User talk:Derek.cashman/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

GAC expedited evaluation

I know you have reviewed a few of my WP:GACs and you are a decorated reviewer. Do you have any advice on my request for an expedited GAC review?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood.

Read my expanded comments at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop. Your response was in NO WAY my proposal. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Workshop

Hi Derek. It wasn't removed but moved to Wikipedia:Content review/brainstorming, the idea being that we shouldn't get to specifics until the scope has been settled on. OK? Marskell 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought "cut for a general brainstorming page" was intuitable enough :). Or perhaps I should just move it to the talk page to avoid having two pages? Marskell 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it's pertinent. It's just that before quibbling over what this or that process does, let's first establish what the workshop is meant to do. The brainstorming page is perhaps best—it's linked at the top of the workshop and thus won't be forgotten about; we can reincorporate those points when we get to each of the three processes (personally, I'd like to start with PR). Marskell 19:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 6th October 2007. Epbr123 09:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reviewing the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. This is my first effort to create an article and have it proceed to Good Article Status. I moved the references for entire sections to the end of the section. I thought it looked better that way. Most of the references pertain to the entire paragraph, not just a sentence that is why I thought they should be moved to the end of a paragraph. I will be repositioning them per your request. Thanks again for taking the time to come and read this article and give me your opinions. NancyHeise 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please come and see the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and give my your opinion as to whether I have addressed all your concerns with the exception of the mediation? I have made the changes you suggested and I just want to know if I have missed anything. Also, the mediation does not seem to be going anywhere. The one editor who was trying to add content that all the other editors objected to was blocked and told not to keep putting that stuff on the page because it violated many Wikipolicies. I don't know why the mediation tag remains if the issue was already settled. Could you please look into that issue too and help me get this article back on the WP:GAC list? Thanks for your help!NancyHeise 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to leave you so many messages but this is relevant to the article and is on the talk page below your comments. I wanted to make sure you saw them. I have made the changes requested by Dr. Cash and added the GA tag with a request for a 2nd opinion and reviewer. The mediation situation does not reveal a lack of stability. One editor of this article wanted to add material that violated many wikipolicies. Two admins have already blocked that editor and asked him to respect the consensus of editors. See talk pages of Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and this mediation page:view. Also see talk page of DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs) NancyHeise 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Miami" NancyHeise 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You even more

For taking the time to read the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and provide crucial comments on needed improvements to get it into WP:GA. I have addressed all your comments and made appropriate improvements. The only thing left that I was not able to do today is correct the references that are repeated. I was not doing something right there and I was messing all the references up by trying. I am going to hope for another editor's help or I will have to figure it out another day. Thanks again.NancyHeise 22:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made all corrections per your comments. Please come see the page again at your convenience. I was helped by an experienced editor (ArielGold) who you will see on the discussion page of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. I don't know how to give her an award but maybe you can tell me how to do that. She certainly deserves one for her many instances of help on this page and obviously on many other pages too. Thanks.NancyHeise 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice on the Auckland GA Nomination and we shall be working to get it up to standard and I hope you will review it again soon to find out if its up to scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.115.27 (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAN

I didn't want to mess with what you did, but why did you completely remove 2005 USC Trojans football team from the nominations list instead of putting it on hold? Cheers, CP 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

I'd just like to thankyou for taking the time to review this article. It was a long time coming and I was starting to think it would be monts before anybody looked at it and I appreciate it. With some minor corrections I think it could become A-class and eventually FA with some work. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I thank you too Derek.cashman! I'm happy that so much of work was worth of making! Thank you! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review of Muscle relaxant

Hi there, I'm sorry but this article didn't pass GA this time. If any parts of my review are wrong or seem unclear please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll take another look at it. All the best Tim Vickers 02:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

mediation tag was removed

Hello Dr. Cash, just a note to let you know the mediation tag on the page Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami has been removed and mediation is closed. That article is ready for your GA review. At your convenience. Thanks. NancyHeise 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Miami Archdiocese question

