| Revision as of 22:21, 22 February 2006 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,126 edits →Hey: Vanity← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:31, 22 February 2006 edit undoEncephalon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,729 edits →Hey: ahNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| When you say 'vanity stuff', do you mean dubious external links? If so, don't worry about those; we can toss them out in the touch up stage. Don't worry (too much) about prose either; there are several professional editors around who can help with that at the appropriate time; your prose most certainly does not 'stink', anyway :-). One section that I wonder about in the article is ]. Article size and detail is an issue on WP, and one way we address that is through the use of what is known as ]. I wonder if we'd eventually get a better product by keeping the "hardcore" medical stuff at the parent article and creating a new short article for that section. ]'' 21:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)'' | When you say 'vanity stuff', do you mean dubious external links? If so, don't worry about those; we can toss them out in the touch up stage. Don't worry (too much) about prose either; there are several professional editors around who can help with that at the appropriate time; your prose most certainly does not 'stink', anyway :-). One section that I wonder about in the article is ]. Article size and detail is an issue on WP, and one way we address that is through the use of what is known as ]. I wonder if we'd eventually get a better product by keeping the "hardcore" medical stuff at the parent article and creating a new short article for that section. ]'' 21:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)'' | ||
| :That's the vanity stuff ... like the idea of a separate article, as it will be hard to delete. :-)) ] 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | :That's the vanity stuff ... like the idea of a separate article, as it will be hard to delete. :-)) ] 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::LoL. Why? Opposition from your pleasant TS co-editors? ;-) Well, in some cases we have tossed the things in their entirety (eg. ]), when they contained little of encyclopedic merit. In this case I can see a semi-decent article on social aspects or pop-cultural portrayals of TS, so maybe a split wouldn't be a bad idea. | |||
Revision as of 22:31, 22 February 2006
User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch1 3 Feb - 16 Feb
Hi Sandy, I'd love to help you edit the TS page. It will probably be a few weeks, however, as I'm currently working on the Parkinson's page. AFGriffithMD 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Internet phenomenon
Internet phenomenon is currently in a poor state, but I think it has the potential to be encyclopedic. I would agree with the lists being moved to the talk page and entries only being re-added to the article once third party sources referencing the phenomenon are found - for each and every entry. Sorry to soil your freshly archived talkpage :)--Commander Keane 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
Hey, thanks for the note on my talk page, sorry for not getting back sooner. Can you outline the remaining issues we need to cover. From my calculations we've covered four out of the five initial requests (clean up talk page, deal with Marinol, guidance with links, starting an account), not sure how I can further help.
I will of course continue to be available, but are there any other issues you feel are key to resolving this dispute? If you could mention them (either on my talk page or on the article talk page or the mediation page) - it may be that I've missed them on the mediation page. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 09:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. I thought you were going to go ahead on the links... Regarding the others, can you address specific concerns to the talk page? I know it can seem frustrating when the other side doesn't reply, but there is not really much else I can do. I suggest leaving the {{subst:anon}} template on any talk page. This is a shorthand way of asking someone to create an account - s/he probably just forgot to log in...
- Regarding the pillars and the encyclopaedic tone, could you point to specific examples of unencyclopaedic writing or misunderstandings of the four pillars? Sorry to keep asking for clarification, but it really helps if we have something concrete to refer to :) - FrancisTyers 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, that sounds like the best plan. I'll close the case for now, if you need further help in the future, just leave a note on my talk page, you don't need to go to the trouble of opening up a new case. I will also watch the article. - FrancisTyers 15:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey
Hi Sandy! Just saw your vote in that RFA thingy Avi put up. That was sweet of you, thanks. ;-) I've just told him I think I'll go up for it later, though. It was a very nice gesture by both of you, thank you very much. I say, I meant to tell you I'm more or less done with the PANDAS article I promised you. It's in my USB drive, however, which is not with me at the moment. (I tend to write offline and upload later). I'll ping you when it's all uploaded and stuff, ok? See ya! :-) ENCEPHALON 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
When you say 'vanity stuff', do you mean dubious external links? If so, don't worry about those; we can toss them out in the touch up stage. Don't worry (too much) about prose either; there are several professional editors around who can help with that at the appropriate time; your prose most certainly does not 'stink', anyway :-). One section that I wonder about in the article is Tourette syndrome#Sociological and cultural aspects. Article size and detail is an issue on WP, and one way we address that is through the use of what is known as Misplaced Pages:Summary style. I wonder if we'd eventually get a better product by keeping the "hardcore" medical stuff at the parent article and creating a new short article for that section. ENCEPHALON 21:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's the vanity stuff ... like the idea of a separate article, as it will be hard to delete. :-)) Sandy 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- LoL. Why? Opposition from your pleasant TS co-editors? ;-) Well, in some cases we have tossed the things in their entirety (eg. pneumonia), when they contained little of encyclopedic merit. In this case I can see a semi-decent article on social aspects or pop-cultural portrayals of TS, so maybe a split wouldn't be a bad idea.