to speak with you on the phone at 646-331-8066. I'm in NY and have worked with MANY of the AIDS dissident scientists. I've also personally lost MANY friends to AIDS. I'm invested in the truth, and at this point YOU are invested in censoring my pursuit of that truth. Please stick to promoting the opinions YOU are invested in on the pages that are for that. And we dissidents will stick to promoting ACCURATE , NPOV positions on the dissident pages. Please dr., please...try and humble yourself...and have some appropriate boundaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgactorny (talkcontribs)

Thanks for keeping WP:NOT out of Wikipedia. The Rod 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand the difficulty of refraining from debate, and I know that insults are coming from both sides, but your AIDS reappraisal comment does not seem very WP:CIVIL. Could you please try to avoid phrases like "cherry pick data", "ignore valid points", and "invent data"? The Rod 20:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Antiretroviral drug

Oops. Thanks for the adults: Oct 6, Pediatric: Nov 3 correction on Antiretroviral drug. The Rod 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries --Bob 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


I can't see any sort of protection on the page, are you getting a problem? --pgk(talk) 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It is the only page where I don't seem to be able to get an edit box when clicking on edit. It tells me that I can edit, but no edit box shows up. I have cleared the caché from my system and cookies as well. It doesn't seem to be a problem from my end. Also, the user bars at the top right and left are also missing. Any help would be appreciated. --Bob 20:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back sooner, I have no problems access that page, if it were protected you would get a "view source" tab instead of edit, so I don't know what to suggest short of restarting your browser/pc. --pgk(talk) 21:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks--Bob 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sgactorny RfC

Hi, I have filed an RfC to complain about user:Sgactorny abusive behavior. If you have something to add, or simply want to endorse it please go here. Thanks. Nrets 04:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Thanks for the work that you are doing on the medals tables for the Olympics. Could you please add edit summaries?

Sue Anne 01:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Samoa national rugby union team

The biggest win / loss I think are correct. There is a site with this data on called RugbyData. The exact address is to be found at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union. You are more than welcome to join the project if you wish.

With regard to their first match, there seems to be some discrepancy. Some sources say the score was 6-0, others 6-3 which is the page for Fiji national rugby union team has a different score. Not sure what to do about this.GordyB 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Fijian website states 0-6, the Samoan website states 3-6... However, the Fijian website cites sources whereas the Samoan one doesn't. --Bob 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish rugby

Hi. I have now created a template for supporters at Template:User supports the Scotland national rugby union team which you are welcome to use. Also since you have opted for the Gunners and someone else is supporting the Borders I am happy to go with supporting Glasgow Warriors if that's OK with you. Cheers! --Historian 10:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I was unaware that we were unable to support a team that someone else supports. --Bob 23:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

AIDS Peer Review

Thank you for your input on the peer review page.

You're welcome. Good luck. — RJH 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Coleraine Cheddar

Hi. You removed the cat Category:Cheeses to this article. I had thought that the addition of it to the sub-cat Category:Northern Irish cheeses would automatically add this to the former cat, but I wasn't sure. I assume your removing it from that cat was for this reason? Cheers. --Mal 02:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Infobox Map Standardisation

Just to let you know following your Aberdeen edit, over at Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board we've been working on Scottish Infobox Map Standardisation. You may want to check it out. Spread the Word. Cheers. Hellinterface 11:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, if you have any suggestions I would fire them in before rollout begins as I have moved things on to completion now. I would also highlight Gaelic POV on the same page, which I have recently added a piece to which relates to some edits you made on a few infoboxes. Your thoughts and input would be welcomed. SFC9394 16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AIDS suggestions

Well, Featured Article discussions are always silly (too many pictures, not enough pictures, too long, too short, you used standard Wiki-references and I don't like them, you used in-line web references and I don't like them, blah, blah, blah...) but I'm happy to re-read the AIDS article and give you some random thoughts. Of course, your mileage (and everyone else's) may differ. I should probably take the opportunity to point out how effective you've been at improving this article, and to thank you for it. Featured Article or not, it's quite good. Now, on to my more controversial opinions! (Really, most are wording suggestions)....

  • [1] ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes are perfectly useless and needn't be included, and certainly shouldn't occupy the position of prominence they now do. A nice picture at the top would be so much more inviting than a block of text.
  • [2] I'd lose "or Aids) as that particular styling of the word (championed only by one British publication, I think) has never caught on.
  • [3] It results from the latter stages of advanced HIV infection => It is a late stage of advanced HIV infection which leaves individuals prone to opportunistic infections and tumors.
  • [4] In countries where there is access to antiretroviral treatment, both mortality and morbidity of HIV infection have been reduced => Antiretroviral treatment reduces both the mortality and the morbidity of HIV infection, but routine access to antiretroviral medication is not available in all countries.
  • [5] As CD4+ T cells are required for the proper functioning of the immune system, when enough CD4+ cells have been destroyed by HIV, the immune system barely works, leading to AIDS. => As CD4+ T cells are required for the proper functioning of the immune system, when enough CD4+ cells have been destroyed by HIV, cellular immunity is lost, leading to AIDS.
  • [6] Different strains of HIV [13][14] may also cause different rates of clinical disease progression. => Different strains of HIV [13][14] may also cause different rates of clinical disease progression. The use of highly active antiretroviral therapy prolongs both the median time of progression to AIDS and the median survival time.
  • [7] However, these assays are not specifically approved for the diagnosis of HIV infection. => These assays are not specifically approved for the diagnosis of HIV infection, but are nonetheless routinely used for this purpose.
  • [8] After the diagnosis of AIDS is made, the current average survival time with antiretroviral therapy is estimated to be between 4 to 5 years [20], This is wrong, and far too short. Looking at the cited paper, it gives a figure of 5.08 years for the period of 2001-2003, the most recent included. But that is not an "average survival time", it is the time at which 25% of patients diagnosed with AIDS had died. The "average survival time" is many years longer.
  • [9] Without antiretroviral therapy, progression to death normally occurs within a year -> this is a repetition, probably unneeded
  • [10] Before the advent of effective treatment and diagnosis in Western countries it was a common immediate cause of death. => Before the advent of routine prophylaxis, effective treatment and diagnosis in Western countries it was a common immediate cause of death.
  • [11] causing disease only when the immune system has been severly weakened, -> causing disease only when the immune system has been severely weakened,
  • [12] Also concerned by this route are people who give and receive tattoos and piercings. -> People who give and receive tattoos and piercings are also affected by this route.
  • [13] However, where treatment is available, combined with the availability of Cesarian section, this has been reduced to 1% [40]. -> However, when the mother is treated and gives birth by Cesarian section, the rate of transmission is reduced to 1% [40].
  • [14] Unprotected receptive sexual acts are at more risk than unprotected insertive sexual acts, => Unprotected receptive sexual acts are riskier than unprotected insertive sexual acts, (sexual acts are not "at risk"!)
  • [15] An undetectable plasma viral load does not mean that you have a low viral load in the seminal liquid or genital secretions. -> An undetectable plasma viral load does not necessarily indicate a low viral load in the seminal liquid or genital secretions.
  • [16] HIV-infected mothers are recommended to avoid breast feeding their infant. -> It is recommended that HIV-infected mothers avoid breast feeding their infant.
  • [17] (under "Treatment"): In the absence of HAART, progression from HIV infection to AIDS occurs at a median of between nine to ten years and the median survival time after developing AIDS is only 9.2 months[8]. (this is a repetition and may not be needed).
  • [18] Patients with substantial immunosuppression are generally advised to receive prophylactic therapy for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PCP), and many patients may benefit from prophylactic therapy for toxoplasmosis and Cryptococcus meningitis. => Patients are generally advised to receive prophylactic therapy for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PCP), mycobacterium avium intracelluare (MAI), toxoplasmosis or Cryptococcal meningitis based on their t-cell levels.
  • [19] These kinds of approaches have become less common over time as AIDS drugs have become more effective. -> These kinds of approaches have become less common over time as the benefits of AIDS drugs have become more apparent.
  • [20] A minority of scientists and activists question the connection between HIV and AIDS [83] -> A small minority of scientists and activists question the connection between HIV and AIDS [83] (Frankly, this whole section sucks, but may be the best attainable on Wikipedia. What the section should do is report that the actual experimental data, including the prolongation of life by antiretroviral medication, leads to the conclusion that the AIDS dissidents are simply wrong. The "psychological terror" bit is overwrought and ridiculous, though I suppose the best strategy here is to not poke the stink-pile.)

