User talk:Colin/Archive 2

Active discussions

National Society for Epilepsy

Hi Colin,

Many thanks for your help with our page - it really looks great and is both informative and relevent. I'm sure it must have taken a great deal of time to set it up and we appreciate it.

I think we are in a much better position to make small changes as and when necessary based on this initial entry and will be following the style and layout that you have started.

Many thanks again. Kind regards, Jack —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epilepsynse (talkcontribs) 09:29, 4 August 2006.

My Books

... Removed text, which is already present on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas ...

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)

Hope it's clearer now. Thx,--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Colin,

Why you think that external link to professional site concerning well-known similar mechanisms of epilepsy with other paroxysmal disorders is inappropriate? I am neurologist and neuroscientist, and work in this field many years.


Merab Lomia, MD, PhD

I've replied here Colin°Talk 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Merab Lomia


Thank you for your opinion. I understand your position. The relationships between the various diseases might be interesting for medical professionals, but not for other readers. Nevertheless, information in articles with medical subject looks like for professionals.

I'll think about your advice concerning medical resources. It seems interesting. Thanks.


Merab Lomia

Reply to MoS (Med)

To answer your questions:

  • why do I support something that I don't think is a good idea and "will lead to more debate than it's worth"? Because of consistency.
  • Do you just want the word "lasting" dropped from JFW's criterium? I simply want to copy the text from WP:Lists.

What do you mean by:"In addition, that criterium is significantly stronger than this guideline."? That it's more strict? That it's more important and so we should obey it?

Sorry I'm so confusing :-)

btw your user page kinda left me wondering... Are you just an Average Person with no training writing drug articles??? Are you french??? And are you opposed to Info- and Babelboxes?????

--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

re: List of people with epilepsy

I've been reading your comments around the pages you listed on my talk page. Just wanted to let you know I'm thinking over the subject and that you can expect my contribution the discussion sometime this weekend. Regards -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly good additions! But in any case you would have to re-nominate because you are running out of time and you have no support votes as of yet... One thing I would change is "Life" column width so that the dates don't break into two lines. Also I am a bit uneasy that you rely on ref 72 so much. Otherwise it looks like something I might support. Renata 01:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You did an excellent job bringing the list to Featured status. Keep the valuable contributions up! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

hectares & acres

Hi, I see you corrected an area on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon, if you are an expert on converting hectares to acres etc could you kindly take a look at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset where I've got measurements in hectares but don't know how to convert them to acres.— Rod talk 16:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy

I'm leaving this note because my vote on your FL nomination probably comes as an unpleasant surprise. I appreciate your warm notes and comments - I really do think you're a good editor acting in good faith - and I also think your list needs to improve before it achieves feature quality. You're well on your way: keep improving. Some challenges from skeptical editors really made my other featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc far better than it would have been with easy praise. Best wishes, Durova 06:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Colin. Would you mind getting back to the nominator? I cannot go on extending the nomination indefinitely. Thank you. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Congratulations and great work bringing epilepsy up to featured list! InvictaHOG 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article's really improved since the last time I looked at it. Bravo! I also left a brief note under section 29 of your Talk/Archive 1. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Please cut and paste this wherever you want it to go. Durova 16:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

--moved barnstar to user page--

Vagus nerve stimulation

Hi. Thanks for correcting me. I only meant to refer to depression, not epilepsy. - Richardcavell 23:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi - you left some comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/archive2. Could you possibly take another look at List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and see if you are now happy. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll jump in here too—I've tried to address your concerns. Please take a look! --Spangineeres (háblame) 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

List of HIV-positive people

Hi, I saw you made List of people with epilepsy a featured list. I just put up List of HIV-positive people for peer review here and I was hoping you could have a look at the article and give me some critique. Garion96 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I addressed all your comments at the peer review. Please let me know what you think. Again thanks for a thorough review. Garion96 (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's on FLC now: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of HIV-positive people. Durova 01:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

diazepam and phenobarbital

Hi Colin,

I've added some discussion regarding my edits. I hope that's helpful. I wasn't sure the best way to add or change references, so I need to read up on that. I included some references for my edits in the discussion.