Dr. Cash, I have addressed all your concerns with Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami except your comment on the Sources section and the listing of the 2006 Official Catholic Directory under that heading. I placed this item there after editor ArielGold suggested this since the source is not an online source. She did some research on this subject and suggested that it go there under that heading. She cited WP policies to support that decision and these discussions are on the discussion page of the article under your comments. There are only three places that use that citation and I named the source in the paragraphs that contain the information (opening paragraph, schools and catholic health services sections) If you still want me to change it to an inline citation, could you please help me by giving me the format of the reference? I was not able to find a format for things that are not online my efforts to find one led me to the WP page on footnotes. When I inserted that, Ariel came along and did more research and corrected me leading to placing it in the Sources section after the references. Please let me know what you would like to see. Thanks. NancyHeise 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While I did make the suggestion, if the book is used to specifically speak to particular passages, then it would be proper to place the book into template, and add it as a footnote, as Dr. Cash suggests. "Sources" are used for books or other material that are used as a reference in general terms, but not specifically citing a passage, so are considered as "additional reading", in a sense. As Dr. Cash is the one reviewing the GA, I'd go with his suggestions on how to do this article, as I admit that I only glanced at the way it was prior, it was not inline, and was listed in the references section, so to avoid confusion that it was not a footnote, I just suggested placing it into a separate "Sources" section. I'm not saying that's right (there are actually a number of ways to do references correctly) or wrong, but if it is a book you own and can cite a passage with page number over, then placing it into the inline references is quite a good idea. If you got the idea I was saying only online citations go into references, I apologize for not being more specific, as all reliable sources, online or print/journal/magazine are valid to use as inline footnotes. (Sorry to butt in Dr. Cash!) Ariel♥Gold 19:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ariel, I have tried using the template already used for the references on the page and it comes up red in the references section when I try to cite this source. Can either you or Dr. Cash point me in the direction of a non-online source reference template that I could use to satisfy Dr. Cash's recommendation?NancyHeise 00:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

roman catholic archdiocese of miami

this page is finally complete. With the help of ArielGold, I was able to place the Official Catholic Directory in the references section using a template for offline sources that ArielGold supplied. At your convenience, it is ready for your review. PS Have a nice few days away.NancyHeise 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reviewers Make Good Articles

Saints Star Award

The Saints Star Award may be awarded for efforts in Saints WikiProject, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Anglicanism, and WikiProject Christianity. Created for saints of the Catholic Church of Wikipedia by Essjay. See Saints Star Award for more information. Thanks for being our Good Article reviewer for the page Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. NancyHeise 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Papa Stour

No problem, I had hardly started on the review, and I probably wouldn't have done as good a job as you have anyway. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dr. - the revisions undertaken upon your suggestions await your esteemed attention. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. Discussion re refs now continues on my talk page if you are curious. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Pharm-stub subtypes

Hi Dr. Cash. I remember you didn't favor the creation of more subtypes of {{pharm-stub}}, but I do think they would be helpful. Four of the subtypes—analgesic, sedative, anticonvulsant, and antihypertensive—were approved for creation in June, as another editor noted; would you mind if I went ahead and created them? I wouldn't be entirely comfortable knowing a fellow project member objected to them. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Add to subcategories, you say? But of course they do :) Listen, it's pretty easy to remember—just the agent class + stub. For instance, chlortetracycline is tagged with {{antibiotic-stub}} and goes to Cat:Antibiotic stubs. Amiloride could get {{antihypertensive-stub}} and go to Cat:Antihypertensive agent stubs. Pyrithyldione could get {{sedative-stub}} and go to Cat:Sedative stubs, and mephenytoin would get {{anticonvulsant-stub}} and go to Cat:Anticonvulsant stubs. I personally think it's pretty logical; are you OK with these being created? You don't have to use them, of course, although it would be nice (adding to the collaborative effort and all that :) Later, I could also use some help sorting existing stubs—would you like to help? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Be careful, it's long :) You could always add a small table or something to your userpage listing the subtypes of {{pharma-stub}} and respective categories, if you'd like easier access. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Chetwynd, British Columbia

Thanks for the edits. As you know it is up for GAN. I'm considering a FAC nomination for the article but I would like to gather input first. I am, of course, aware of your work with city-related articles and would much appreciate your thoughts on this. --maclean 05:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Epbr123 has finished the copyedit and I have implemented recommended changes. The GA hold can be lifted. A FAC nomination will begin shortly. I would love to hear from you there. --maclean 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

