User talk:Felix-felix

[edit] Renal tubular acidosis

Felix: At first glance, I'd say that your RTA page looks awesome. Very complete & accurate. I'm away at a meeting and will take a closer look this weekend. Thanks for soliciting my advice. -Dan

I attempted a medicalspeak-ectomy for the lead paragraphs. I hope that the accuracy hasn't been compromised as a result. Nice touch with the bit about Tiny Tim. :) If you can, give renal tubules a check. Stedmans suggests it is just the proximal convoluted tubule (PCT) and distal convoluted tubule (DCT).[1] I've had the impression its PCT to DCT (and re-wrote to make it so)-- but don't have a ref for that. Nephron  T|C 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nephro template

I think the nephrology template (Template:Nephrology) may need a tiny bit of clean-up. Also, the renal tubular acidosis article overlaps a bit with Hyperchloremic acidosis article. Nephron  T|C 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hari image suggestion

Felix,

While I'm on the Hari image topic, you mentioned that you had doubts about copyright status of Image:Johann Hari.jpg. If you really wanted it, I would bet you could ask the photographer to release it, but if not, you might consider marking the image for deletion (with the {{db-author}} template). Thanks! TheronJ 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

I put the small lock icon on the page when I protected. Crum375 13:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the new icon style locks are better as they are less intrusive and don't scare off regular readers. Please let me know if you think the edit warring has settled down. Crum375 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circle-A/Red star

If you want to use that image (or the other one) for any reason at all, feel free to. They're licensed under CC and GFDL, so you can use them freely anyway, but I only just realised that you might have been hinting at that earlier. I was placed on the autistic spectrum when I was a newborn, so I'm not always able to tell when people are hinting things like that, and communicating in text only makes it harder. But if you want to use any images I've created, or want me to create/design a new image, you're welcome and I'd be glad. I know they'd be seeing good use.
By the way, there's a big fluff still going on over the imagined connections between socialism and fascism in a group of articles - Cberlet tried to request mediation, but the right-libertarians and fascists apparently decided they're above being reasonable and declined to cooperate. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Galloway

Please see my comments here so we can attempt to move on and unprotect this article. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 00:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Felix,

I apologize if I had your e-mail and lost it, but could you turn on e-mail, or e-mail me using the "e-mail this user link" from my talk page with an e-mail address I can contact you at? If you are concerned about confidentiality, please feel free to set up a dummy e-mail at the e-mail service of your choice. Thanks, TheronJ 21:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Felix, it's DavidR - could you come over to the Johann Hari discussion for a sec? I've posted something that I think we need to get moving on...

Thanks,

Dave

Hi - I was hoping you could express a view on the alternatives posited immediately above your most recent comment, or suggest a better one. Our current slow pace (for which I hold both of us responsible) is unfair to other wiki users who want to contribute to this entry - DaveR

Hi Felix... come on over... It's not fair of us to leave the entry gridlocked forever. Other users want to participate David r from meth productions 23:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please try to make some progress on the Johann hari page

the current freeze on the page for over six months is grossly unfair to other wiki users. If you've lost interest in editing the page just say and we'll carry on without you.

- Dave —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.158.38 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] George Galloway

Hi Felix-felix, this is an invitation to participate in the discussion at WP:ANI#George Galloway. Thanks, – Riana ^ऋ 08:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The above link has expired, so please discuss your take on the disagreement here so we can move forward with this thing. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 01:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced criticisms

Please explain your removal of sourced criticisms on the talk page of the article.Ultramarine 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked for violating the WP:3RR rule at Gilad Atzmon; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Felix-felix_reported_by_Isarig_.28Result:_24_hours.29 for more details. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I told Isarig, I wanted you guys to go to the BLP talk page because I wasn't absolutely sure if your edits were really reverts of BLP material. For now, I think that is the best course of action. Also, try to discuss at the talk page, and don't get into edit wars with other users at Gilad Atzmon. Nishkid64 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have a cookie

I, Serephine, hereby award Felix-felix a chocolate chip cookie for his admirable work on Renal tubular acidosis, bringing it from a mere redirect to a great article. Well done!