One suggestion I thought about was adding "typical" combinations of drugs most commonly used in antiretroviral regimens, and mention of the one-a-day combination tablet. But I think you are probably right that that information doesn't need to be in the main article.

Let me know if you think any of these are crazy, and I won't be offended if you disagree or decide not to act on them! - Nunh-huh 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have implemented some of them. Those that I have not fully implemented are listed below:
  • [7] In our hospital, we do use them, but for quantification purposes, not for diagnostic purposes...
  • [9] Keep it. Reemphasizing the role of ART etc.
  • [17] Keep it. Reemphasizing the role of ART etc.
  • [20] It needs to remain as is, if not, the whole article may spiral down the plug hole again...
The typical regimens was taken out and referred to in the antiretroviral article. It was here for about 5 months beforehand though. Thanks for the input. --Bob 01:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Economic Impact of AIDS


I've done a little on this but don't have much time to devote at the moment (University final exams). I did find an extremely useful article [3] which provides a useful overview of empirical case studies with good statistics. I hope this is ok. Sjeraj 19:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick help! --Bob 19:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Tnx for updating me, I now support the article - although few more things can be done (ilinking) for overall improvement. I replied at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AIDS.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but sorry not my field CSReader 02:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

AIDS immunity

Why remove the information?--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it was a stub and could have been better served being in another section, which is what I did. --Bob 00:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, OK, sorry, I didn't see it was moved, I thought it was gone. My bad.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

AIDS-related stigma

Hiya! Thanks for messaging me. In fact, the section on AIDS(-related) Stigma does interest me for a few reasons, yet I'm not exactly sure how you see or wish I could help you out. Maybe if I explain my own interest in the section, my views could be of some use to you.

First, we need to look at the issue of Framing and labeling through Lexical semantics. Starting with the title, it seems that two terms "AIDS-related stigma" and "AIDS stigma" are in competition. Naturally, it seems that the former was patterned after "AIDS-related illness/pneumonia/etc". In that sense, it's a misnomer. In fact, it wasn't until you left me a message that I realized it was a term in use. For almost 20 years, I'd only known of "AIDS stigma". When entering the terms into a Yahoo/Google search, "AIDS stigma" comes up with many more hits. Seems logical to me. Again, the "-related" is unnecessary as the role of modifer is handled by syntax ("AIDS" coming before "stigma") and there is no convention requiring the use of "-related" in connection with any other stigmas using "stigma". My intuition, moreover, maintains that "AIDS-related stigma", with its ghost "AIDS-related" is just incorrect as conflated language.

Second, the notion of stigma needs to be examined more thoroughly. AIDS stigma is not a unified and pure stigma. Although a typology of AIDS stigmas have been made, they do not directly address the social realities that led up to and thus constitute the variegated stigma (which has changed over time). This propels me to say that in the article sub-section there is no definition whatsoever of what a stigma is in the first place. There isn't even a link to an article on stigma. It's tantamount to how people throw around the term "homophobia" but the meaning and reality behind the term is at worst, just negative emotive connotations, and at best, a fuzzy picture of discrimination. Albeit a possible form of prejudice, homophobia is not discrimination or violence as many purport. That's why is it important to explain and not just insert a stock definition. Ironically, when I checked a few basic sites on AIDS-stigma and compared them with my own knowledge of stigma, they both all had one thing in common - Goffman. So, why isn't stigma explained? Or explained systematically?

Let's face it, before coming from anything else, AIDS stigma stems from negative attitudes toward a group of people or a person from a stimatized group (and in this order) 1. gay men (not male homosex, regardless of how it's framed, be it "lifestyle", "M2M", etc.), 2. (IV) drug-users, 3. (female) prostitutes, 4. foreigners (particularly Haitians and Black Africans). What's important here is that ALL of the stigmas against these groupes were already in existence. They were fertile ground for any disease stigma, i.e. either blaming the person and their actions for contracting the disease or so-called proof or a demonstration of a higher (religious) authority meting out punishment or exacting a spiritual fine. The fact that the AIDS epidemic (not yet viewed as a pandemic) became known in the early/mid-80's, during Reagan's administration, during the American Culture Wars in addition to how it was first observed among so-called high-risk groups (vs. high-risk behaviors) were like the water and sunlight needed for propagation, HIV and AIDS being the seedlings. (no puns intended)

As for the research on sexual prejudice and correlation with AIDS stigma attitudes, I don't see the purpose for such a study when there is no precise goal/purpose. Was Herek's work to create a base/supply for people to justify their own psychological (and not social) research? Is it to show that between AIDS stimgma and Herek's "sexual prejudice" (a non-standard term/notion), one influences the other or vice versa or simply that the two are present (again, "correlation" being fuzzy)? What would be utterly more useful or interesting is to see to what extent the myth of gay men being metally ill and AIDS stigma correlate, overlap or are in complimentary distribution. Common notion = sickness (from mental to physical, either or both) I'm a fan of much of Herek's work, but the exact purpose of the research is not always clear, the more so in that people seem to use it to justify any position. Note, that this is not the case in the AIDS-related stigma section of the article.

Anyway, I'm being long-winded again after having pecked holes in so much of what we take for granted. I'm eager to discuss these topics with you, especially to hear your views on social, not just psychological, phenomena. -- CJ Withers 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know much abot AIDS stigma, which is why I thought you may be able to help out with the AIDS article and with any possible AIDS stigma article that may arise. Also, as you are a good copyeditor, I was hoping that you would take a quick glance at the AIDS article. --Bob 22:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

“Medicine” on MCOTW

After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seeker 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for voting on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/People's Republic of China. The objection you made about inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs) has been taken care of with the inclusion of nearly 30 footnotes. Please re-review the article, and make any necessary changes to your vote. Thanks, AndyZ t 15:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Update: there are now over 50 footnotes in the article. Thanks, AndyZ t 23:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I accept that some of my posts may have been bordering on confrontational (and some may consider them to be confrontational) but I don't think I have breached any major decorum. Posting an article for FARC without raising an issue in the talk page is considered by many, including me, as uncivil. Anyways, I apologize if I have offended you as it was not my intention. -Blacksun 15:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. WAS 4.250 01:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries--Bob 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Great work! I have a question. The really great up to date free on line book Influenza Report 2006 that is referenced in H5N1 is expected to be updated often (more than once a year); so should we indicate a date when we last accessed it? And where is the documentation for the referencing style you converted H5N1 to? Thanks. WAS 4.250 17:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, no worries. I will try to put a date on the book. I might also put in some lines about each of the texts within the references, like they were originally. The reference style I used can be found at Template:Cite book, Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite web and Template:Cite news. They were each wrapped in cite.php before, so I didn't modify that. I will also take a closer look at the text later on today (hopefully) to see what I can add to it. --Bob 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As you're actively working on the H5N1 article, and doing a good job of it, I'll keep out. I'd like to make a few comments which you may or may not find relevant, with the intention that you act on them or use them if you think fit.

