Misplaced Pages

User talk:Encephalon: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:45, 25 May 2006 editMerovingian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,239 editsm Status← Previous edit Revision as of 03:25, 26 May 2006 edit undo205.188.116.135 (talk) →StatusNext edit →
Line 145: Line 145:


Thank you kindly. --]]] {<small>] ] ]</small>} 22:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Thank you kindly. --]]] {<small>] ] ]</small>} 22:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

== AOL dos vandals ==
would you mind adding <nowiki>{{AOLdos}}</nowiki> to the juggernaut-DOSvandal's now protected user talk page?--] 03:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:25, 26 May 2006

——————————————— TALK: ENCEPHALON —————————————

Welcome.

I will be away from Misplaced Pages for about 10 days; on my return, I will be editing lightly for several months. Regards —Encephalon 20:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The Signpost
24 December 2024


εγκέφαλον: notebook
WP:MCOTW · WP:CLINMED · WP:MOS · WP:FN · Scribble


εγκέφαλον: places


εγκέφαλον: history

On responses

I respond on my page, unless there is good reason to respond on yours. Regards—Encephalon

Yikes, TS peer review

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Tourette syndrome. It wasn't ready yet :-(

Well ... maybe this will kick things into gear ... just as I have to spend the next month with extended house guests, and traveling 3 times coast to coast ... bad timing ... oh well !! Sandy 23:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy. Will have a look see soon. —Encephalon 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you fully back and in the saddle yet? Some of the comments on the Peer Review are moving along faster than I wanted them to. I've made a lot of changes that I'm hoping you'll have a look at: the article is getting shorter and shorter, and I'd appreciate your feedback vis-a-vis some of the other suggestions I'm getting. I'd feel much better if a lot of physicians were looking at the article ... Sandy 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm back, and barely hanging on by the stirrups.;-) But yes, Sandy, it's about time I made myself available for this article. Look out for the underwhelming contribs by week's end. —Encephalon 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Here we go...

Well, I had to stop by and say thanks, friend. Wish me luck... Cheers, lad. Oooh, buttons! Snoutwood (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Heaven help us. ;-) —Encephalon 15:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Or its opposite number. Snoutwood (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I already have, apparently. Sigh... Snoutwood (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well on your way, I see.;-) —Encephalon 23:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

Re: User talk:Hermione1980

Yes, in retrospect I should have restored it and reverted to prior to the new edit. However I was slightly indignant at the welcome message... it seemed quite disrespectful and rude, if (I presume) well intentioned. In any case, I don't at all take issue if you or anyone wishes to restore it. On that note, her leaving is unfortunate and indeed, inexplicable, but I suppose that's life. Thanks.--Sean Black 20:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, blanking (and protecting, probably) will probably be for the best. Thanks.--Sean Black 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Sigh...

Wise Encephalon,

Somewhat reluctantly, I have surrendered to the eventually of an RfA... for my full concession, see my talk page. (I posted there for the sake of centralization.) With trepidation, Xoloz the gnome 18:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the nomination, and left it for you to post, assuming you find my answers (and my own special codicil) acceptable. Thank you for drafting me (I think!) and loads of wiki-love anyway, Xoloz 16:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thanks for the vote in my RfA; I appreciate the support! The nomination did not gain consensus, but I'm very happy to have accepted it. - Amgine 17:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way...

You also have email. :) I replied first thing this morning; I'm sorry it didn't get back to you soon enough, but the reply also includes other subjects, so it is not totally worthless. Sorry also for bothering you with this wiki-message, but one can never be sure how often wiki-email accounts are checked. Happily your lackey, Xoloz 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I'm bad with wiki email. —Encephalon 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Houston

Thanks for keeping me in mind, but at the moment I'm going to graciously decline; I don't have any need for the tools given what I am currently doing on Misplaced Pages. I'd certainly love to have you nominate me, if I were going to apply, and if I feel the tools would be useful -- which I might later in the summer when my finals are through, and I have more time for cleanup work -- you'll be the first to know. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

DRV format

et alii
Sorry to make work. If I had thought that anyone would ever see these again I would have used more care. Seriously, though, purple? *shudder*
brenneman 01:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • LoL. The color was Sjakkalle's idea, I believe. It doesn't matter much to me—you may change it if you like. And no need to be sorry about anything, it was a small thing making the changes.;-) As to whether it's worth doing, I suppose if we're going to be placing DRVs on subpages and preserving a record of the discussions, we might as well dot the i's and cross the t's. The main reason I changed the thingies is not for the color, of course, but the instructions at the top. The AFD tag instructs any appeals to be made at DRV, and is therefore misleading when used to close out DRVs, IMHO. I'm hoping we can simplify and standardize the entire content deletion and restoration process to make everything as straightforward as possible for the casual editor—the folks who most use the process. —Encephalon 01:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Closing templates are evil. Besides, if you want to get a nice color, you have to go through an incredible amount of red tape and negotiation, so you get something that is acceptable by everyone. Titoxd 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • IMHO, it doesn't really matter what color is used, Tito, as long as it doesn't render the text illegible.:-) As to things that are "evil", well, we sometimes seem to assign evil to a lot of things on WP; personally it wouldn't matter to me whether or not templates are used on any subpage—AFDs, TFDs, MFDs, DRVs, as long as what is being done is made clear (coming to a decision, notifying that the page is henceforth an archive, and simply describing avenues for appeal (if any exist). The templates are what have traditionally been used, so standardizing the process doesn't seem an especially bad idea. Cheers —Encephalon 02:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Holy smokes. That's some discussion on color schemes. —Encephalon 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz's RFA

