User talk:Mikael Häggström

	Archives
	1

Alt med

Here it would have been tempting to add "immunity to cognitive dissonance" (which applies to some types, but Beyerstein didn't mention that...;-) -- Fyslee/talk 18:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific skepticism

Hi. Are you going to add a link to Wikiquote on Scientific skepticism? You removed the quotations, and I tried to follow-up with the link you gave in the edit summary, but I don't see the new wikiquote page. —Viriditas | Talk 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the correct link and added it to the article. —Viriditas | Talk 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't make that link directly. Thanks for your help! Mikael Häggström 06:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of Benzodiazepines

Hello, I see you made a page specifically for benzodiazepine withdrawal. I think that this is a good idea. However I think you chose the wrong wording. I think "Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Syndrome" would be better. Withdrawal of Benzodiazepine, just doesn't sound right, sorry. It kind of sounds like benzodiazepines are being taken off the market or something. What do you think about changing the wiki entry to Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Syndrome? Carpetman2007 17:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome sounds better. The article is now found at Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome. Thanks for feedback! Mikael Häggström 18:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for changing it! :=)

Carpetman2007 20:99, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2000s

Mortsggah,

I want to say that, first of all, I have no objection to the way the article 2000s looks after your edits. It's very neat, organized, and concise. However, I am going to go ahead and revert it, and want to explain why.

Prior to around February 1st of this year, the article had been similarly organized. It started off, a long, long time ago, with only a few general categories, but as time went on, it turned into this, the single worst article in Wikipedia.

Many editors engaged in discussion as to how to fix it. We realized that the heart of the problem was that everyone alive today felt like they had something—no matter how trivial—to contribute to the article, because, hey, everyone is living through the decade.

Think about it. An article on this decade would be the only article that every Wikipedian, no matter what there age or background, could say they know something about it. No other article confronted the prospect of having every human on the earth as a "knowledgeable" editor. The result was that the article became a huge morass of graffiti.
Additionally, an article on the decade currently going on will naturally lack perspective. It's easy to look back on the 1960s and recognize what was important and noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Not so for the decade currently going on. Some editors have suggested that sufficient perspective can't be had on the current decade until 10 years after it's conclusion, in 2020. I don't personally agree with that, but I understand the point.

So it was decided to trim the article back, way, back, to the bare bones. Now you have actually done nothing to expand the article, which is why I say it looks fine. But I will tell you what will happen next. First, people will start adding in their own personal, unsourced observations about the daily trivialities of life. In the economic section, someone will post the specific gasoline prices in their town one day, and then later, someone will post (in another part of the same section) the prices in their town. Someone will include a table that will list which countries allow gay marriage, which don't, and the years that the status changed. Someone will give us details on every little battle that occurs in every war, no matter how large or how small. And so it begins. More categories will be added. Eventually the article will become total garbage, with information that is so unconnected that, without the title "2000s", it would have nothing in common.

And that's the problem with the way the article was until back in January or February. People were arguing about which Australian football players should be included in the article on the decades, for heaven's sake. Those editors missed the point. Australian football players should be listed in an article on Australian football , or maybe football in general. Gay marriage tables are important, but should be in their respective articles. That gas prices are going up might be one of the big stories of the decade (though I'm not necessarily convinced of that), but specific info should be in specific articles. And allowing this article to be subdivided like this, will, inevitably in my opinion, send us down that path. So that's my take. Please feel free to respond, but first, please take a look at the article where I have it linked above. I know you don't want to see that again.

Respectfully, Unschool 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, and I agree that I don't want the article to look like it has before. Therefore I agree with you reverting it back to a little bit simpler version. Mikael Häggström 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osteoporosis

Well done on updating that article. It still needs some work (e.g. evidence for different treatments, hip protectors etc). I fixed the reference that you added; {{cite journal}} is a very useful template.