GAN and Semi Automated Peer Review

Thank you for your comments. I will consider what you say. When I first had my fledgling articles grow and requested GAN or FAC reviews, this Semi Automated Peer Review was suggested to improve my articles, and I found it helped quite a lot. If these very basic items are addressed, it does help the article a lot. When perusing other folks' articles I have checked them for spelling, grammar, and addressed a few of the semi automated items myself instead of doing the GAN or before I do the GAN if they are minor. It is my understanding if you are a major editor to the article one shouldn't do the GAN review to it. So some of your suggestions would put me between a rock and a hard place. As a new person to reviewing - I have started out cautiously trying to see what the bot would find, and if it were a valid principal or not. It is a frustrating process, as I have written quite a few city, biography and road articles, and have been advised myself as to Wiki standards, and I search for them in others now that I have been educated as to the wiki way. I may still do the semi automated peer review as I find the advise useful to the article improvement, however I will not do them as a GAN, but as with the articles that I felt did not quite make it, I may supplement my reason along with the SA peer review. Most improvements advised are so easy to address. SriMesh | talk 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles is impossible to read at the moment

Please, take a look at my concerns raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. The new changes you did look nice in Firefox, but are completely unreadable in Internet Explorer. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Virginia Newsletter October 2007

The October 2007 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Kubigula (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Help Again....

Thanks for assisting me on the GA of R. Madhavan, can you review/upgrade Unnale Unnale - thanks Universal Hero 10:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood)

Let me know if I have addressed your GA on hold concerns for Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As I revisit the article I still think the drinking fountain would look better on the left to so that the article is consistent with almost all other Community areas of Chicago articles which have the map as the only image in the upper right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Derek Cashman

I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing a GA candidate. The article concerned is Billa (2007 film). This film is a remake of a legendary indian movie called Don. I would appreciate it if you would kindly have a look at the article. Thank you for your time

Hedgehog Kanna 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

I haven't logged on in a while and just noticed your posts... I will try and work on the project but I do get on less nowadays. Flying Hamster 01:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing PR

Hi Cashman. I have introduced the idea of categorizing PR, on its talk page here. You were the last to comment on it there, so I thought you might having something to say there. Cheers, Marskell 08:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

GA news

is there an option where we can get the full paper like WP:MILHIST? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Hi, You've made a nice effort[1]. I hope we can help you with it.--Seyed(t-c) 04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Madrid's GA improvements?

Hi, following your advices, I made some changes to the article. I would love if you may take a look at them and guide me to know if they are corectly done. Cheers, --Maurice27 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks for all your help on Green Iguana...that's been a beast to rewrite! I'm going to use that thing you did with the links to wikispecies and Commons on all my other articles...looks so much better that way! Thanks again!--Mike Searson 04:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Green Iguana

I removed the Godzilla info. I never felt it belonged, I did attempt to find a source, but nothing conclusive. Nobody else came forward since I mentioned it on the talk page, either. Thanks again for your review and copyedit.--Mike Searson 04:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

Someone put the article for Good article reassessment while it was just not-promoted for FA status. How can it be possible? This article is 'A'-class? Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rememberance Day

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shapinsay on hold

I notice that the Shapinsay article is still on hold. Are you still deciding what to do or have you come to a decision about whether or not it is a GA?

Admin?

Hi there, I'd like to nominate you as an admin. The tools are pretty useful and I think you're well-qualified. Have a look over Wikipedia:Administrators and let me know what you think. All the best Tim Vickers 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, when I get back from holiday I'll write up your nomination. Tim Vickers 14:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

Dear Dr. Cash, I nominated this article for Featured Article Status. Maybe you would be interested to see it now that changes have been made per comments by various editors? If you are able to do so, I invite you to leave comments on the Leave Comments section of the FA tag. I would like to know what you think. Thanks. NancyHeise 21:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

GA newsletter

Great work on this - I should have remembered to thank you earlier, but better late than never... EyeSerene^TALK 22:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

apologies for the mistake

Could you clear up what the parameters do and how I do them? thanks for the heads up. Good friend100 01:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks

many thanks! Good friend100 13:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

GA newsletter

I was wondering when will you be writing the December issue. I might want to write some parts of it. And this idea just struck me. We could do something like a "one GAC review per day for a whole month" drive. That will cutdown the GAC backlog before year 2008 comes. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to do sweeps update from now on (if you don't mind) as well as briefly describing what the sweeps is about. I will update it on the last week of November to get the most accurate result. I can talk about the process to delist GA (either bold delist or GAR). I can also talk about the success of GAC backlog elimination drive in summer. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did some interface enhancing at User:Derek.cashman/Next GA Newsletter and Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/November 2007 to link to previous as well as future issues. But I think you can organize and rearrange to make it look better. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks much better now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After this, the arrow pointing to the right got cut off on my browser (IE7), can you fix that? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it myself. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