Loupe 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of OSU people

I looked at the examples you gave and I wouldn't be opposed to putting it in chart form, but I'm not sure what the columns could be that would fit for every person currently on the list. I also don't know how hard it would be to try and implement pictures in a list in chart form, it would look kind of akward if only a few people had pictures below their name in the chart rather than a few off to the side like it currently is. For citations it looks like it could get interesting no matter what route I choose, I'll have to spend some time fiddling with that. Thanks, VegaDark 10:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start to putting the list in chart form at User:VegaDark/Sandbox. Can you think of any other columns to add? VegaDark 02:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I was considering adding a birth/death column but I didn't consider it to be really related to the topic of the list, whereas in lists of people with medical conditions it is something a lot more likely someone would want the info on. I was also considering adding a degree column, but I realized that I don't have the info on that for 99% of the people on the list, so I decided against it. As for why there are so many sportspeople, I guess you could say it's because OSU has been running sports for a long time and people have a higher chance of becoming notable via that route than academically or otherwise. VegaDark 19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

TS comments

Thanks so much for the detailed and helpful comments: I knew those were weaknesses, but no one else complained :-) Addressing those issues is on my list for this morning, but I keep getting distracted by new entries about those darn images and the infobox -- will get on them today, so check back later if you're interested. Thanks again, Sandy (Talk) 15:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, made a lot of changes, in case you want to have another look. Thanks again ! Sandy (Talk) 18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is some confusion on the numbers :-) Yomangani mentioned the problem of consistency in style, I read the MOS on numbers (perhaps incorrectly) and made changes to (I thought) to agree, Tony changed some of them back, and now I'm confused :-) Your proposal sounds good: I'll run it by Tony and Yomangani. Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page: I'm also confused on internet archive policy, and would appreciate suggestions. Sandy (Talk) 16:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Colin, thanks so much for everything, and for following up with Jkelly. I'm going to be traveling this week, and will have limited and sporadic internet access: I'll catch up with the remaining list of loose ends to tie up at the end of next week (images, internet archive, dates and numbers), and look at MEDMOS when I have time. Thanks again, your help has been invaluable, Sandy (Talk) 13:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Colin, I just wanted to let you know I'm still traveling, and lost track of what happened with the images (the Commons link on my talk page no longer works): I'll catch up with you when I'm home. Sandy (Talk) 15:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Phenobarbital image

Colin, I just created a space-filling model of phenobarbital and intended to add to the article, but after a quick look at the skeletal structure currently in the Drugbox I'm worried the rotation on my image may be confusing. Would you mind having a look? Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 16:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. There is indeed a move to SVG (in fact, I upload all my structural diagrams as SVGs), and I could certainly create SVGs of the barbiturates all rotated the same way for comparison purposes. All barbiturate structures have this orientation on PubChem – do you think this would look good? Fvasconcellos 23:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I use Inkscape. It's free and pretty easy to get the hang of, although my methods probably aren't the most effective (sketch the molecule on ChemSketch, export to TIFF, and than trace in Inkscape by hand). It takes a while longer than just exporting to PNG, but it makes for lighter files as well. I'm quite sure BKchem has native SVG support though, do you have the most recent version?
Anyway, I've had a look at all the barbiturate pages and the images are all very good, except for talbutal (it's a GIF and pretty non-standard). I don't think there's a need to "remake" all of them, I guess I'll just upload a better version of my space-filling model for phenobarbital. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 12:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Updated version. Fvasconcellos 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely worth it, I agree. I've added it to the article, and created an SVG for talbutal. Thanks again for your input! Best, Fvasconcellos 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll get to that soon, I was offline yesterday. I reduced the quality for faster rendering, I didn't think it would affect export quality as well... :( Fvasconcellos 23:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Depo Provera

Hi Colin, I think your comments would be more helpful if you read a little more of the talkpage--the whole NOR argument, the WHO removal comments below that, the multiple anon IP subject below that, SlimVirgin's comment etc., to get minorly adequate pic of issues. Thanks, Cindery 10:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

please revert accidental blanking?