Would you mind trying to turn some of the bulletted lists into readable prose? The manual of style expects us to make content readable rather than outlined. JFW | T@lk 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for feedback! I'll have that {{cite journal}} and the prose style in mind. Mikael Häggström 07:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your name

Hehe! I'm on a non-scandinavian keyboard and can type your name correctly : Mikael Häggström

For your information, it's a French Canadian keyboard. (it's an almost generic int'l (non-asian) keyboard. I truly have no idea why it is called "french-canadian") --Sébastien Leblanc ^{( Talk | E-mail )} 06:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then I'm not out of reach from the rest of the world. Mikael Häggström 07:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Follicle histology1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Follicle histology1.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Follicle histology2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Follicle histology2.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Follicle histology3.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Follicle histology3.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Follicle histology4.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Follicle histology4.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Robot robot on the wall; wasn't the consensus enough, seen for [[Image:Follicle histology.gif]]? [[User:Mortsggah|Mikael Häggström]] 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Population parameter

Hi, Concerning your question (a little bit long): What is population parameter? Population characteristics For the description of an individual object (element) it is necessary to list its properties (attributes)—weight, size, shape, color. In order to describe a set of similar elements we will need a new characteristic—number of elements, and the list of attributes turns to the list of distributions (dispersions) on each attribute. Distribution of an attribute in a population of individuals can be described by the average value of an attribute and its dispersion, scatter around this average. Hence, for the description of any set of elements on each attribute, as a first glance, three parameters should be enough: number of elements ( N ), average value of an attribute ( Δx ) and it’s dispersion ( σ ). The basic characteristics of asexual or hermaphrodite populations are: number of individuals, average values of attributes and their dispersions. If the system has two subsystems (a population divided into two genders) for their description 6 characteristics are necessary. However it is possible not to consider the characteristics of subsets itself, but their combinations in pairs. Then it’s possible to reduce the description of a two-component system to three main characteristics: concentration of one kind of elements, ratio of average values and variations by the given attribute. The basic characteristics of dioecious populations: sex ratio (usually concentration of males), a dispersion of sexes (variation of an attribute at both sexes) and sexual dimorphism (a difference of average values of an attribute for males and a females). These parameters are closely connected and can be derived from each other. For example, the sex ratio can be expressed as sexual dimorphism on quantity, and a dispersion of sexes—as sexual dimorphism on variation. Or, vice versa, sexual dimorphism on an attribute can be presented as a sex ratio among individuals having the given value of this attribute, and a dispersion of sexes—as a sex ratio of individuals with an equal deviation from norm. Therefore it is possible to speak about a degree of gender differentiation, which is the total contribution of all three parameters, but for the purposes of analysis it is convenient to distinguish three above-mentioned characteristics of a dioecious population.Sashag 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for enlightening me! A very informative reply indeed. Mikael Häggström 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pain and nociception

Hi,

I thought you might be interested to know, I added Pain and nociception to the list of open tasks at the medicine wikiproject. WLU 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Mikael Häggström 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robot rights

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Robot rights, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Targeman 18:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not disagree to such a procedure. The subject is ahead of its time, and therefore I understand if it is regarded as hoax and unimportant for the time being. It is better to rewrite the article when the matter has become important. Mikael Häggström 11:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical terms of motion

You might have a look at Anatomical terms of motion to see if you are interested in doing there what you did such an excellent job with regards Anatomical terms of location. I've spammed a merge across a couple of people and articles, so you might even have help at this point. WLU 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's an interesting subject. However, summer vacation is over, so there's less time for pleasue (= Wikipedia) now, but I'll sure look into it sooner or later. Mikael Häggström 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massage

Thanks for improving the massage article, you did a great job, I am looking on expanding on info related to regulation and research pertaining to Europe in particular at this point, if you can be of any help please stop over again..ThanksBronayur 17:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll surely come by sooner or later. You've really done a lot to that article too. Mikael Häggström 08:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy

Nice job on all the highlighted anatomy images you've been adding. --Arcadian 03:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your great contributions to Wikipedia as well! Mikael Häggström 06:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Anteroposterior discrepancy

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Anteroposterior discrepancy, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Anteroposterior discrepancy is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Anteroposterior discrepancy, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks robot for notification. It's fixed now. Mikael Häggström 09:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent New Page

Exactly, I could not be bothered to write out the full title of the page you have recently created. I propse that it be either renamed or have have numerous redirects to the page. It is a very good starting article and there is no case for deletion but my point is that nobody is going to search for that title. Thanks. Hackboy1 11:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - the article needs a proper name. Do you have any suggestions? Omni-evolution perhaps? I'll ask RichardDawkins.net for advice. They must know about it. Mikael Häggström 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pervasive Refusal Syndrome

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pervasive Refusal Syndrome, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/10/2/153. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 09:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good bot. Sure it is now - now when I'm fusing some other sources into it then it won't be a pure copy any more. Mikael Häggström 09:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