As a comment, anonymous page creation is currently bogged down at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anonymous page creation, where it looks like it is unlikely to gain consensus. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn, looks like that AN/I thread is a lapse people are unwilling to overlook. It doesn't look like this will pass at present. My commiserations. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Cash. I'm sorry to "spring" this on you, but I intended to oppose your RfA (which I just found out about) based on this response to what could, in my humble opinion, have been a minor dispute. However, I feel your responses to another editor's clearly inappropriate behavior were themselves inappropriate, and only escalated something that could have been defused more quickly. Again, I'm sorry, and I hope you understand this is in no way criticism of your overall work, particularly on WP:GA and, of course, WP:PHARM, to which you are pretty much an invaluable contributor. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that I've closed your RFA, which went south since your last edit. Many of the opposers indicate that they would be more receptive to a second RFA later, if the intervening time is uneventful. I encourage you to try again; the usual minimum time between RFAs is 3 months. I sincerely hope this does not discourage you too terribly. Many people have had the same experience and later been supported overwhelmingly. ··coelacan 04:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

=) Good to hear. I thought you were sleeping and I didn't want the RFA to go any further downhill before you got back. I guess my timing was unfortunate, but it's also good that you got your replies on the record. Anyway, I think a new RFA in the spring is a good idea. ··coelacan 05:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Derek, I'm really sorry, but I was one of the opposers. I just want to say that the diffs that people showed were too recent for me to be comfortable with. You're an awesome editor and are highly respected within the pharma and medical communities. If you keep going as you are, I'll be delighted to support your next go at RfA in a few month's time (I'd even nominate if you like :) ) - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't go the right way. You looked like a really good candidate, but I suppose that ANI report may have been just too recent. Hope it succeeds next time. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 11:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re RfA

Thank you so much for your responses, Dr. Cash, both on my Talk page and at the RfA. Many people could have chosen not to answer, or worse, become defensive. As for the incident I raised, I also found it completely uncharacteristic of your work here, which is why I guess I had so much trouble overlooking it.

"I honestly don't see adminship as a really big deal, though; it's not like I'm joining some kind of exclusive club or some ultra group of wikipedians"—that's the spirit :) Please do try another RfA when you feel it's time, and you can be sure to count on my comment. See you around the project! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA for Canadian Paul

Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint. Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Aerodramus

I note your comments on Aerodramus, which have I think been largely addressed by the reviewer who GA-ed it on the Aerodramus talk page. I think there's also a problem with with being more specific with diet and range at genus level. The only way you could expand is to copy the details from the individual species' pages, (eg lists of countries they occur in) which would make the genus account very cluttered with inappropriate detail. Also, even if I wanted to list the details of what insects were eaten by each species, for most cave swiftlet species it is simply not known. Jimfbleak (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, this is the first genus level article to reach FA, and if you have any advice on how to deal with this taxonomic level in future, that would be very helpful. Jimfbleak (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephens City, Virginia

I completely forgot I posted on WP:CITIES. Many thanks though. I need to get the "Further Reading" section into the references. I have had too much on my plate. I will work on that sometime this morning (pushing 3am here) or tomorrow. Please let me know (here or on my talk page) on how to improve on the article as well. I would like to get the article up to featured status (well, I hope I can). Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie :) The history section, honestly, I can't touch. That is done by a gentleman at the Newtown History Center in Stephens City and is under OTRS. I can add to it, but I can't delete from it. It is incredibly well written though (which I think paints a picture of the town's history in your head). The pictures I took (yeah, my hometown) back in June of this year...but I want to take a couple more when we get some snow, so we have a Summer/Winter view going. There are a few things that still need to be written. History on the schools (Robert E. Aylor is historic for something...sadly I ain't got a clue)...so those need to be updated big time. There is also a break between the 1930's and today in the history, so that needs worked on. So, there is alot still to be done. But I ain't giving up. Thanks for your help. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion

Should antibiotics be included in the article receptor antagonist. As a pharmacologist I would value your opinion on this debate.Lilypink (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment in relation to this discussion. I wanted to know what you could classify antibiotics as? the general consenus at the moment appears to be enzyme inhibitors. I wanted to get the opinion of a few people.