1. There's some confusion wuth "Transmission and infection of H5N1" (where "H5N1 flu" redirects. At the very least, I think this article should be referenced at the head of the article ("this article deals with the H5N1 flu virus. For information on the disease caused by this virus, see H5N1 flu"). This is imporetant, as people with worries about the disease will reach this article (H5N1).

2. Maybe some material should be moved between these two articles? Personally I do not like duplication (material should be properly treated in one article, referenced by others), but Wikipedia does tend to throw up independent articles which treat the same issues in different, often incompatible, ways.

3. While not relevant to "H5N1", I don't think "Transmission and infection of H5N1" is a good name for the other article itself; "H5N1 flu" is much better, and should deal with transmission, infection, treatment, prevention, etc.

4. Reading "H5N1", one gets the impression that there are doubts about whether Tamiflu is of any use at all ("Even now, we remain unsure about Tamiflu's real effectiveness."); but in fact there does seem to be evidence that it is better than nothing. In particular, I remember reading, but can't find the reference, that the equivalent of a 10-dose course of Tamiflu reduced mortality by 50% in mice; 16 doses reduced it by 80%. I mention this to you as I think you know more about H5N1 than me, and will probably know the reference and other relevant material. Checkable references in the article to research (not just product leaflets) will help.

5. From what I know, Relenza is about as effective as Tamiflu (though they work in very similar ways, so that, if H5N1 develops resistance to Tamiflu, it is likely to resist Relenza as well). So it would seem sensible to mention Relenza wherever Tamiflu is mentioned. (if I'm wrong, Relenza obviously shouldn't be mentioned).

6. There is some evidence that serum is of use as a treatment (Jiahai Lu et al). Again, I presume that you know all about this. It may be worth mentioning.

It seems more sensible to tell you this rather than embark on heavy editing while you are in the process of rewriting.

Best wishes, Pol098 14:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User Silence is assisting as well, I do believe. "H5N1 Flu" is indeed a better name; the current name is from the name of the subsection that was turned into a sister article. Conceptually, a disease and a causitive agent are distinct. Exactly the best way to deal with that differs from disease to disease. One issue here is that the disease is mainly in birds, while the interest is mainly concerning humans. A further complication is concerns disease of the current avian adapted H5N1 versus disease of a pandemic version that doesn't exist yet and could be avian or human or even be a differnt subtype altogether - or might never exist. People want to know about treatments for a disease that doesn't exist yet. WAS 4.250 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Barnstar-atom3.png The E=MC² Barnstar
For your outstanding contributions to AIDS and HIV, as well as your continuing quest to provide accurate (and properly formatted) references in H5N1. Thank you. -- MarcoTolo 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. --Bob 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation Info

Thanks for letting me know the template to use.--Sepa 21:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw, does this template also nominate articles for FA status in English? I hope not! I wouldn't want people to think I thought these articles are good enough for FA status... I'm just translating, I can't cope with pictures and info boxes etc, that's far too technical for me! --Sepa 21:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No no, don't worry, it just states that you have translated an FA from another language into English. --Bob 21:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

template cite web

Hi, re: [4]. May I ask you to update the doc as well on {{cite web}}? Seems like you have partially inadvertantly reverted yourself. It would also be nice to provide an edit summary, if you do some surgery on such a high use template :P. Best regards, --Ligulem 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done --Bob 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi - would you please take another look at the article. Some of your points have been addressed, while others need a bit of discussing. Rama's Arrow 21:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done --Bob 23:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks a lot for taking the time to edit the article.--Dwaipayanc 14:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Rugby dates

Wow. You are very rude. Those dates I'am using were brought in as standard before you were even a member of Wikiproject RU. They are consistant with the football articles as well. Please stop changing them. Cvene64 03:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I do not want to start an edit war with a fellow RU Wikipedian. But I explained to you why the dates are as they are, then you go "RV" the changes. I did not mean to take out the strips when changing the dates back, so feel free to add them back in, but please stop changing the dates. Hope that is cool. Cvene64 15:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), both date styles are acceptable. Certainly both will render to the same result when the page is browsed. There's no need to be edit warring over it. (crossposted to User talk:Cvene64)Stormie 12:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rugby and so on

Look man, I don't mind what your doing, if you really feel the other dates would work better, we'll use them. There shouldnt be in-fighting between RU fans, so its all good. Your doing a top job with the RWC templates and everything else. The only thing I think we should keep with the RWC templates, is the lines in the infobox (they are there currently), just so its unique/not like the football one. You should come over and join in this: Portal:Rugby Union/Collaboration of the fortnight. Anyway, keep up the good work. Cvene64 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Kit templates

Please re-read the instructions for making kit templates:

  • All kits should contain one transparent colour (paletted PNGs can have one transparent colour). This should be the colour that would make the template more reusable (i.e. not the collar).

ed g2stalk 15:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes to AIDS Reappraisal

I'm trying to make some changes to AIDS reappraisal. If you're still interested in this article, I'd be interested to read your views on the talk page. Trezatium 18:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


hi - please dont remove the {{euro-geo-stub}} template from andorra geography articles when you add your new {{andorra-stub}} template. a lot of editors work specificaly on geo-stubs, and the stub sorting wikiproject uses that template to show when a country has reached the threshhold number of stubs for its own geo-stub template. As with all other templates, when that level is reached it will be proposed at WP:WSS/P as per the instructions on stub types at WP:STUB (why wasnt this done with andorra-stub?) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your Bachelet contribution

Hi. I restored your Bachelet contribution, which had been cut by CieloEstrellado. I have no problem with it, so long as it is factual, and CieloEstrellado's excuse was lame — "that is irrelevant for an encyclopedia article"? I would think it minor but relevant that a head of state speaks a particular language.

If it's not too much to ask, I'd like to ask you a favor: Please take a look at the Pinochet article. CieloEstrellado has been cutting relevant material from the article — big chunks of it, actually. Now, I have no problem with specific edits. And as you can see in my user page, I'm dedicated to factual accuracy. So, though I disagree with what CieloEstrellado is saying — that my additions are POV — I am interested in having a disinterested third party take a look at it and give it an honest appraisal.

