User talk:MarcoTolo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When leaving a message, please consider the following:	Archives 1, 2, 3
So I can follow the conversation, please add new entries to the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting '''-- ~~~~''' at the end of your post. If I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond on your talk page in order to keep the discussion in one place. I will reply on this page to messages left here unless you request otherwise.

---

[edit] Poliomyelitis

I don't know if you have had a chance to look it over but, I have taken a fairly critical look at the article and clarified/rewrote a few sections. I think that it reads a bit better now. My take on the various sections is this:

History, eradication, prevention, treatment, diagnosis and cause are essentially "okay" with regard to flow, content, technical level etc.... Post-polio is probably all right as well. Recovery and complications might be a hair on the technical side and may need minor tweaking, but are (I think) well described.

Here are the problem sections, IMO:

• Transmission seems choppy, and "A number of factors increase the risk of polio infection or affect the severity of the disease including:" and the "plancental" aspect may be misplaced?
• Classification- is at maybe okay as just describing the types?
• Mechanism (intro) is just a big mess and I am not sure how to better arrange it. Should there be headers for "abortive and minor" and for "aseptic memigitis/ non-partlytic" and "paralytic" (with "spinal" and "bulbar" as subheadings)? I am not sure there is enough info to support these headers?
• "The likelihood of developing paralytic polio and the extent of paralysis increase with age....." is this misplaced, where should it go?
• Mechanism "spinal" and "bulbar" sections seem okay to me.
• I have no feelings toward Prognosis (intro) what so ever.

Sorry, this is sort of a stream-of-consciousness, I hope it makes some sense. Any ideas?--DO11.10 23:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response - Real Life issues. Overall, the article is much smoother - nice work. I'll have a chance this evening to comment more specifically and make changes from my notes. -- MarcoTolo 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

np, whenever you get a chance. I look forward to your comments.--DO11.10 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made my first big pass last night. Transmission is better, but still a little "jumpy"; the intro section of Mechanism is still somewhat directionless - have a few ideas that I'll pitch later tonight. Once we're happy with the overall form, I've got a handful of fact-checking items that should probably be addressed. Whoops, have to run - instrument time. -- MarcoTolo 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay...busy, busy. I like the changes that you have made, I have looked into a few of your parenthetical questions. Answers coming... Shall I post them here? I am, however, not sure about the 2007 Pakistan/Aussie thing added by an anon. Seems a bit like recentism to me. I think this section should be just the highlights, (probably the only major additions to this section should be either really big outbreak or a regional polio-free declaration) although it does clearly belong in the eradication article. Do you agree?--DO11.10 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, posting here makes the most sense. I'm unsure on the Pakistan Australia case - it does seems to put excessive emphasis on the recent nature of the event, but the question of whether it affected (or will affect) Australia's "polio-free" status makes the issue a bit ambiguous for me. Perhaps leaving a brief reference in the Poliomyelitis eradication entry and pulling it from the "master" article is a reasonable compromise (though, frankly, I'm not especially attached to leaving it at all). In other news, I picked-up copies of several polio and post-polio syndrome reference texts at lunch today in hopes of clarifying a few of the processes a little better (I suspect I'm having trouble imagining how to make some of the concepts more clear due to deficiencies in my own understanding of PV pathogenesis), as well as improving a few of the less-than-ideal refs - the awkward Encarta ref on quadriplegia in adults, some of the March of Dimes press releases, etc. -- MarcoTolo 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that Encarta ref is awkward, I never noticed that. I found a paper that states "quadriplegia occurred 2.5 to 3 times more often in adults than in children." PubMed and a convenience link to full text. Will that work?--DO11.10 20:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - that ref and link solve the problem nicely. Good find. -- MarcoTolo 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fact-checking Here they are (didn't miss any, did I?):

1. Two basic patterns of polio infection are described: -- still current?-- Well, most papers I have come across still describe polio this way, so I think it is still the backbone of the current classification system.
2. The mortality rate for these cases is extremely high. --number needed?-- Still working on it. (bkg) This was a "legacy" bit, I was able to verify the fulminating encephalitis part, but not the second sentence.