I rather thought of antibiotics as antagonists of bacterial pathogens. I mean they are drugs with antagonistic properties abet against these micro-organisms. they also pocess IC₅₀ values and have affinity for their molecular targets.^[1] So this was the point I was trying to make.The pharmacodynamics of antibiotic action is different from the pharmacodyamics of other antagonists they also have completely different pharmacodynamic parameters then antagonist in general (it was for this reason I called them special) though I can see given the title of the article receptor antagonist you would take this to literly mean antibiotics are a special class of receptor antagonists. when I was trying to call them antagonists in a article entitled receptor antagonist. I don't think it takes a huge leap of imagination to call them antagonists. Its definitely, a not obvious, unless you think about it classification but also not a so widely accepted classification I agree if you look at it in this way but its my conclusion as to what they are. But i'm just making the case for the reasons I think they are antagonists.

Oh and I took receptors to mean the general drug receptor rather then specifically the biochemical receptor.

Cheers Lilypink (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ Davies TA, Page MG, Shang W, Andrew T, Kania M, Bush K (2007). "Binding of ceftobiprole and comparators to the penicillin-binding proteins of Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae". Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51 (7): 2621–4. doi:10.1128/AAC.00029-07. PMID 17470659. 

Next newsletter

I'm not completely convinced by my suggested ArticleHistory contribution. It is very difficult to say very much in a newsletter length article. I wonder if it might be better to discuss the GA, DelistedGA, and FailedGA templates first, to introduce the topic parameter and finding the oldid. Discussion of ArticleHistory could be saved for the January newsletter. Just a thought: I don't mind either way. Geometry guy 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we implement an archive system like the Signpost? I was about to put the newsletter link to {{WikiProjectGATasks}} and realized that we have to change the link once a month to reflect the new issue. Each month we transclude the preparation issue to the page that always show the most recent issue and place the old one into archive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:PhoenixInfoBox

A template you created, Template:PhoenixInfoBox, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Articlehistory

Very nice; I'll ask Gimmetrow to have a look. Some changes:

• Also tracks AFDs, other featured processes like lists and topics, ...
• Missing word: Although the template is pretty complicated ...
• " ... go to the article's history and click on the date of the most recent edit." (click on the version of the article review or GA listing ... not necessarily the most recent edit)

Thanks Derek! (Flagstaff to Pittsburgh? What are you thinking? <grin> ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wal-Mart's FAC

My apologies, real life has been keeping me busy from going through the article thoroughly. Tony1 has also posted on Target Corp.'s FAC, you may want to read his comments there. When he says get someone else to thoroughly go over the article, he means preferably someone who is unfamiliar with the article subject...although considering he's a professional copyeditor, it makes me wish he'd do more than just post on FAC's. Tuxide 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Newsletter

I think I'd better interupt your AWBing to let you know the links in your messages are broken. Epbr123 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Woop! Great newsletter, it could of course be better...  :) — Rudget _{contributions} 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop

Hi Dr Cash - I don't know whether or not you're still following the goings-on at the above page, but having exhausted the possibilities of PR for now, we're currently in the process of deciding the next subject for review. Your input, if you still have the time and the inclination, would be most welcome ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

I've added an opinion of "rename" in the discussion which appears not to have been considered in the debate. I encourage you to review my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) and determine if you need to reconsider your !vote. Regards. -- Whpq 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have undid your strikethrough of the IP user !votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation). Your statement anonymous editors have zero rights in these discussion debates, and no vote is not correct. They may participate in the discussions but the closing admin may discoun their opinions or give them less weight. As per WP:AFD, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. -- Whpq (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Regina, Saskatchewan

"This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.

(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)"

I believe this would have been you. How be you do so? Masalai (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Regina, SK article

Thank you for your comments on the Regina article. I’m not especially exercised over the question of the article achieving "featured" status; nor am I sure I entirely agree that the “urban planning issues” section is especially "awkward," but it certainly contains elements of repetition, and I appreciate the virtue of city articles being set out in more or less similar format. I shall attend bit-by-bit to addressing your suggestion. I’m a little perplexed, though, at your issue with "inconsistencies in grammar and/or spelling." One would have thought it appropriate for an article on a Canadian subject to contain Canadian usage, which, you may be aware, and as with Australasian, South African and other anglophone countries, contains its own configuration of "British" versus “American” spellings and grammatical conventions, preferring as in the USA the singular collective noun and Oxford rather than Cambridge “-ize/ise” verb endings but generally preferring “British” spellings. Could it be this that leads you to consider the article to have "inconsistencies in grammar and/or spelling," or are there specific examples that you can point to, which I would gladly attend to sorting out if they are indeed inconsistencies? Masalai (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Clindamycin