I see you're overhauling the content on cholesterol, blood fats/lipids and related content. I'm puzzled that you have not tried to get consensus for such an operation, which pervades a series of >100 articles. Could you outline your plans, and explain why each move is necessary? For instance, the splitting of material out of cholesterol will not benefit the reader who wants to know why his doctor wants to treat his cholesterol of 6.3 with statins. You have not added any new references (there are quite a few good ones out there), and you have not tried to add categories to your new article. JFW | T@lk 11:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on my edits. I'm aware of that it is a major subject with many articles involved. In short, my edits are just as any; to try to give a sense of order in all those articles. And it needs a lot of work, therefore I rather edit and let it be reverted if it's wrong, compared to just discussing - which results in nothing. I'm sorry if that method went a little too far this time. However, the material which better should have been left in Cholesterol is now reinserted. Regarding my new article, I think it's motivated to have an article about a subject which reappears over and over again in many occasions. There are many people not really having hyperlipidemia or hypercholesterolemia, but yet worries about their blood fats. Thank you for notifying that categories was missing in it. Mikael Häggström 11:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the relevant content is distributed over quite a few articles. I wouldn't be opposed to having cholesterol just mention the physiology (e.g. regulation by SREBP & role of the LDL receptor), with subarticles addressing the pathological states and pharmacotherapy. Shame the term "dyslipidemia" has gone into disuse, because it describes the realities much better than black&white names with hyper- and hypo- in them. JFW | T@lk 13:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGTR1

Just a quick reply to your recent edit of AGTR1 (well, actually to your edit comment). Don't worry at all about changing the bot content. Check out this edit, for example, of how to play nicely with the bot. But human contributions are much more valuable than bot contributions, so we will definitely defer to humans. In case you haven't seen it, the ProteinBoxBot aims to create several thousand of these gene stubs, so you may see these ugly-looking (but hopefully highly-informative) bot templates more widely. Cheers, AndrewGNF 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I was worrying the edits would be lost the next update, but now I know how to avoid that. Thanks! Good bot anyhow. Nice to have a place where humans and machines work together peacefully. Mikael Häggström 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

You've been popping up a lot on my watchlist. Just wanted to say "nice work"! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Always nice to get some appreciation. Mikael Häggström 15:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, no need for a duplicate since it exists in Wikibooks as well. Mikael Häggström 11:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drug suffixes

Hi again. I noticed you recently created some articles on drug suffixes, such as -osin and -terol. You may also have noticed they were Transwikied to Wiktionary and put up for deletion; I've just speedily deleted -osin and -idine. While I personally think it's not a bad idea to have them, I'd like to recommend two things:

That they be made as redirects to the drug class (as I've done with -terol);
That some redirects also be made according to the WHO's official INN stems. Since Wikipedia uses INNs in the naming of drug articles, I think it's reasonable that we have redirects from INN stems as well?

Let me know what you think. A loftier project could be creating redirects for all INN stems—I've been thinking of leaving a note on WT:PHARM asking for opinions. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was rather an experiment, and I agree with their deletion as articles. Either have them all or have none. Although they do no harm in existence, perhaps they don't do any good either. However, it's not a bad idea having them as redirects where possible. Mikael Häggström 14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adopt a protein family?

Hello Mikael, I see you've made lots of edits on genes and gene families. I wonder, would you be interested in adopting a gene family in our PBB effort? GPCRs (or some subfamily)? CYPs? Whatever else you might be interested in? If yes, then we would fish out all the genes in that protein family and create stubs for them en masse. Rather than dealing with these stubs as they come up (e.g., [1]), we could handle everything at once. Let me know if you're interested... AndrewGNF 21:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds likea great idea to let the bot create stubs for all those genes. GPCRs and CYPs could need that, and perhaps the rest of the Adrenergic receptors. Is there anything I should do manually first, like any preparation of these articles? Mikael Häggström 06:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to do anything manually first. PBB will first try to see if there are any namespace conflicts with each gene name and symbol. If not, it will automatically create the page at the gene symbol. If so, it will flag that gene for manual input (but create all the wikicode necessary for a human to easily place the content in the appropriate place, e.g., User:ProteinBoxBot/PBB_Log_Wiki_10-29-2007_A_Rerun#EGR1). After the stubs are created, then it would be up to the hard work of human experts like you to supplement content and wikilink with existing articles. Anyway, what I would need from you is the gene family you'd like to work on first. Easiest on our end if you have Entrez Gene IDs, but we can also translate Ensembl IDs, gene symbols, interpro IDs, etc. without too much problem. AndrewGNF 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an expert on genes - I've rather been working on the function of their final proteins. However, I could at least adapt and wikilind with to the articles of their proteins, e.g. the genes of the Adrenergic receptors. It would be nice to have info about their genes, so I could give them a try. Mikael Häggström 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think there is consensus at WP:MCB that for the vast majority of gene/proteins in WP, the genes and proteins can be treated on the same page. For example, "gene function" could be used interchangeably with "protein function" (while recognizing of course, that it's actually the protein doing the work). So, for example, that might mean that the annotation at Adrenergic_receptor#.CE.B22_receptor could also be moved/expanded at ADRB2.