[edit] Just a comment

Hello.
I wasn't interested in fully participating in the debate about Gilad Atzmon's "Antisemitism" category inclusion in that article's talk page, or on the BLP noticeboard, but I thought I should mention something to you. There actually used to be a category for Antisemitic People. And that article really did trample on BLP. Thankfully, it was eventually deleted (though it took several CFD's to accomplish that). But the Category:Antisemitism category really doesn't indicate that the subject is antisemitic. It merely asserts that "the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic." There are numerous articles where I would have opposed an "antisemitic people" category listing, but have no problem with including "antisemitism". It's just a helpful tag for people who might be searching for topics at all related to antisemitism, but not necessarily actual sources of it.
Anyways, just a comment. Of course, I won't be offended if you don't change your mind, or even if you ignore me entirely. :) Bladestorm 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] membranoproliferative glomerulonephropathy & membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis?

Quick question for you-- Are membranoproliferative glomerulonephropathy and membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis the same thing? Nephron  T|C 01:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Nephron  T|C 15:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Renal tubular acidosis

The article Renal tubular acidosis you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Renal tubular acidosis for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. The Sunshine Man 11:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Hello: I created a Userbox for the nephrology project. If there is strong feeling about changing the appearance, we can discuss that on the project talk page. The template is at: Template:User WikiProject Nephrology. To post it on your user page, paste {{User WikiProject Nephrology}} . —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renal tubular acidosis

I have the sense you changed your mind a couple of times. At first, I reasoned that the acidosis in RTA refers to a (plasma) pH imbalance and described it as such in this revision:

---

The words renal tubular refer to the renal tubules, the part of the kidney that function abnormally in RTA. Acidosis refers to a condition in which the body is too acidic and falls under a larger group of disorders known as acid-base disorders.

Many conditions can cause acidosis and renal tubular dysfunction is only one cause in a larger list. What is unique about the acidosis in RTA is that it is not accompanied by an anion gap, i.e. it is a normal anion gap acidosis. The fact that no anion gap is present is something that helps physicians narrow down the diagnosis.

---

Then you insisted RTA is acidosis of the renal tubules-- with (systemic) acidemia not necessarily being a feature of the condition:

---

This is due to the renal tubules failing to acidify the urine, rather than acid accumulating in the body due to kidney failure. As such it is a cause of a normal anion gap acidosis.

---

So, I re-wrote the article again:

---

While the word acidosis in RTA refers the acidity of the urine (not the acidity of the blood), RTA can lead to excessive amounts of acid in the blood, a condition known as acidosis. The acidosis (of the blood) of RTA is a normal anion gap acidosis.

---

NOTE: I decided to refer to acidity of the urine as opposed to the acidity of the fluid in the renal tubules. Technically, I imagine it isn't urine until it's out of the nephron... but I wanted to keep it a bit more simple.

Most recently, you changed it back again:

---

The word acidosis refers to the fact that RTA can lead to excessive amounts of acid in the blood, a condition known as acidosis or acidemia. This acidosis is a normal anion gap acidosis.

---

If, due to history, acidosis refers to the systemic variety (i.e. plasma excess of hydrogen ion), which isn't always present-- we should state that the name of the condition is somewhat of a misnomer (and find the references to clarify).

I suspect the condition was named RTA 'cause it classically presented with (systemic) acidosis. Later someone discovered that people with the same defects (that lead to the classic clinical syndromes -- but perhaps more mild) can actually have a normal systemic acid-base balance. At that point one can debate whether the acidosis refers to (1) systemic acidity (as classically described) and technically is a misnomer (by new knowledge) -- OR -- (2) the acidosis is redefined as an abnormal acidity of the renal tubules and the name of the collection of syndromes is consistent.