Hi there Dr. Cash. I realize you're probably still busy with your move (good luck, by the way :), but I was wondering if you could have a quick look at clindamycin. I intend to send it to GAN as soon as I find a candidate over there to review, and I hoped you could provide some feedback on its GA readiness. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's at GAN now. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Calcium Chloride

Hope everything goes (went?) well with your move.

I tried to fix Calcium Chloride's bulleted-list (and do some WP:MOS cleanup), as you suggested in the talk page. I'm relatively new to this, so if you wouldn't mind lending an eye for a re-re-review, I'd appreciate it. I'm concerned that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization (A) and Talk:calcium chloride (B) seem to disagree on whether this is an A-class or B-class article. To my eye, it's not an "A" just yet.

Regards, Luno 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

North Sea

Thanks for reviewing the North Sea article. An outside perspective is always useful and many of your comments and suggestions were quite helpful. Jieagles (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Inventions in the Muslim world

Hi, do we review this article or we consider it as a list.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Google

Hi, I just edited a date on the History section of Google page to match that on the History of Google page. It looks more credible that 1999 is correct but I have not verified it. If you have a strong interest in Google page (I am only interested in history aspects) I'd suggest the history section should just refer to the History of Google page to avoid 'out of sync' errors.Ray3055 (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

GA nom of Marsileaceae

The citations have been reformatted and inserted into the appropriate locations in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide

Hi there, I was greatly encouraged by your recent GA review of this article and did some more work on it, then put it up as a FA candidate. If you had time to comment on anything you still think is missing from the new revision that would be great. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Receptor antagonist

If it were to be nominated for GA status and since you frequently review articles for GA status can you suggest some changes I could make to this article that it may meet GA criteria. Thanks Lilypink (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WPTC Active Members

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones has changed greatly since it was first started, and according to our main page we now have 87 members. However, we only have a small group of members that are still active, and as such, I am sending this out to all users on the participants list. If you are still active, please sign your name here. If you do not wish to be part of the project any more, or if you do not answer to this, you will be placed on an inactive users list after a period of two weeks. If you wish to rejoin after you are put on the inactive users list, you are welcome to rejoin. Cheers. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008 GA Newspaper

What should the volume volume and number be? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And do you want to use a bot to deliver the newspaper instead? It would be something similiar to Ralbot and uses AWB for delivery. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! I thought you were AWOL. What's the fiscal year for Wikipedia? DYK info isn't hard to find, just surf up and down the page history and archived discussion. That's how I found all these info.

As for DMHO, it's not hard to find his info. It's all on his talk page. He's from Australia. He contributed 4 FA, 3 FL, 1 FPORT, 18 GA, and 9 DYK.

As for making the newsletter display directly on someone's talk page, I have an idea (and stole it from LaraLove's RfA spam thank you notice.

Click there to open your card! → → →

(placeholder)

We can change the colour and image, then transclude the article inside. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually just figured out how to do the collapsible newsletter! So I think it will work out. Thanks for finding DHMO's stuff -- I'll just use that tonight if he doesn't respond to me, and we'll get it published. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Justin Tuck • Impalement arts • Backlash (2007) Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 209 articles (45 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 9 June 2008 | edit

Dispute in Ethanol

Greetings. Please help resolve a dispute between me an user:Mccready on the ethanol article. See my comments on his/her talk page. Thanks. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 14:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I think we worked out a compromise (I hope). Karl Hahn (T) (C) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yavapai people

Hey, through some random search, I found your page and saw that you've done a lot of good work on Arizona-related stuff, and happen to be a Good Article reviewer. So, since I'm trying to get Yavapai people up to GA status, I figured you might be a good person to ask for some advice on what could be done to improve it. VanTucky gave me some advice, a lot of which I worked on the last couple days, but a second opinion is always helpful. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

re. GA Reviewer of the Month

YAY! Thanks :) I've tried to fill in your thingy, but you may need to re-format it....up to you

Reviewer of the Month (to be updated)

Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which incidentally is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006.