Okay, my exhaustive search (sigh) has confirmed that polio can cause encephalitis rarely, [1], and another non-authoritative but supporting source. Although I am not sure whether it is actually still called fulminating encephalitis or if it indeed occurs usually in immunocompromised individuals. I still can't find anything that supports the second sentence, so it should probably be removed. I suspect that there is an old case report out there (the same book and article kept coming up with my search parameters, unfortunately I couldn't actually read either, and couldn't find any other mention of it.) Thoughts?--DO11.10 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The "fulminating encephalitis" threw me, too. Which book and/or article keeps coming up in your searches? If its an old ref, I've got access to a decent "History of Medicine" library - and the collection of more current biomedical literature isn't half bad either. -- MarcoTolo 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The book is something called Excerpta Medica, I'm having a hard time retracing my steps to the article, but here are a few others that I came across and seemed to be related [2], [3]. Come to think of it, "fulminating" and "high mortality" in the face of "anti-virals" sounds an awful lot like rabies to me, which I notice tends comes right after polio in most texts. I'm just saying....--DO11.10 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Poliovirus infections are acquired orally, infecting the first cells they comes into contact with—the --follicular dendritic cells inside tonsilar germinal centers-- tonsils and intestinal M cells—... ?? seems a bit complex to me. Will look into it.

(btw This reads oddly to me... I think it is the wording infections -> infecting instead of virus -> infecting, I have changed it back but feel free to reword again.)--DO11.10 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the brilliant suggestions and fixes, Marco. So, I have updated the Encarta ref, and changed the encephalitis bit so that it is in line with the published sources. If you come across anymore information tho... I also added in the fDC inside the tonsils bit, but I thought it best to avoid the word "tonsilar", so hopefully it still reads okay the way that I wrote it? Any other suggestions/ideas? What about the mechanism intro?--DO11.10 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] importance

Hey, don't withdraw the query, I'm in the middle of answering it: it does not depend on the wording, but the meaning. It depends on what is being asserted. The way I think of it is that if it is anything that the author of the page could reasonably have thought notable, it escapes speedy. But it is used differently in some areas--for pop music, it seems to be used as "any reasonable chance of meeting the guidelines" -- but I do notusually speedy or delete or comment in that area at all.

Examples from current CSDs "Austin Systems is Austin's company live on YouTube." no indication that any reasonable person would think it important, I would delete.

"Robin Elliot is a presenter on Belfast CityBeat and NVTV. He is also a judge on the Young Star Search in Northern Ireland." so far below WP standards that no one aware of WP could think it important, but I leave it for others to delete.

"Timothy Haddigan is an American Scholar and Model. He is currently recording a rap album." this one is so impossible that I'd delete it myself.

For the article given, the person posting the article could and did reasonably believe that the position of Dean of that school was notable. It isn't, but that was another matter. Anyway, this is a matter that comes up from time to time at WP:CSD talk. My rationale for why it's better this way is that if there is any chance, its better that the community look--it's more consistent, and it saves time in getting the junk removed fast without needing to discuss it or deal with appeals. DGG (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for the clarification (and your clear examples) - I'd hadn't considered applying the reasonable person standard to the author/editor's intent. While more complicated in some sense, I do see the benefits of sending to AfD when even a little doubt exists. Again, thanks for the response. -- MarcoTolo 03:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your prod of Quantum dots in living cells

Hello. You recently proposed the deletion of Quantum dots in living cells. While you gave a good edit summary, your prod template provides no deletion rationale. I'm incapable of understanding the article, though I agree there are original synthesis concerns. Adding a rationale may help the author to understand what is happening. Just a heads up! Thanks and best regards TreeKittens 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's odd - when I added the {{subst:prod|reason}} tag I wrote "Article appears to synthesize multiple concepts violating WP:OR, and quotes other WP articles verbatim (Neurotransmitter, in particular). Copyvio concerns (section #1 is a close comparison to the fulltext of this article)" in the reason field. And yet you're right - it's not there now. Very odd. I'll re-add it now - thanks for the catch. -- MarcoTolo 03:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ha! If a URL appears in the reason field of a {{subst:prod}}, and if the URL contains an "=" symbol, the Mediawiki software interprets it inappropriately and ignores the entire field (see Template talk:Prod#Problem). -- MarcoTolo 03:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I thought it might have been some kind of glitch because of the strange nested {{{{{1}}} things. Anyway, thanks for sorting it so quickly. Best regards TreeKittens 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deconvolution