The questions in my mind are--

1. What does the acidosis refer to?
2. Why not describe the meaning of the words (like I did in an earlier revision)? (I don't think most lay people know what renal tubules are).

Nephron  T|C 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emergence phenomenon

I notice that you indicated on this page's talk page several months ago that you thought it should be nominated for deletion. I agree, and have decided to bite the bullet and do it - please offer your support or otherwise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergence phenomenon. Cheers. --John24601 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RTA article selected on the Medicine Portal

Congrats on the RTA article being selected on the Meidcine portal. You deserve 92.7% of the credit! Dan Levy 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No forced pixel counts please...

Please don't add forced pixel counts please per WP:MOS - ie, typing 400px for example. It is unecessary, and it can be really annoying as it overrides people's preferences for picture size. If you want to see large pics, then set your preferences to 400px. thank you Merbabu 12:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for disruption of Wikipedia, because you added material that could be regarded as defamatory. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. You may return when the block expires. Any further attempt to restore the material will incur another block. Replacing correctly sourced information with false information is completely unacceptable.[2] You are blocked for 72 hours. Repeated violations will result in longer blocks. Vassyana 22:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The block message gives you clear instructions on how to appeal your block. Further circumvention of your block will result in a reset and extension of your block. Additionally, your explanation is insufficient. The edit you made is still a grossly inaccurate representation of what the sources present. They do not indicate the British Raj, as such (which included many areas not under direct British control), and focus on the totalitarian nature of the rule, not violence. You are quite right you have a long history on that page and it is an unflattering one, filled with misrepresentations and falsehoods, such as the issue with the school. Vassyana 07:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK-it says that the next step would be to discuss this with you by email-I can't see this on your user page-even though I've enabled email in my preferences. Presumably you are conceding that my edit wasn't defamatory or a WP:BLP vio. You appear to be saying that you disagree with the factual content of my edit-I disagree with this too, but regardless, that surely doesn't warrant a block.The British Raj refers to the British Indian Empire, under direct or indirect rule, as you state-although I'm not sure what your point is here-colonial violence,as Hari correctly points out was present throughout the Raj-he criticises Ferguson for dedicating as much space to "the slaughter of 29 million people as he gives to a description of a statue of the Prince of Wales made out of butter"[3]. The cited articles focus mainly on the starvation of India, which is most certainly colonial violence, if not direct physical violence, which was nonetheless used, for example in enforcing the salt collecting bans. I won't go into the history of my previous disagreements with dave r on this page, as they are too numerous to go into (but a glance at the relevant page [4] will show that John Lyon School used to be the Harrow School day school, and that they maintain close ties, for example). However dim your view of our past debated on the Johann Hari page, I still think that a 72 hour block for a non-defamatory, non-BLP vio edit which is, at most, is an arguable content error, is unfair and ought to be reversed.FelixFelix ^talk 09:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin. This is a BLP article with continuing concerns, largely caused by this user, which have resulted in OTRS complaints. Vassyana 09:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true either, a quick look at the history of the recent edits, which presumably sparked the subject's complaint, on the page will show that they have been made by new editors without accounts-I have deleted these on occasion as well. I think that Vassanya has this opinion because of a communication by another editor (dave r) whom I have a long running dispute with on this page. have been making good faith edits on this page for over a year, as various admins could testify.FelixFelix ^talk 09:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That is actually incorrect. I have this opinion because of a discussion with an WP:OTRS volunteer and reviewing the history of the article and its associated discussion. Vassyana 10:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): After discussion (see User talk:Vassyana, I do not think this can be regarded as a WP:BLP issue, and there is no pattern of disruptive editing. Please continue to discuss edits on Talk:Johann Hari and be mindful of the need for careful sourcing of controversial material about living people. Sam Blacketer 10:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Request handled by: Sam Blacketer 10:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Er..when does the unblock come into effect?FelixFelix ^talk 11:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to edit right now, unless there is an autoblock on your IP. However I checked for that and could not find it. I'll do another check. Sam Blacketer 11:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You should be all set now. Vassyana 11:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It was likely due to an IP block to prevent block circumvention.[5][6] Vassyana 11:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked! Thanks very much guys. Appreciated.FelixFelix ^talk 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I should have unblocked the IP as soon as Sam unblocked you. My apologies for the inconvenience. Vassyana 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, if I'd read the block notice properly, I wouldn't have edited your talk page from another computer!FelixFelix ^talk 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Band 3