This is an imposition, I know, but for my own peace of mind, I would greatly appreciate it. If you are too busy — or if you quite sensibly do not want to get mixed up in some silly edit war with a couple of psychos — I would completely understand. Either way, thank you so much. Cheers, --MILH 06:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

AIDS edits

hiyah Bob. noticed some reverting in the AIDS article; i'm thinking you're very attatched to some of the particular language used in the text, but is there anyway it can be a little less esoteric? not only that, but when it is layed on real thick like it often is in the article, layout and style can be really really confused (run on sentences, mentioning the same word in the sentence 3 times, extra needless wikifying etc). im not trying to muddy anything, just trying to make it more clear and less painful to read through. what are your thoughts? JoeSmack Talk 17:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

oh and redundancy. there is LOTS of it.JoeSmack Talk 18:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
here is the part of the article i was currently on:
In addition to the AIDS-defining tumours listed above, HIV-infected patients are at increased risk of certain other tumours, such as Hodgkin's disease and anal and rectal carcinomas. However, the incidence of many common tumours, such as breast cancer or colon cancer, does not increase in HIV-infected patients. In areas where HAART is extensively used to treat AIDS, the incidence of many AIDS-related malignancies has decreased, but at the same time malignant cancers overall have become the most common cause of death of HIV-infected patients.[37]
Other opportunistic infections
AIDS patients often develop opportunistic infections that present with non-specific symptoms, especially low-grade fevers and weight loss. These include infection with Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare and cytomegalovirus (CMV). CMV can cause colitis, as described above, and CMV retinitis can cause blindness. Penicilliosis due to Penicillium marneffei is now the third most common opportunistic infection (after extrapulmonary tuberculosis and cryptococcosis) in HIV-positive individuals within the endemic area of Southeast Asia.[38]
first of all, it mentions that in incidence of many common tumors like colon cancer does not increase, yet in the very next section it talks about CMV colitis. it mentions that the incidence of many AIDS-related malignanies has decreased, and then it says they are the most common cause of death (that should be clariffied: im sure since HAART they have gone down but they still continue to be the number one cause of death with HIV+). CMV is mentioned in the 'other infections' section, yet it is in the major gastro section. same with MAC. penicilliosis has it's place in the others section, but i don't know why there is stuff about southeast asia in this section; no other pandemic info is given in any of the other sections within Symptoms and Complications. and just the wording throughout could be shaved just a bit - this article is really really long, and rightfully so - but words should be used a carefully as possible, and many are just thrown in that need not be there. for instance: "in HIV-positive individuals within the endemic area of Southeast Asia." could just as easily be "in HIV-positive individuals in Southeast Asia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSmack (talkcontribs)
Quite simple, you failed to grasp the basic premise of the statements made.

Point by point:

  1. HIV-infected patients are at increased risk of certain other tumours, not all, just certain ones.
  2. Some of the most common cancers have no increased incidence in this demographic.
  3. Where HAART is used, the incidence has decreased, however, HAART is not universally available, so in the areas where HAART is not available, malignant cancers are the most common cause of death. Also, the prevalence of a cancer and the incidence of a cancer are not the same.
  4. SE Asia is mentioned here as it has a very specific opp. infection which is rarely found outside of this region.
  5. CMV causes one of the gastro-intestinal illnesses, but the effects of CMV are not limited to this area of the anatomy.

No redundancies found. --Bob 18:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel all of that is especially clear enough in the article (thus my attempts to make it moreso). I mean, i got confused a little and so others probably have as well. I don't agree tha the SE Asia part is appropriate as there are many countries with many rare opp infections, i'm sure - they don't all get a space there. I still think mentioning CMV again is redundant. And ouch. JoeSmack Talk 18:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:HK7.png

Thanks for uploading Image:HK7.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

AIDS spelling

Please stop worrying about the spelling of the article, as edits such as this are counterproductive. Can't we get along and focus on writing an encyclopaedia? Narco 21:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the article was originally written by me using only British English, and this is what is standard throughout the article, then yes, you could stop going to a version that is not standard throughout. --Bob 21:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone standardised it in the other direction instead of your attempts to stanrdardise it in that one. It doesn't seem like it's worth the trouble when anons are just going to change it anyway; let sleeping dogs lie. Narco 21:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It was done incorrectly, only today, and is thus not fully standardised to American English. Please cease reverting to a nonstandardised format. --Bob 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It is standardised; all the spellings used conform to American English. Please cease calling it vandalism. Narco 21:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It was not standardised American English. This is a fact. Check it. Also, policy states that the original version of English used to write an article be maintained, and not changed. Original language used was British English. --Bob 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Where in the article does it not conform to American English? It looks kosher to me. Narco 21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Many words are written with ae or oe in British English, but a single e in American English. you will find examples of this in the article that you would like to present, violating Wiki policy whilst doing so. --Bob 21:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Calm down a little on the AIDS article. The entire article is blatantly POV and ignores obvious facts regarding homosexuality. If you are correct in your beliefs about homosexuality and AIDS, then you should not be afraid of the truth, no matter what its face. Don't you think your removal of the POV template only proves that there is a POV dispute? Handface 18:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, only that I am correct and the tag was put there by someone ignorant of the facts and by someone who did not read the entire article. --Bob 19:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
So why not mention that anal intercourse is more likely to lead to contracting AIDS? It is easier to tear the anus than the vagina, and the fluids up the butt are easier to get HIV from. Plus, homosexuals are more likely to engage in unprotected anal intercourse with multiple partners. Then add the undeniable statistics that the incidence of AIDS among homosexual men is way out of proportion to the ratio of homosexual men in the population in general. There is a definite connection between homosexuality and AIDS, even if it is not as simple as saying something as outmoded as, "Gays have AIDS" or "AIDS is God's punishment for gays" or whatever else. The "misconceptions" about AIDS in the article is just a bunch of straw man arguments, that's why there is a huge POV problem. Factor in that the article characterizes those that disagree with the article as conservative, right-wing, religious, uneducated, etc. -- and the article is just blatantly POV. Handface 00:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Typo on world HIV prevalence chart

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that there is a typo on your world "Adult HIV prevalence %" chart linked from the AIDS article and related articles. It says 'prevalance' (with an 'a') instead of 'prevalence.' No big deal, but just thought you might want to fix it since you probably have the original image files and whatnot. --Shawn81 05:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Hey, Grcampbell! I see that you have undone many of my edits to the H.I.V. article. I spent a lot of time yesterday to edit it, and I think that before you undo it all, that you should pleae confer with me and tell me what I did wrong. Please let me know on how I can help make the article better. I also believe that you were indirectly referring to me as "copyediting". I have taken some symptoms of H.I.V. from a textbook, and paraphased them. I also completely wrote myself the following chunk of text:

The primary targets of HIV are T-helper lymphocytes, white blood cells that greatly help in coordination of the immune system, metaphoric quarterbacks or military commanders. They secrete many cytokines that initiate chemotaxis, stimulate clonal differentiation of antigen-specific T-cells, and have many other functions. When T-helper cells are being destroyed in symptomatic HIV infection, or later AIDS disease, in the event of an infection, the effeciency of related immune cells, mainly T-cytotoxic lymphocytes, are greatly decreased. This can be likened to jamming an army's communications during battle. The individual companies and divisions will fight on, but will be unable to coordinate tactics and call for reinforcements or evac. Without T-helper coordination, proliferation of other immune cells are also slower, and chemotaxis is reduced.

The infestation of macrophage or monocyte phagocytes decreases the killing effectiveness of the immune systemwhen opportunistic infections come into the blood or tissues. This is akin to stripping an army of its medium vehicles or tanks, and leaving just infantry to fight a battle. This also slows down antigen presentation to the B-cells and T-cells, lengthening the time until they can reinforce the granulocytes and the remaining monocytes and macrophages.

Let's work together, and possibly the H.I.V. article can become a featured article. And, by the way, I saw the two Wikipedia star-things you got on your user page. =) Nice job!