Hi Colin, I think you may have accidentally blanked almost the whole Depo talkpage? Thanks, Cindery 10:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


for fixing blanking! :-) But, it would still help more if you read the two disputed citations in the article--re herpes and re glutamate excitotoxicity--in the "disadvantages" section of the article--they are each a sentence long. (And more of the talkpage--you look a little tiny bit, um, silly maybe, because I cite the text re primary/secondary you claim you would like to see directly below your comment that you would like to see it. Also, the "nature" of the anon's objections (they are not really NOR) becomes a little more apparent if you read from NOR to the bottom of talkpage--not a long stretch. Thanks, Cindery 10:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerns at List of Telecaster players

Hey there and thanks for the great feedback. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns, and replied at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Telecaster players. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help, and for your support. We have lots of other guitarist-related lists to work on (see Category:Lists of guitarists), and the comments here will help on the other lists as well. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Colin, in regard of your changes to my edit of the article about epilepsy, I should stress I have been working in the epilepsy field for many years, and I am considered an expert in the field. I disagree with your corrections. You claimed that "chronic" is not part of the official definition. Aside from the fact that it is not clear which definition of epilepsy you are following (please specify it since it appears be 10 years old), your statement is not correct. You should be aware that many insults to the central nervous system can induce acute seizures, which are an acute response to the injury. These acute seizures may be recurrent for a pariod of just few days up to 2 weeks (sub-acute interval), but are never considered to be epilepsy. For seizures to be epileptic they must be chronic (i.e. occur at later times after injury), recurrent and spontaneous. If they are not chronic, they are not epileptic by definition.

You also claim that the term epilepsy is not interchangeable with epileptic seizures. Please, explain why. Epilepsy is the neurological disorder that manifests itself with epileptic seizures, that are chronic recurrent and spontaneous seizures. A person with epilepsy is a person with chronic recurrent spontaneous seizures.

kind regards, Academico45. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Academico45 (talkcontribs) 05:36, 6 November 2006.

I've responded on your talk page and on Talk:Epilepsy. Colin°Talk 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)



of course I like what you've done! I've tried to meet some demands, and indeed we need more changes. I'll discuss on the talk page.

cu round, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Collin,
I've been working at a new edition, please read this comment and have a look! I'll wait for you before drawing the attention of the people who opposed.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Collin, I'm taking a study break so I won't return until February, if you want you're most welcome to try to improve MEDMOS.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

When did I vandalise anything? MeatSpinster 20:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

TS articles

Thanks, Colin - that is very interesting info ! I might not get to it until after the holidays. What I really should do is get Kushner's book on the History, and write an entire daughter article on the History, incorporating the Time articles. Thanks again! Sandy (Talk) 17:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Colin, thank you so much for the improved image of GTS - you have really gone above and beyone to contribute to the quality of the article, and I have greatly appreciated your help !! Sandy (Talk) 15:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Valproic acid.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Valproic acid.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz S. (Talk) 11:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sodium valproate.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sodium valproate.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz S. (Talk) 12:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional books

Thanks for your clarifying post to the peer review for List of fictional books -- that happens to a lot of people when they come across this list. We've debated the name a few times to try to make it clearer and this was what we finally settled on, but it still confuses some people. If you have any suggestions as to ways to improve the list itself, please send them our way :) --Bookgrrl 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

List of atheists

Hello Colin. Thank you for your thoughtful review of this article. I believe the best place to start in addressing these suggestions is with the lead section, since the contents of the rest of the article will be determined by this.