Hi there. Dunno if you noticed it, but you blanked out a bunch of content from Deconvolution. Usually, it's customary to use the page's talk page before making drastic changes. Cheers. --slakr 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that - should be fixed now. Thanks. -- MarcoTolo 20:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flexibacter columnaris -> Flavobacterium columnarae

Hi, I just saw an edit conflict here: I'm part way through fixing this up, would you mind just holding on things until I have it sorted? Thanks! Coldmachine^Talk 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mind waiting, but you should read WP:MOVE#Moving_over_a_redirect so you don't obliterate the previous editing history of Flexibacter columnaris. -- MarcoTolo 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes and I'll post a more complete reply on your talk page. -- MarcoTolo 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! :) I'm a little confused ;-) Coldmachine^Talk 22:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up posted here. -- MarcoTolo 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would you be interested in proofing an article on Emerging Gastrointestinal Pathogens?

Hi MarcoTolo, I think we have some interests in common. I just put together an article on the history of some Emerging Gastrointestinal Pathogens (Cholera, H Pylori, ETEC). Feedback welcome. The working version is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gastro_guy/emerg_work. Does it comply with NPOV? Small changes->Edit away. Big changes->email me or leave talk. Thanks! Gastro guy 23:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation - I'll post my comments on your talk page shortly. -- MarcoTolo 01:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Great comments. Send me more. New version is much shorter. Gastro guy 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block a link spammer

Hi MarcoTolo. I see you have warned Shekharsuman about link spamming. I thought you might like to know the user did it again today, on tumor marker. Time to block this user? --Una Smith 12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Shekharsuman has asked for clarification (and you responded clearly), I'd wait to see if what the response is - if the link spamming continues, I'd recommend a 24-hour "stop-spamming-the-encyclopedia" block. -- MarcoTolo 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leprosy

Thanks for dropping by. You are right in moving the section to the article on M. leprae... however, Leprosy now is devoid of the cause/etiology... It would have been worthwhile if you had added a few lines about it after you had moved the section. I would also like to add that i didnt contribute much to the article except in re-organizing it, erroneously following the standard convention of medical textbooks at first but later correcting it to WP:MEDMOS#Sections. -- Đõc §aмέέЯ  20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. I've restored a brief "Cause" section to Leprosy - expand as needed. -- MarcoTolo 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive deletion of reference material — Lyme Disease

Hi MarcoTolo, and welcome to the Lyme Disease article. I'd like to discuss your edits generally as they relate to article length, and then more specifically as regards reasons for particular deletions. To help organize what is quite a long comment, I want to keep separate points in separate numbered sections below.

[edit] Consensus on what is the "right" length

As you're probably aware, the article achieved Good Article status in Feb 2007, and there has subsequently been discussion on the article length. I made the comment in July 2007 that the longest section by far was the References section, not as a criticism, but as part of supporting my view that the article was (at that date) appropriately well referenced and of appropriate depth and coverage in comparison to articles on other complex and controversial medical topics.

The consensus in mid August 2007 before you started making your edits was that the article was about the right length and was more in need of minor re-structuring and copy editing rather than shortening (or lengthening). I see you haven't commented in the article length discussion yet, and I'd welcome your thoughts if you'd like to join it (please follow up in the article length discussion only for this specific issue).

[edit] Reasons for reference deletions

I notice you seem to be suddenly doing a large number of edits — more than 50 edits in two days, and I think you are doing very good work as far as tidying up reference formats, copy editing, and minor re-structuring. However, with no prior discussion, you also deleted a surprisingly large number of references — I counted more than 40 unique references deleted by you in your 52 latest edits.