RelentlessRouge 12:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The similes were too childish. --Bob 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is for a general audience! However, you must have much more experience that me, so let's discuss it! Cheers, RelentlessRouge 23:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It was also badly written. --Bob 23:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to make it personal. If you want, we can discuss it. I believe that Wikipedia is for poeple that aren't physicians. If you want, rewrite it, but at least make it readable for someone that doesn't have an M.D., and has no idea what a Helper T-cell is or anything like that. RelentlessRouge 00:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Not making it personal, and that is what subarticles and wikilinks are for. Have you tried looking at T helper cell?? --Bob 01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Unrelated note on same article: I was making minor edits, and was perturbed by the presence of a lead section AND an "Introduction." I started to change this and found that I was in an "Edit conflict." Imagine my surprise when I found that you were doing the same bloody thing! And quite well at that. Sfahey 21:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
All good help is required, and you're doing just that. I see that you've raised a few to FA, hopefully this one will follow your trend. --Bob 21:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello, can you please help me create a more accurate kit for the Brazil national football team, I've seen you've created a lot of kits and since I really don't know how to do any of that, I'm asking you for help. If so here's an image of it [5]. Thanks. Abreuzinho 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, is it ok? --Bob 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup

Hey Bob, Where do you think we should mention RWC Ltd. in the article? Do you think you could have a crack at it? Cvene64 09:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:UNAIDS logo.JPG

Hi Grcampbell. I just wanted to let you know that I uploaded a .png version of the Image:UNAIDS logo.JPG (which you uploaded) and placed it on the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS page. I've tagged the previous version as {{subst:orfud}}. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 21:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Team templates

Hi Bob, I wanted to ask you if you had any thoughts on this discussion, regarding the creation of an infobox for clubs/provincial teams? No one really seems to be interested in creating it anymore but I think it is very much needed, so I'd though I'd ask you since you are pretty good with templates. Cheers. Cvene64 16:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RWC template

Hey Bob, I noticed you fixed up Template:Rugby Union World Cup, but I think something made the lines go to the left instead of the centre, could you check it out? Cheers. Cvene64 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

World Cup squads

Re your comments about World Cups squads - surely if the World Cup Squad and the National Squad are the same then how will I, for example, be able to see the 1999 RWC Squad from France? I would be looking at the current squad. Surely the titles need to be refined to more accurately reflect their contents. --Hack 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You therefore do not understand the premise of the templates in question. The competition for which the squad was chosen is reflected within the title of the box. --Bob 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Scotland subdivisions Template

You reverted by change to Template:Scotland subdivisions which was well documented in the edit summary, and a logical change to make with only "revert" in the edit summary and no reason given on any talk page — that gives the impression you thought my edit was nothing more than simple vandalism.

I have restored my changes, kindly please discuss in the future and use useful edit summaries.

{{Dynamic navigation box}} is well suited to the task - there is absolutely no need to code it all from scratch.

Thanks/wangi 06:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the changes were made so that all Scottish templates now look alike. --Bob 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry about that: we were both editing the same subsection at the same time, cutting material to the same sub-srticle (just slightly different bits!) Freaky. --Mais oui! 16:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British Royalty

British Royalty Bob247/Archive 1, WikiProject British Royalty wants you!
WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
DBD 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Royal Arms of Scotland2.png)

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Royal Arms of Scotland2.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Scotland infobox

Template:Scotland infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Durin 18:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox country doesn't work with Scotland

Can you please discuss your concerns at Talk:Scotland#Infobox country? It's quite disheartening for my hard work to be rv'd so quickly. I think the page using the standard template is nearly there, plus it is a lot easier on editors to be faced with that rather than a big splodge of esoteric rubbish! Thanks/wangi 20:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I just updated the infobox yesterday and now it is up for deletion, I concur, it is disheartening, however, I do believe the current box does not work. --Bob 21:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

substituting infobox London


I noticed you've subst:ed infobox London into the actual London article. While it is obviously a single-use template, the entire purpose of its creation was to avoid having the main London article filled with yet more text and thus size. I'm not sure if there's a Wikipedia guideline regarding this, but I think the matter should be discussed at Talk:London first. I have copied this message there, and would appreciate discussion to continue there. Regards, DJR (T) 08:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal references

Regarding the AIDS reappraisal page... I am considering removing the list of "further reading" (books, articles) which are not directly referenced in the article, in order to shrink it to a manageable size. I wanted to check with you before doing so since I know you were deeply involved in the development of the article. They are great references, but if they're not directly cited in the text and the article is 45+ kb long, it may make sense to cut them or move them to a separate article ("Important books and journal articles on HIV", or the HIV page, or something along those lines). What do you think? MastCell 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Rugby Union Tri Nations

I have put in a requested move for the above article to be returned to its original name Tri Nations Series. As you have voted in previous move requests, I thought you might like the chance to vote.

You can vote here.GordyB 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)



the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Gambia infobox

These things happen. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I deleted a lot of things last night, I guess one got away from me. Regards, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

POV template

Hi Grcampbell, take a look at this, its definatelly a POV template Template:Iranian states. What iranian states? Russia and Hungary and the rest are Iranian states just because they have some minority of people who speak a language which is just related to persian? Thanks. Ldingley 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

sex template

what exactly did u do? did u shrink it, cuz it doesnt look like ya took anything offQrc2006 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I aligned it to the left and reduced gaps between lines. It looks better IMHO. --Bob 14:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

France infobox

Just found out your message on my talk page. The infobox looks better now, in particular all entries now appear on a single line, but there are still a couple points that could/should be improved:

  1. the entry "Area" should read "Land area". That's because we don't have a "Water (%)" entry, so we need to make it clear to people that the figures listed are land area figures, not total area including water
  2. the land area figure from the French Land Register is still missing. Can you add it?
  3. three superscripts still appear in brackets which is kind of awkward. These are for the land area entries, and for the density entry. For the density entry, I suggest putting the superscript next to the word "density", same as you did for "Total" and for "Metropolitan France". For the land area entries, I suggest you put them next to "km²", but with a little space so has not to appear stuck to "km²", which as you rightfully pointed out was not very good looking.
  4. in the land area entries, there should be a superscript next to the word "total", same as the superscript appearing next to the word "total" in the population entries.
  5. for the date below population, I would suggest allowing to write a full date like "January 1, 2006" rather than writting "2006 est.". Two reasons for this. First it's more accurate. Some countries offer mid-year estimates, other countries offer Jan. 1 estimates, so it's better to disambiguate. Secondly, France has stopped conducting censuses (same as Germany and several other European countries), it now conducts large scale surveys every year, so in the future we will never have census figures again. What we'll have won't be "estimates" either. It will be a cross between the two, better than estimates, and, so they say, almost as good as census figures, but revised every year instead of every 8 or 9 years with the past censuses. So I think it's better to drop the word "est.".

Alright, let me know if you can improve these points. Hardouin 10:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


  1. I don't know what can be done about that, however, one of the footnote states that water is not included.
  2. added.
  3. I have sorted some of them out, but it must be noted that almost every country has superscripts in the brackets where footnotes are used describing denisty or area.
  4. superscript is in the bracket...
  5. the date is now written in full, but it is still an estimate not an actual determined figure (all data on this are estimates unless you line up every single person and count them). --Bob 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you added once again that Dominique de Villepin was the "chancellor" of France. Why did you do that? Chancellors are in Germany, not in France. In France there are Prime Ministers. Hardouin 11:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the country infobox, I tried to improve superscripts, and I think all problems are now solved except these two:

  • you forgot to disambiguate currency codes for metropolitan France (EUR) and for the Pacific overseas territory (XPF), the result being that it looks as though EUR is the currency code of the Pacific Franc
  • some blue links are not underlined, I'm not sure why (for example, "metropolitan France" is not underlined)

Apart from these two points, everything looks fine to me. Hardouin 11:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures "in Paris"

Hello - and thanks for your vote. I'm not sure if you have been following, but there have already been two motions for a move - one for "in the Paris region", the official translation of "Île-de-France", and the second for a "Île-de-France" counter-proposal. The first failed, the second ended "no consensus". I called this particular vote after a few of us came into agreement over a "Paris area" compromise - but one of those few has since changed his mind. It will most likely end in "no consensus" or "failed" as well, but again not for any reason having anything to do with anything encyclopaedic.