WHAT TYPES OF ARTICLES DO YOU LIKE TO REVIEW THE MOST AT GAN?

Stuff relating to music, or Australia. Or anything else that takes my fancy...

ANY OTHER DETAILS YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE?

There's still a huge backlog, and I still have two articles nominated waiting. So get to it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Newsletter

Just thought you might want to remove User:ClairSamoht, User:IvoShandor, and User:ExplorerCDT from the GA Newsletter list as they have all quit or stopped contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added the newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Newsletters. When you send it out each month, if you could update this as well, it will help keep it up to date. Good job so far, the newsletter looks great! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:GA Review for Aaron

Hi, I'll check it as soon as possible. Thanks to remind me.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Karachi GA Review

Dr. Cash, thanks for reviewing the Karachi article and providing a comprehensive analysis. I will try to implement your recommendations to eliminate the shortcomings and errors from that article.

Cheers Zaindy87 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart

Hoping that you prefer discos to barns, I award you this ceiling appendage as a kind of interim consolation prize for all the donkeywork you've done to and for Wal-Mart. You deserved better than to have piles of niggling comments from small minds such as mine. Morenoodles (only sporadically contributing), 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

I have removed the speedy tag that you placed on Wal-Mart (disambiguation). The reason I did so was to enable a discussion which as not taken place between you and Shaliya waya (talk · contribs). While I know that s/he should have spoken on the talk page first and you might find it difficult to dealt with him/her, there is no reason to criticize someone who is being bold. I fully understand your reason for wanting to speedy the article and revert everything Shaliya waya has done, but I think it would be better in the long run if you try hard to get an understanding between the two of you. Jon513 (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Prairie Avenue

In October, you endorsed the promotion of Prairie Avenue to WP:GA. It has since improved greatly. I have not been able to find the specific image you requested to improve the article, but have found many others. I have not been able to get much active discussion at its WP:FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prairie Avenue. The first FAC failed for lack of response. Do you have any thoughts on the articles viability for featured status that you might want to share at its FAC discussion page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your copyedit request

On July 10, 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Google. Due to a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we aplogize. Since your request, this article has been subject to significant editing, and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. SlackerMom (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Half a year, wow. If you need any help, give me a shout on my web page. I can't promise to do it at all quickly (see my short list of contributions), but I might well beat the "League" to it. Morenoodles (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LT Metropolitan newsletter improvement help

Hi Dr. Cash. I was wondering whether you can help me improve WP:LTs newsletter for our february issue. Some improvements include:

• Making the right arrow and 2nd box border wholely visible.
• Making the text in the twin column boxes align to the left (other than the titles).

Seperating the news column into three.

• Making the headings big and in a seperate box in a box.
• And finnaly making the twin column boxes different colours.

Your help is much needed. Also is there a way to distribute the newsletter without copy and pasting onto every talk page? Thank you in advance! The february edition is located here until the first of February. Unisouth (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Derek.cashman, I've granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that I don't believe you'll use it abusively by edit-warring or reverting good-faith edits, but I do believe that you'll only use it for its intended usage to revert vandalism. See Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature for more information on rollback. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Just remember it's for vandalism-reversion only. Good luck. Acalamari 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Stumbled across your photographic work by hitting Random Article, and I was highly impressed by the quality of it! Good work, keep it up =) ♠PMC♠ 07:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Tel Aviv

Hi. Thanks for those ideas, I will work through them. --Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GA blurb

Nothing in that that I object to at all, thanks for asking. How would I go about getting it delivered to my talk page? Ealdgyth | Talk 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi River

Hello Dr. Cash! I saw that you have recently reviewed geography related topics. The article Mississippi River is a former GA (2006) that I recently added a few improvements to, just structural, headers and re-sorting contents, not much more. I would like to ask you two things before starting something not helpful to the article. (1) Can you have a look over it and summarize the core improvements required for a GA re-nomination. (2) I had the idea to split off the history section to a new artile (general history and navigation). That would leave an overview of the history in the article, of course, just reduced to the core topics. In my opinion that could balance out the weight of the history section inthe article now. Do you think that could rather help or harm the article quality? This request is not urgent, if and when you find the time for it. Thank you! doxTxob \ ^talk 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sweeps update

I also have to wait until the wednesday or thursday to get the most updated stats. That's why I don't even bother typing them out. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)