I have expanded the lead as you suggested, and also deleted the criterion that a person's atheism must be relevant to their public life and works in order to be listed. Please let me know what you think about the lead: Is it clear enough and succinct enough? Are the criteria for inclusion valid? Thank you. Nick Graves 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Colin. I based many of my recent edits on your input because, after reviewing your edit history, I knew you were quite experienced with lists of people. Besides this, the criticisms seemed quite valid to me. I was fully prepared to slow down and talk with other contributors if they took exception to any of the changes. However, I will certainly seek input from others who have contributed to the list in order to form a solid foundation (inclusion criteria, proper sources) based on consensus.
A major frustration I've had with this list is that some editors had insisted that their preferred definition for atheist is the definition for the word, and then have applied this label to those who might never have used it for themselves (and might even reject it; eg. Darwin). That's why I've come to believe that the best criterion for determining if someone is an atheist is whether they have used the word to describe themselves.
Another frustration was that there had been little attempt to document the claims that someone was an atheist, and what little documentation there was came from poor sources with overly broad inclusion criteria and a vested interest in claiming as many famous people as possible as "atheists." This frustration is similar to your experience with the list of people with epilepsy.
Fortunately, I think the article is turning the corner on these issues. I don't know how far back you've looked in the history, but more rigorous inclusion criteria have resulted in the list being significantly trimmed since early fall. Much of the documentation is still not of the highest quality, and the citations certainly need major formatting changes, but at least there is some sort of documentation present. Documentation was utterly lacking before.
Thanks again for all of the helpful suggestion. Nick Graves 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Colin. I have followed your suggestion and changed the citation format for the Activists and Educators section of this list. This is new for me. Could you take a look at the section and tell me if everything looks ok before I proceed with the rest of the list? Thank you. Nick Graves 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured list candidates - Canadian provincial elections

Thanks for you comments on List of Saskatchewan general elections' featured list nominations page. You may be interested to know that the Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia equivilants are currently Featured List Candidates, and I would welcome your input. Tompw 17:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So is List of Nova Scotia general elections (which now has had its objections sorted out). Tompw 13:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured list nomination

As a person that commented on the prior nomination, I wanted to let you know that I have renominated the Featured list candidates/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please comment on the nomination - thx --Trödel 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FLC: Narnian timeline

Hello Colin, I responded to your comment on the nomination of Narnian timeline for FL a few days ago, and am awaiting your response. It would be much appreciated, thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

List of football managers

Many thanks for you help on peer review, Colin. You've improved the list massively. If you think it's ready, it's ready so I'll get on it right now! HornetMike 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Valproic Acid

Hey Colin,

Thanks for the correction with Epival, you are correct...I was just trying so hard to add Epival everywhere is belonged, I forgot NOT to include it in Valproic.

Thanks for all your help.

Blipadouzi 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

List of organ donars and recipients

I have set up this article, List of notable organ transplant donors and recipients, and I thought you might be interested in making it better. Remember 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have revised the article List of notable organ transplant donors and recipients, and was hoping you would take a look at the revision. Remember 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

David Ruben RfA

Colin, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

List of guest stars on The Simpsons

There, even though the book were not used in the making of the list and they had to be looked up online and even though they are less accurate than some of the fan pages, they have been added. Is there anything else that needs doing or was that your only compaint? -- Scorpion 15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to say right now that I'm not doing that. Because, right now, it's featured list quality. Sure, not officially, but people just use lack of sources as an easy way to fail lists or articles they dislike, which is proved in the fact that the list was failed despite a 6-2 approval. And why won't I do it? It's because you are suggesting I delete the entire list and then readd only the guest stars listed on the official website and that would make the list incomplete. Yes, it would meet the sourcing requirements, but an incomplete list is not FL quality. If you had a list of US Presidents that only had 40, you would probably consider it an absolute travesty and try to fail that list should it be trying for FL status. Well, that's how I feel, and if it means that in order to keep a complete, up to date and quality list that I can't get FL status, then so be it. -- Scorpion 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
People DO use sources as an excuse. Most people just say "Oppose: Lack of sources" instead of commenting on the actual content of the article. And, like I said, I'm not doing a thing that will make my list incomplete, because to become an FL, there are several important parts, ie. Being well formatted, well sourced, accurate and complete. And a list that is INTENTIONALLY not as complete as possible is not an FL in my mind, especially when there are sources. Yes, it's a fan page, but it's still extremely accurate and a better source than the official site, so why not use it? I know that the policy says no fansites, but Simpsons fans are well-known for their attention to detail and devotion, so in terms of episode content (plot, guests, hidden things, etc), I'd take a fan site over the official site any day. -- Scorpion 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!!!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may your wishes be fulfilled in 2007! Fvasconcellos 16:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Medical lists