I do appreciate your objective point of view, and you obviously know the fact of the matter - but could I ask you to elaborate about a) why you think the page should be moved and b) why you think "Paris area" is not fitting? There are few of us in this discussion who know the real use of "Paris" (both everyday and reference), and your complete explication of your decision could help make things clearer for all. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 08:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination

Hi there. I'm a fellow ex-pat Scot and I'm working in St Louis at the moment. I'm trying to go through the HIV article to make it more accessible to non-specialists. As I'm a molecular microbiologist as well I'm well aware how hard it is to write science for a general audience but I'll try to keep the science descriptions (of superb quality) but simplify the wording. As an aside, I recently put Enzyme through the FA process (discussion archive) and would encourage you to engage as positively as possible with the reviewers. Even people who misunderstand parts of our work are useful, since they show us which parts are least understandable! Good luck with this. TimVickers 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I put AIDS through this process not long ago, and I was aware that HIV wouldn't pass muster, however, if the reviewers were more helpful I wouldn't be so brusque. Thanks for the help. --Bob 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Please don't take the reviews personally; your responses are coming across as prickly. The article is nearly there, and your excellent work is clearly in evidence. It's an important article, so I hope that you find someone with fresh eyes to bring the prose up to the required standard. Tony 01:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest JoeSmack, but he's already done a bit of editing on it—perhaps he might be willing to do more. Others who might be willing to help are P3d0, LuciferMorgan, Circeus (computer stuff, but I think he's a very good all-rounder), Ke6jjj (Jeremy—does computer, engineering, aviation etc), Peirigill, and Paul.h
Perhaps you might indicate to anyone you're asking that (1) it's a really important article that we want to ride on WP's reach into the developed and developing worlds, and (2) a linguistic edit is required, so don't be put off by the medical content. "Your fresh eyes would be of great value at this mature stage of the FAC process." Tony 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm flattered that Tony saw fit to recommend my eyes, as he is a far better writer and editor than I am. Now is not convenient, but I may have some time to devote to this next week; I'll try, but I can't promise anything. You might also see if DaveOinSF can help. His writing and editing on the San Francisco article was first class.--Paul 20:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
My sentiments are the same as Paul (Tony is a lot better and experienced in these matters than me), I'm flattered also though don't have time at present. A quick scan through the article though raises the following problems;
1. All online references need the date you accessed / retrieved them - if any of the links become dead they can then be accessed through
Purely online refs have the access dates, others have the volume/issue/page/DOI/PMID refs --Bob 00:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
2. In certain areas redundancy may become a problem, such as stating there is a pandemic. This may change in years to come, so there is a problem there. Say for example I said "Currently Paul McCartney is making new music", would that apply in a years time?
It won't be changing. --Bob 00:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
3. This is the main issue which I feel Tony has raised, basically that the article needs a good copyedit. Browsing through, there are a lot of single sentence statements which makes the article feel disjointed and disrupts the overall flow. An example is below;
"Infection with HIV-1 is associated with a progressive decrease of the CD4+ T cell count and an increase in viral load. The rate by which the patient's CD4+ T cell count declines can be measured and shows the stage of infection. The level of HIV in the blood varies, depending on the stage of infection, and can range from just 50 to 11 million viruses per mL."
Can you notice the disrupted flow within the example? If not, since Tony is experienced in these matters perhaps he knows a decent online source which can equip you with the desired copyedit skills to tackle the article? Hope this has helped anyway. LuciferMorgan 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It does need a copyedit, and is something that a fresh pair of eyes is required to study. Thankyou for looking it over --Bob 00:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures mediation

Hello - your knowledgeable input would be much appreciated at the "Tallest buildings... in Paris" mediation case [6]. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 17:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input today - and glad to see one knowledgable about all things France! There are many articles in need of someone just like you. One thing at a time perhaps : ) Anyhow, please continue to help discussion maintain some form of lucidity. Oh, and you were asked to sign on up top, but I doubt it's urgent. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you anything more to add to the discussion? We seem to be veering towards a circular debate again - could you have a read over the latest input and see if anything has been missed/can be clarified? THEPROMENADER 08:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:French commune

Bob, thank you VERY much for this. I like your template very much. It might require some minor fine tuning, but the code should be simple enough to allow "average" editors to do this. Again, thank you! olivier 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I like your other templates (cantons, ...). Could we keep the links blue instead of forcing them to be black? That looks quite strange and unusual to me. Thanks again. olivier 10:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template technicalities

Silly question Bob, but where did you do all your template work/testing? Kind of amazing that you didn't even set up a "test" page. I would love to know your technique. THEPROMENADER 08:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't get rid of the 10px gap to the right of the Template:Major French Cities to fly away - could you perhaps work some of your magic? Also let me know about a bigger plan - this would solve the problem too. I do like the infobox narrow though. THEPROMENADER 09:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I still haven't been able to solve the "coming of the white" template problem - yet I haven't really spent much time looking, either. So I have made no changes to date. If it is to stay "all-white", then the first thing I'd do is toss the border around the map and put the lines back.
Whilst looking for references for the "tallest structures" issue I came across a series of "Communauté Urbaine" templates - like this one here - perhaps it would do to ask Hardouin about these as they are of his creation. Oddly, although they are all the same, there is one template per article - I think it would be entirely possible to make a unique template for all similar articles in the format you've adopted. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I've put these up for deletion and created Template:French communate as a standard. --Bob 01:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't get it - the grey is back. Next step is your call. THEPROMENADER 17:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you again where you do your template testing - I don't suppose that it's "live" trial and error. Have you a version on Wikipedia installed on your /localhost? : ) THEPROMENADER 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere, just guesstimating. Sometimes I would carry it out here or here --Bob 20:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoho, okay sir. Not bad at all - was amazed that you could incorporate all those changes in so few "go's". Of course with my trade, I feel the need to test in every platform/browser available... not easy without using the Template:Template_sandbox. Thanks for the fill-in and cheers. THEPROMENADER 23:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Again everything has "gone white" - the template background is no longer grey, and the Wiki background is no longer (that horrid) pale blue. This is the third time over the last two days. Perhaps it is my browser/support - I'm using Safari and OS X on this computer. Are you seeing the same thing? THEPROMENADER 07:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Son of "Tallest structures"


Can I ask you to take a look at the "Tallest structures" mediation page? Things have really gone to factual hell today. THEPROMENADER 16:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

La Défense towers articles

Bob, I just wanted to thank you for your effort of clarification you were bringing about the proper locations of the La Défense towers articles. It is indeed better described this way. Metropolitan 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. --Bob 23:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

blue links -> black?

Hello again, another technical question. However did you manage to make the blue links remain black? Did you somehow override the "<a href>" ([[ ]]) by wrapping another style around it - like some have done for their signatures? I would have loved to have access to the "a" css for one of the templates I made - links are not visible on that blue background. THEPROMENADER 08:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the interest in the Paris-based articles, and I can't tell you how relieved I am to see someone knowledgeable in that subject honestly interested in sharing that knowledge through verifiable fact. Myself I will get around to contributing once again, but for the moment I'm frankly quite fed up with the goings-on of these last days, and English-wiki general lack of interest in such subjects that allow "inventiveness" to appear and remain uncorrected because of lack of knowledgeable editors enough to make an opposition - and in case of contestation, untried because English-Wiki administrators share the same lack of knowledge in such subjects as most Wikipedians. The not-always-knowledgable-yet-opinionated "social circus" is only an added impediment, but this at least can be looked at with an objective sense of humour.