Since it looks like you played a key role in developing Band 3, care to chime in on the current discussion on its talk page? Cheers, AndrewGNF 04:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal

Hi Felix, I notice that you've lost interest in the Johann Hari page, understandably given your treatment at the hands of the indefatiguable Dave R. I joined the discussion in September but only got round to getting a username recently and i'm trying (possibly to no avail) to get a more balanced, less hagiographic entry. There looks to be the potential for progress, but we'll see. It would be good if you could pitch in at some stage - the fact that you've felt compelled to withdraw while Dave continues seems wrong. Cheers, SamuelSpade79 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Takoma logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Takoma logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rhabdomyolysis

Hi there. Thanks for your expansion of rhabdomyolysis. I spent some time, together with WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs), improving this article recently. Apart from mentioning PD as a reasonable option in resource-poor setting, do you have any other comments. I am minded to work this article up for WP:FA status. The only things that are definitely missing are outlined on Talk:Rhabdomyolysis. Do you have any further recommendations (e.g. expansion of the "pathophysiology" section, more specific treatments in addition to the ones already mentioned). JFW | T@lk 07:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oversensitive editor? Rx=tuffenthafukup, STAT

Hi Felix, I was having a crap day, so I probably was being oversensitive about your comments. I had this whole idea of overhauling the article ,and was pleased with my plan, even though actual progress was slow. So it really gave me the shits to have you seem to blow it off. Normally I'd just say "Well F___ you matey!" and be about my business. But I'd still point you to wp:civil. Anyhow, just wanted to say that I have no problem with you piping up if you have concerns, thanks for offering. Cheers! Mattopaedia (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack the Ripper edit

I was wondering why you didn't discuss this edit beforehand. I don't think the usage of the term was meant as a pejorative descriptor. By your reasoning, someone being called a Ripperologist (a largely fallacious title) would also be used as a negative. I think that some conspiracy theorists revel in the title. I am not going to revert you, but perhaps you could come to the Discussion page and explain your reasoning, so someone else doesn't revert it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