I'll go ahead and create the gene/protein stubs for all the individual receptors at Adrenergic_receptor. I'll post here when they're done, and you can do with them as you see fit... (Oh, would you also be interested in the beta receptor kinases ADRBK1 and ADRBK2?) AndrewGNF 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think the Adrenergic receptors will be enough for me for now. Mikael Häggström 06:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've wikilinked the new gene/protein-specific pages at Adrenergic_receptor#Comparison (all were created under their gene symbol). A couple of the human genome mappings were troublesome in our database and I'll need to check those out. You can leave them as-is and they will be updated on the next run of PBB, or you can just fill them in by hand. Let me know if you have any suggestions! AndrewGNF (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! I've gone through it and integrated it with the Adrenergic receptor article, and it has really reached a new dimension with the update. I'm busy with other projects now, but I let you hear if I'd like to do the same with other genes. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, your changes look great! AndrewGNF (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hej! I think you are doing a great job editing the GPCR articles. I do have a suggestion however that might save you a significant amount of work and would help standardize the citation format in these articles. If you haven't already done so, I suggest that you take a look at User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool. Given a PubMed ID, this tool generates a filled in wikipedia in-line citation template which you can copy and paste into a Wikipedia article. This tool will also generate book citations and a couple of other useful WP templates. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed that tool actually. Thanks for informing me! It didn't take very long time just copying and pasting the URL and name, but nevertheless it looks much better and more standardized with that one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanism

Hello Mikael,

Although I applaud you for being bold in your editing of the Transhumanism article, I strongly recommend you read the guidelines and discussions on the Talk:Transhumanism page. --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good day

Thank you for finding interest in my edits. As you requested, I've described the motivations for them on the talk page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Criticism sections

In light of your recent edits of the Human enhancement article, please read the Wikipedia:Criticism page. The gist of it is that making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. --Loremaster (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one edit was against that discouragement. Thank you for fixing it. However, there is no clear link to Transhumanism from that article any longer, but there sure are other ways to fix such a detail. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Wikiproject medicine

Merge tags

Hi. I commented on your proposed merge at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Drug_abuse_mess. I removed the merge tags because as I make clear in my response, the intent of both articles has little to do with addiction. It would help if you could read the proposed outline for drug abuse that I linked in the comment. Substance abuse has more to do with psychology, management, and tretment, and does not particularly concern the intricate details of addiction. I undertsand your motivation for wanting to merge all the information into one place, but each article has a separate focus. There are real, pharmacological, toxicological, and neuropsychological effects from drug abuse, and that article exists to discuss those issues, not addiction. The article on substance abuse should describe the behavioral and social issues associated with drug abuse, and the management and treatment options available. Drug addiction is already at 40kb and does not need to have this information merged into it as these two articles are likely to grow. I agree that any overlap should be watched carefully. —Viriditas | Talk 13:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking that turning Drug abuse into a dab page might be the best compromise for everyone. —Viriditas | Talk 06:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

Hi again. I just thought I'd let you know you created a lot of Wikipedia:Double redirects recently—basically, when creating several redirects to a same article, they must all be made directly to the target page; one can't redirect to a redirect because it won't work :) It's certainly not a big deal, but rather something to be aware of and avoid. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notification. I'm well aware of that double redirects don't work well. On the other hand, there are many bots there that do that work much more efficiently than I do, so I'm letting them continue with that. Mikael Häggström 18:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, all right then. Bots do usually work more efficiently then people :), although I haven't seen a bot-assisted double redir fix in a while. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they seem a bit lazy sometimes. Still, I think they'll do the work in just a matter of time, letting humans do what they still can do better. Mikael Häggström 18:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
1