I'll be more than glad to pitch in for your template-fixing drive, and this in fact is almost motivating me to getting back to contributing to articles once again, but for the moment I'd like to concentrate on getting this "tallest structures" thing out of the way - it is more important than you think, as in reality this issue has liens to most Paris-based articles. Thanks for your continued support of fact through all this, and rest assured that you can count on mine.

THEPROMENADER 07:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Paris Streets

I did notice though that you had moved a few of Paris' streets from their "rue xxx, Paris" to "rue xxx" - the ", Paris" was in there for a couple of reasons - first, for future disambiguation (look how many streets are named after the same places/dates/saints/politicians/generals in even neighbouring communes), and second, I think it would be both informative and practical to keep "Paris" in the title for searches. THEPROMENADER 10:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If I did that, it was in error, I thought I set it up so that the streets were linked as rue de XXX, Paris. Will fix this. --Bob 15:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, no problem at all. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 16:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It was set up correctly, I deleted , Paris in the articles as the template adds this automatically. However, I noticed that there were some mistakes done in the width section, these have been corrected.--Bob 02:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)

Tower reverts by Hardouin


I only reverted Hardouin's reverts to your edits - he cited the mediation case in the comment, and this is plain wrong (amongst other things) - but I didn't modify all of the towers at Category:La_Défense because this isn't my fish to fry. I will all the same intervene for any similar disruptive behaviour. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another tower-wide revert spree. I reverted back to your version approved by myself and Metropolitan. Just another page in the WP:RFC case I'm preparing. THEPROMENADER 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation problems, admin complaints.

Can I ask you for a back-up comment? A certain Wikipedian has made a tour of Admin talk-pages making baseless allegations, but most importantly is his complaint here. My ongoing defense of all things factually French has obviously miffed an uninformed few, and today's revert-cancel tour didn't help. I left an explaining note directly on the talk page of the admin concerned, but Thanks if you can put in a word on the noticeboard. Much appreciated, cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"...when you exit a commune, you are no longer in that commune"
We fill a page with - what, 154kb of text? And the guy states the entire irrefutable argument in one sentence. LOL. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind my quoting you on the mediation page. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my French, but : WTF ?! Someone just moved the "tallest structures" article. I know the contributor in question : after I noticed that the same edited that article earlier today, I wrote to warn him about the mediation and 'fact' problems, but asked him to add a word if could - but I never even remotely asked for anything like this. Waiting for the fireworks... no. (running to get canoe and lifejacket instead) THEPROMENADER 22:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The Paris article too. All edits are dot-on to boot. No reason to intervene, will check tomorrow. Night. THEPROMENADER 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that as well. He is being 100% accurate, and no, I didn't ask him to intervene either. Looks like we have another person who prefers fact to fiction. --Bob 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in but I spied your "tallest" compromise version and tucked it right here. Before locating it I mentioned the idea of doing a version like yours to User:Metropolitan. I'm guessing that perhaps you were emulating the List of tallest buildings in New York City. I know Paris extremely intimately and to be perfectly honest either your version (based upon the New York precedence) or the version I edited makes equal sense to me. My editing on the "tallest" article is primarily based upon the fact that La Défense is in département 92 and Paris is in 75. The only other idea that is also equally sensible would be to do like they've done on French Wikipedia and just include everything in the Île-de-France. (Netscott) 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Bob 02:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, you guys were up late. I'm actually glad I missed that. Thanks a million for your support of fact in this - both of you.
Bob, I've posted the RfC info here - feel free to add anything you like to it. It's a mess, but once everything is found it won't be hard to sort out into a coherent case. You're right that the centre of the case should indeed be WP:OWN, as any disruptive behaviour always originates from this. I've also set up a talk page behind it. I'll also be leaving a message about this on Captain scarlet's page. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 10:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally missed your comment here. I had that bad-faith affirmation turned on me the next day, the same even in its wording, but contrary to yours it was baseless and even puzzling. I'm better informed now, but whatever.

After giving the affair more or less a break for the week-end, I've followed another contributor's suggestion and put togther some name choices as a compromise. They're right up at the top in the... Compromise section. Please have a look and pick out which you like - at least this way we'll know where everyone stands in this. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your vote. I think things will be calmer there now. Any more template work to do? I'm putting together a "mines of Paris" article - there seems to be a bit of an amalgame between carrières and "catacombs" here... THEPROMENADER 19:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for bringing that to my attention. As the closer of about 100 TfD's per day it becomes difficult to keep up. Thanks again. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Irish flag

Hey Bob, sure, by all means go ahead and change it. I was kind of hoping someone would come along and fix it up, as it does look pretty terrible. But do you mean use the shamrock image instead of the flag, or adjust the flag? I don't mind at all, but we should try and keep the actual image the same size as a flag, if you know what I mean..? Cheers. Cvene64 07:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for peer review of Enzyme kinetics

Hi Bob. Any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status would be a great help. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

German userbox

Makes sense. I get a bit defensive about Imperial Units because no one ever uses them, but 300,000,000 people in the U.S. understand nothing else. Thanks for the heads up. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 22:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

X-speaking states

Hi, Bob. I think we should look at this on two different levels: I personally think that all such templates should be deleted, as they add little information and are prone to subjectivity (as opposed to, say, "Francophonie" or "Lusitanic" templates, which would list countries that have actually opted to join an organization). That aside (as many may argue that I am wrong), the Ro-speaking one came about only because of a very stupid idea and POV-pushing tactic, and is, by virtually all accounts, completely pointless as a template (it "helps" people navigate between, at most, 4 articles, of which three do not really belong in there...). I am not sure whether you were agreeing with me or just pointing out that I had left my job half-finished, but, in case you think the criticism can be extended to all those templates, then let's nominate them all (I can't do it right away, but I'll see about it later, in case you don't beat me to it). Cheers. Dahn 15:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

When editing articles

Don't forget [[Help:Edit summary|to add an edit sumary]), especially when imposing a template. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Commune Infobox maps

Greetings. I saw your work on the commune infoboxes today, and noticed the green/blue France map you incorporated into it. I also had a look to see how many of those maps there are, and it seems that someone has gone to the insane task of making and uploading a plan for most every commune... all for a dot! It is for situations exactly like this that I invented the "CSS moving point" system in use on the "Paris streets" and "Major French cities" infoboxes - what do you think about making a version for this?

The thing is, I'm not so pleased with the idea of having an entire map of France with a single dot on it - this is not very clear. Rather I though about having the map of France as an inset into a map of... say, a région - this would mean making one "map and inset" for every region.... not too much of a task. The région would be highlighted of course in the inset map of France, and the "main" region map would clearly show all of its communes, and the pointer could be aligned to that covered by the article.

Something worth looking into? I already have most of the maps we'll need.


-- THEPROMENADER 20:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I would be ok with that. I was just moving the map that appeared in the {{FRdot}} template out of the template in commune articles and into the infobox. However, with your idea, there would need to be over 1000 articles modified... --Bob 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

...was thinking the same thing. How many of those templates have a map/image in place already? It would be simple though to add an "option" clause for X and Y coordinates - if there are none, no map appears... or something like that. THEPROMENADER 21:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No idea, but an optional parameter would be easy enough to add in. --Bob 21:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Goodness me! Someone sent me a message! I must look!
No, nothing... okay, back to Grcampbell's talk page.
Oh! Another message! (repeat to infinity..).
It was funny the first time, sir : P
I'm working on "other plans" for now - but will get to it soon enough. Will let you know when it's done. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 09:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

RU Assessment

Was wondering if you would be willing to help assess RU articles? I have been trying to set something up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Assessment. Please visit it and have a look. Thanks - Shudda talk 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Orleans map

Hi. The thumbnail image of the map which you added to the Orleans, France article seems to be weird looking (though the image itself looks fine). Could you try to fix this? Thanks! --Schwael 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


I hereby award this French Barnstar of National Merit to Bob for his interest (and patience) in the promotion of fact in all things Paris. THEPROMENADER 23:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir, for your kind and constant contribution to what should have been a simple affair. I sincerely hope to see more of your objective input and support in all articles of a similar nature. Thank you very much and bonne continuation.
THEPROMENADER 23:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject AIDS — interested?