Whilst I agree that references that are redundant or superceded by newer results should be deleted, it is not clear that these reasons consistently apply to your deletions. Can you explain why you deleted so many references? Is your aim simply to find ways of shortening the References section? If so, it relates to the discussion of what is an appropriate length for this article and should be discussed there first as part of the consensus building (please follow up there). If not, please follow up here.

[edit] Need for multiple references per sentence

In several of your edits you seem to have deleted any references that were grouped together at the end of a sentence, and replaced them by a single reference, e.g. [4], [5], [6]. My concern is that the references at the end of a sentence containing multiple assertions could well be supporting two or more different subsets of those assertions, and in such cases (which may be common) the references are not all redundant and it would be clearly wrong to remove all except one.

[edit] Cross-checking references vs. assertions in article

How did you decide the references you deleted fall into the redundant or superceded categories? To be certain I would expect to read and cross-check the contents of each of the references against the corresponding assertions in the article. It would take me considerably more than two days to do that for over 40 references. Did you actually read each and every one of the 40-plus deleted references confirming that what it says fits with your reasons for deleting it?

At first glance, many of the citations you deleted appear to be of relatively recent articles from high quality journals (WP:RS) reporting very specific results. Whoever originally added them to the article seems to be very familiar with the literature and seems to have given much careful thought (bearing WP:GOODFAITH in mind) as to which references to use. It seems like the result of a lot of diligent work by a previous editor, and it would be a shame to revert such good work without having very good reasons.

[edit] Other deletions of references

Some of your edit summaries are a bit misleading, e.g. it was not immediately obvious from [7] "(Copyedits. Removing Burgdorfer ref (further research does not appear to support transmission in these vectors). Ref cleanup.)" that you also deleted the MacDonald(1989) reference on congenital transmission of Lyme disease. What were your reasons for deleting MacDonald(1989)?

Regarding your deletion of the Burgdorfer(1998) reference, you made the claim that "further research does not appear to support transmission in these vectors", which is a strong claim. Can you provide a recent citation to support it?

[edit] Deletions of co-authors' names

You truncated many of the existing references at the third author, e.g. [8]. This hides potentially important and useful information on who were the research group leaders involved in the work behind the publication, because such people are quite commonly listed at the end of a list of authors, despite being highly notable researchers. Hiding any co-author names greatly reduces the immediate utility of the references in the article, and saves relatively very little space (~300 bytes). I propose these names be re-inserted. Unfortunately it is not a simple reversion because your edits to co-author names also included other edits.

[edit] Deletion of internal link to related article

You deleted the internal link to Type I and type II errors which previously clarified the meaning of "erroneous test results" which is otherwise ambiguous and frequently misinterpreted by lay people. I think it is appropriate in this case to clarify the meaning, and I propose to restore the link unless you have any objections.

[edit] Consensus

Many Wikipedia articles receive criticism for lack of references, but the consensus is that this article has stood out for being mostly very thoroughly and appropriately referenced.

My comments here are intended constructively. I hope we can generate some discussion of the issues, and build a consensus on what to do next. -- Neparis 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for WP:ONCOLOGY

I am trying to gauge what the interest would be for a WP:ONCOLOGY category. This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standards of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles.

If this is something you are interested in, please sign underneath the relevant section at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Oncology

Regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

Hi. I've missed seeing you in my watchlist. Hope you're enjoying a break. Let me know if you have plans to take Polio to FA and I'll have a look at it again. Colin°^Talk 07:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MCOTW

JFW | T@lk 12:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Marco !!?

Just in case you didn't check, I sent you an email a while back... I hope to hear from you soon, wherever you happen to land :) --DO11.10 03:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Why on earth hasn't anybody nominated you for adminship yet? When you get back drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polio has been Featured!

Hi Marco, I wanted to let you know that Polio made it through FAC with flying colors. Thank you for all of your help, etc...! I hope to see you around soon!--DO11.10 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article review/RNA interference

Just a note of a review of this article, though a fairly minor one - it needs a few copyedits to make it layman-friendly, no more than that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 15:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs). Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.

Haven't seen you in a while; I hope all is well. Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 15:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)