Colin, want to weigh in here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Institutes for The Achievement of Human Potential (IAHP)

Oh, huh. If the group/individual is being very abusive, WP:AUTO and WP:COI can apply, I believe. I've sometimes had better luck by pointing out policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V, and asking that if they have any particular problems with the article, they mention them on the talk page for somebody to take care of. If there's obvious junk or vandalism, I don't have any problem with their removing it; beyond that, they would have to admit that, at least objectively speaking, they're not a neutral party in terms of trying to write a scholarly article. Granted, I still haven't perfected an approach to that sort of thing, by a longshot. Luna Santin 08:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I routinely encounter the same problem; e.g. The Carter Center and HONcode. It looks like the only reason IAHP is notable is because of the criticism. Let me know if I can help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of WP:DRUGS and WikiProject Pharmacology

Hello there Colin. I'd like to bring to your attention that a merge between WikiProject Drugs and the newly-created WikiProject Pharmacology has been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs#WikiProject Pharmacology. I would appreciate it if you could weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Sure, I'll see what I can do. Structures like this always make me cringe, but what's the fun if there's no challenge? :) Due to the drug's 3D aspect, a regular skeletal formula wouldn't look right, as you can see by the GIF already in place (the bond angles and lengths are not all "standard"). I think a ball-and-stick model would help give an idea of the three-dimensional shape of the molecule; have a look at this one for docetaxel and tell me what you think. As for the diagram, I'll probably have to do something like this one (for teicoplanin), is that OK? Fvasconcellos 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry if it takes me too long, I've got a couple of other structures on my hands. Hope the New Year's treating you well.

Done. I hope they came out OK. Fvasconcellos 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome—glad to see it put to good use! Fvasconcellos 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Colin. As you can see, images are my forte :) I'm afraid to inform you it's just a field of interest, I'm not a biologist. I'd be glad to help, but I must warn you some of it may be over my head as well :) By the way, have you contacted the folks over at WP:MCB? There are plenty of active and very competent contributors there who may be able to help you a lot. Fvasconcellos 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd still like to, of course—the only reason I'll not "jump into the fray" is my wariness of screwing up :) Sorry for not being able to help more. Fvasconcellos 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

History of TS

Colin, thanks SO much - I've printed out everything to read on an upcoming plane trip, but I really need to read Kushner's book before tackling the article - I've been told it is the definitive tome. Do you speak French? I can't do anything with the French articles. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I read the articles on the plane, and responded here: I'm wondering if you wanted to work on that article? I won't have time for several months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Colin, if you email me, I can tell you of someone who may help you locate journal articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured list candidates

Thanks for you supporting List of Yukon general elections in its candidacy for Featured List status. Would you consider voting on List of Prince Edward Island general elections (post-Confederation) on its FLC page? Tompw (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Colin: FYI, I've sent you an email. –Outriggr § 23:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Medical categories

Because you contributed to the proposed policy regarding medical naming conventions, I thought you might have an opinion regarding whether "diabetic" is or is not appropriate as a name for categorizing people. There's a large rename nomination under discussion right now.Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_27#Category:Diabetics Wryspy 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing medicine topics

Thanks for your corrections in the missing topics page - Skysmith 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User Ikkyu2

I explained it clearly in the delete/restore log. I came to this page on a way from the recent Wikipedia Signpost. I find his observations extremely valuable for the topic of Wikipedia:Expert retention. While he has rights to disappear, he does not have exclusive rights for his contributions. From his user page I don't see any particular drama which would indicate the desire to get lost for good. As a compromise, I will delete the page, but retain valuable parts, with personal info removed. `'mikka 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks! you're support is appreciated :-) Artaxiad 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Brilliant work on the coeliac page. The Levanon syndrome thing was fantastic NOR. JFW | T@lk 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, some of the moves did not take place. I'm not sure of the reason why that was happening so I put it up on the usurpation talk page. For some reason, the old user talk page did not get moved to Colin (usurped) and so it threw up an error when I tried to move yours to your new username. This can only be fixed by deletion and then moving, which requires admin intervention. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Colin/Archive 2".