The existing WikiProject Aids is inactive, and as far as I can tell it never really achieved anything. Perhaps if it were relaunched, renamed (AIDS not Aids), and gained some new members then it might become a useful resource to help coordinate and organize article writing. Perhaps the ten people listed below might be interested in joining.

Regular, knowledgeable contributors to AIDS-related articles: Grcampbell, JoeSmack, MastCell, Nrets, Trezatium.

Also Nunh-huh among others. Trezatium 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Members of existing WikiProject Aids: Sci guy, Jfdwolff, OwenBlacker, TreveX, Exploding Boy.

What do you think? Worth doing or waste of time?

Trezatium 17:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to relaunch it, go for it, but I have given a lot to the existing AIDS-related articles already and don't feel that a project would add anything. --Bob 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

your're needed....

...over at AIDS reappraisal/Talk:AIDS reappraisal, as some key issues are being talked about. your depth of the field is important at this juncture. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much for the work you made giving references at AIDS reappraisal. I know it is a extremely boring task to search for references for issues that "everybody knows", but sometimes "everybody knows" things that simply are not so. Kary Mullis started his path towards dissidence asking the reference for "HIV is the cause of AIDS".

EU enhancement

Please stop reverting the addition in country column and reconsider your stance. For an overwhelming number of reasons EU is already a country-like entity and deserves to stand there, like in any official affairs. all the best Lear 21 10:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a country. Period. Get your facts straight before naking unwarranted changes across the board and being disruptive. You were already voted down at Berlin, maybe you should take the hint. --Bob 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Town GR

Can you please add a coat of arms in Template:Infobox Town GR ? I'm not getting it right. Thanks. Miskin 23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot! ;) Miskin 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

French commune

Hello! How do I calculate the x and y values to fill the Template:French commune? Thanks. Giro720 02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Islanders

Hi Grcampbell, I know that you have done some work on the PI's rugby page, and set up the touring team template, which is great by the way. I just wanted to check something though, I have been creating all the player articles, but there is not alot of info out there, but I think Isoa Domalailai may be Fijian not Tongan? Could you check that out? ThanksNarrasawa 07:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Isoa Domalailai IS Fijian, not Tongan, my bad... --Bob 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kit body saintsaway.png

Hi Grcampbell, I noticed you authored this image. I'm new here so I'm still learning how to do things - do you think you could update this to show the correct colours this oneis last years! Cheers --Brecker 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. It isn't even on sale yet and was only released yesterday... --Bob 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
But it's been in use for the last month or so... Thanks --Brecker 21:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. Unfortunately, I live in the US so I don't have the opportunity to watch much rugby these days. Could you possibly take a gander at the other kits that have been created at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Remaining: to see if they are up-to-date. The bold ones are the ones that have been completed. --Bob 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Quick look at the other Premiership clubs and they're pretty OK. Newcastle home has some very thin white hoops, Wasps away isn't all white. Leicester use a much darker shade of green if you can manage that. Great work!--Brecker 22:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For all your contributions to rugby related articles, including your huge contributions in creating templates. Your work is very much appreciated! Cvene64 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just got to say cheers for all the work you have put into the rugby templates. It was fantastic to see the club one up and running as well, especially getting all the Top 14/CL teams done in such a short period. Great work! Cvene64 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The new style looks so much better! Great work. Also I had an idea for the rugger box, I was thinking if there was anyway to make "Rugby Union Career" say just "Career" if the RL areas are not used? Its not really important, but I just thought maybe it could be useful. Anyway, keep up the great work with the kits, the rugby team box is now on over 100 articles! Cvene64 06:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I'm just wondering, where can I learn to design the type of infoboxes you use? is there a wikipedia guide for that? if not can one be made?. I tried to adapt the french departments infobox to another country but is way to complicated for me. If I give you the informacion can you design one or tell me how to design one, please? thanks-- F3rn4nd0 Flag of the United States.svg 21:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I just cannabilised code until I got it right... However, if you give me the information required, I could help you set one up. --Bob 21:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

HIV-related articles - could use another pair of eyes

Hi Bob - if you have a minute perhaps you could check out Talk:Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis and Talk:Simian immunodeficiency virus. Aside from basic WP style issues, this editor (who claims to be the principal investigator on the studies he's citing) is quite aggressively pushing a hypothesis that I don't think is anywhere close to having the support he says it has... but he may be right that I'm just ignorant. ←Hob 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rugby union team infobox website

Thanks for adding it. Alexj2002 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RU collaboration of the fortnight

Hey, was wondering if you could support the nomination of Frank Hadden for collaboration of the fortnight at WP:RU? - Shudda talk 23:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Wallofreformers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wallofreformers.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Rugby World Cup

Hey Bob, I was thinking if you have anytime maybe you could revamp the RWC tournaments template, like "update" it. The old international team box used look similar to this, with visable lines and son on, so maybe you could do the same thing with the RWC one. Cheers. Cvene64 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Smiley.svg --Bob 00:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks very much! Cvene64 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Zimbabwe rugby

Hey Bob, could you double-check the colours of Zimbabwe's jersey? It is currently navy, though some I have found show it as green. Do you know what the wore at the 87 World Cup? Or what is the current situation? Cheers. Cvene64 06:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

On their website I see it as navy... one could be team colours and the other their change colours? --Bob 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That said, it could be that the image just has bad resolution and the actual colors are indeed a dark green. I believe they wore green hoops in the '91 world cup. --Bob 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I really can't tell. Their website is green themed, so that may be an indication that at least one of them is green. Looking at the other image, I guess it is possible that is to do with the resolution. I'll look into more though. Cheers. Cvene64 14:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

All Blacks Peer review

I've submitted All Blacks article for a peer-review, please go to WP:PR and leave comments if people suggest improvements. This is important if we want to get this article to FA status. Thanks - Shudda talk 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:HarbourRugby.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:HarbourRugby.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Scotland subdivisions

Rather than revert a change which makes a lot of sense and tries to move things toward a Wikipedia-wide standard perhaps you should change the other Scottish templates to use {{Navigation}}? Otherwise nothing will ever move forward. Please list the other templates that need updating and people will update them. Thanks/wangi 17:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The colours used with that template are rubbish. The Scottish templates are fine as they are, have been consolidated and are working well. Why change it to something else just for changing sake? Also, as that template is currently undergoing an edit war with user:tasco leading the charge, why would we want to implement something which is not yet agreed upon even amongst those that want that template? --Bob 17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The colours can be changed via a parameter, and the template should be locked anyway. Thanks/wangi 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

All Blacks away kit

Hey, can you give us a ref for that or did you just see it on Rugby 06?--HamedogTalk|@ 01:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The All Blacks official website states that. So do most retailers. --Bob 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean this here: [7]? If so, I will add as a ref. BTW, you should archive your page.--HamedogTalk|@ 08:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That would do it. --Bob 00:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, --Sharlene Thompson 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)