I have blocked you for three months for your antics on Johann Hari. The faux naïf comment doesn't wash well. There is a template at the top of Talk:Johann Hari, and you would have done better to bear it in mind. Tolerance shown in the past has not led to any improvement, it seems. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For asking what was wrong with my previous (non BLP vio) edit on the discussion page? Why does that merit any kind of action, least of all a 3 month block?FelixFelix ^talk 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have had numerous emails back and forth on this by now. I think the fact that you maintain that there was "nothing wrong" BLP-wise, with the edits that sparked this, speaks for itself. You are blocked not for asking, but for apparently having to ask, about a provocative link on a troubled page. That's a none-too-subtle scoff at the attempts to enforce BLP on Johann Hari, in my considered view. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no scoffing, subtle or otherwise, in my polite question for clarification-which even if it was uncivil (which it most certainly wasn't) would not have warranted a 3 month block. I can't for the life of me see what WP rules or guidelines my question breached, and I'd really appreciated the block being lifted.FelixFelix ^talk 18:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this being the tenor of your emails too (admit no fault, brush aside all points raised, red herrings), I'm simply going to say that I register your impatience to be unblocked. I don't see that it is in the interests of the encyclopedia that you have editing privileges restored. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly admit to posting a factually correct edit with an unreliable citation. Is that the admission of fault that you were after?FelixFelix ^talk 08:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite having time on your hands, I think you haven't troubled to read WP:BLP. "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. (Para) Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." I think you have shown yourself to be clueless about this. Does it say "factually correct edit"? Is that within the range of terms in which the policy is phrased? You have decided it is your job to posit some connection between Hari and Jeffrey Archer. And it is not our job. So out you go for a while. Bear in mind that another contributor to the same page has picked up an indefinite ban for similar disregard of BLP policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Charles. The passage you quote from WP:BLP illustrates my point quite well, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons" is the key, surely. There was no reason to think that edit in question [7] was contentious, seeing as it was in accord with the objection that daver had [8]about the previous edit. Hence the polite query that I posted [9]after you gave me an official warning. Why this query resulted in a three month block still eludes me. In the absence of a good explanation for it, I'd really appreciate it being lifted. (I note that GWP got his/her indefinite ban for repeated unblock requests on their talk page.)FelixFelix ^talk 22:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of your fallacious arguments is that if you get something past another editor, then it is not "contentious", and is OK to include. We are considering, in WP:BLP, what the subject of the article makes of it; and while you may think User:David r ... is some sort of advocate for Hari, you are quite wrong about that, and you are quite wrong about it somehow sanitising your edits or making you less responsible in detail for what you add to the page. To be absolutely plain, the fact that Daver and you have an adversarial relationship over there is entirely irrelevant to whether I think you are editing within BLP. The fact that you bring it up suggests to me, once more, that you don't comprehend. It's not the query, it's the fact that you found it necessary (or were just arguing the toss, as if this were a game rather than about defamation, here by "guilt by association" with Archer). Which, as I have said repeatedly, is why your editing privileges have been withdrawn. You don't see why? Fine, but then I can be sure your concerns and mine are very different.

Also, you can't even read, in the matter of GWP. Block log excerpted: went back to violating BLP right after block. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that as well Charles. You seem to misunderstand my point-the WP:BLP requirement, that you helpfully quoted above says that "contentious material about living persons" mustn't be poorly sourced. If the edit isn't contentious (ie Marked by heated arguments or controversy [10]) then why is an admittedly poor citation a BLP vio? If the edit (which states, as you'll recall that Hari worked on Archer's book) is not contested (even by daver, which is my reason for mentioning him)-in what way can it be said to be contentious? This was the basis for the polite query that you gave me a three month ban for, which I am still frankly baffled about.

It's not the query, it's the fact that you found it necessary (or were just arguing the toss, as if this were a game rather than about defamation, here by "guilt by association" with Archer). Well, I've outlined why I made the query,(politely, on the discussion page) but I have to ask, why do you think that the fact that Hari worked as a researcher on Archer's book is defamatory, or implies "guilt by association"? Guilt of what? I'm critical of some things that Hari's written about, but I hardly think that you can blame him for doing research for a famous author. That the author is famous makes the fact notable, but I don't think you can draw conclusions about Hari's conscience (or anything really) from it.

So, I'm absolutely no nearer to understanding the reason under WP:BP why I've been given a whopping 3 month block for a polite query on the discussion page concerning a previous edit. And in the absence of such a reason, I'd really appreciate the block being lifted. Thanks.FelixFelix ^talk 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to square one, then. You've appealed, and got the same answer back from a "second opinion", no connection with me. So let's go back to the start. I said faux naïf; another way to look at it would be that this is misdirection on your part. If you bang on about "contentious" in the fullish quote I gave from the policy (to avoid selective quotation issues) and completely ignore the "titillating" aspect of what you were pushing on the page, that would be misdirection. If your query is "polite" but betrays lack of comprehension, that "lack" is the problem and the civility issue fails to come into it at all.

Anyway, think over what we - the project, Wikipedia - sre doing with our policy here. It may start making sense to you that peripheral additions irrelevant to articles connecting journalists with jailbirds are going to be frowned upon. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)