Glad you liked it. I was intending to vote, I was hoping to bag number 100, but now I might save it until when the RFA looks like failing, or at number 200. :) Steve block Talk 13:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kind comments, they are much appreciated. Dragons flight 17:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Jealous

Don't be jealous just because you don't have one of these: Category:Imposters of Knowledge Seeker. Curps is too fast, though; only fellow actually got to make any contributions (this was last year); he made two, the first of which was to create a user page asserting that he was an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of mine! Don't worry, one day you'll get a Category:Imposters of Encephalon all your own. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm. I am not sure what new flight of fancy inspired you to post the above, but rest assured, Seeker, I bear you no jealousy over your category. These things come to people such as yourself. I shall be sorely disappointed to get such a ridiculous category all of my own some day, as it would mean my unrivalled inimitability was lost on at least one misguided soul. —Encephalon 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Encephalon, thank you you so much for validating my RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

Deizio talk 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Pleasure. —{{PAGENAME}} 21:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Humble thanks

Thanks again Encephalon,

As I sat here thinking of ways to express my gratitude for my successful RfA nomination, I briefly considered that my message to you should be constructed as a prayer. Despite my new buttons, and your have been less calendar time than I, I still experience the same sense of awe when I contemplate the wisdom that you share with us on a daily basis, and I feel deeply unworthy of your having spent even a moment's time on my behalf. The astounding support for the RfA could only have arisen from the reflected glow of your reputation, and I will be forever grateful for your kind words in offering my name. Since making mistakes is my one fine skill, I will no doubt be leaning heavily on your unequalled abilities; please whack me sharply whenever you notice my foolishness! As an admin now, I am every Wikipedian's servant, but I am your lackey, so feel free to assign me any menial task. In loyal admiration, Xoloz 01:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm very glad you've been granted the permissions, Xoloz—you outshone most of us, including your bumbling nominator, while yet an editor; you will go far as administrator. As to your success being the result of "the reflected glow of reputation", I can only ask you not to be ridiculous: the nomination succeeded because the candidate is a first rate chap. Congratulations, my good fellow—seldom has the bit been so richly deserved. Best —Encephalon 21:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

...And more

Doctor,

This is a question your expertise and username leave you well-qualified to answer: Is there a clinical difference between microencephaly, for which we have no article, and microcephaly, for which we do. If your curious, the question was inspired by news that homo floriensis has been called into question, and has nothing to do with my medical condition (though I might qualify, who knows? :) Thanks, Xoloz 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Microcephaly means "small head for body size"; microencephaly, small brain. (Formal definition of microcephaly: a condition of reduced occipitofrontal circumference of at least 2 standard deviations below the mean for the individual's gestational age, gender and race). The two terms are usually used interchangeably by doctors—the one often occurs along with the other—but microcephaly is far more commonly employed by clinicians. If you want my opinion on the WP pages, I'd say that microencephaly should redirect to microcephaly, which should itself be expanded with a discussion of the definitions, classification, and syndromes. As to Homo floresiensis (note sp, dear Xoloz), my understanding is that it has been controversial from the start, and being thoroughly inexpert in paleoanthropology I'm afraid I cannot contribute more than the interested layperson's awe of these matters. I have found Carl Zimmer's The Loom to be an indispensible guide to the prevailing controversy, and wadya know—he's got a post up there now. —Encephalon 21:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes size

Hi Encephalon, I answered your questions (as far as I could) at Misplaced Pages talk:Footnotes#Size: some questions by Encephalon --Francis Schonken 07:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You're back!

(And I'm away!) Barely have time to quickly check things on laptop from hotel, and will be swamped for several weeks. I didn't understand the footnote convesation (above). Do I need to change anything in TS references based on that? I suspect another editor already did that? Saw you made some edits, but don't have time to catch up ... at least I know I don't need to review them for accuracy :-)) Sandy 14:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sandy! Yes, I'm "back", although it's really going to be this way for a while—sneaking in contribs when I get a spot of time here, a few minutes there... I'm probably going to try to focus on article work for a time; a downside to being an administrator is that I often feel guilty about not doing enough in the project spaces, but as I've not done article work for so long I should really stop feeling that way.;-) Regarding the reference sizing, it really was a bit of a muddle a while back, but some degree of stability seems to have prevailed. TS is fine there. Catch you later.;-) Cheers —Encephalon 04:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Vito Spatafore page

Hi, I'm a new editor and have mostly been working on The Sopranos articles. You recently added tags requesting references and rewording of the Vito Spatafore article. Could you post on the discussion where you think the wording needs work? Most of the article is written with the TV series episodes as a primary source. Is there a format for referencing TV episodes or does it have to be a written source? Please reply on the article discussion or my talkpage and feel free to delete these questions once you've read them. --Opark 77 07:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Administrators open to recall

SPAM WARNING - quasi form letter follows! (#3)
I'm attempting to open the biggest can of worms ever. You always manage to probe just that bit more deeply than I, and express what I'm feeling more clearly. For that reason, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the category I've just created.
brenneman 07:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Status

Thank you kindly. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL dos vandals

would you mind adding {{AOLdos}} to the juggernaut-DOSvandal's now protected user talk page?--205.188.116.135 03:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories: