User talk:Delldot/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Re: Registering for Wikipedia

I already possess multiple Wikipedia accounts, all of which I've discontinued. (For those fools who scream "sockpuppet," let it be known that I have never done anything under one alias in tandem with another. Considering I haven't been to "game the system" or "deliberately misrepresent," etc., I really don't care.)

My experiences with Wikipedia have been primarily negative. Winston Churchill once said, "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," and Wikipedia reinforces this clearly. It is not that I disapprove of communal collaboration, but rather that I distrust the capacity of people here to render judgment rationally. I've seen increasing irrationality to the point where I would spend some ten times as long arguing about what's the proper way to go about handling an article as I would spend on the article itself. (In one case, it was closer to thirty.) Let it be known, administrators were of no help. If I am to deploy such exorbitant amounts of energy again, I am sure I would do much better to focus on actually writing something by myself than arguing about writing and arbitrary rules. (No matter how legitimate the reason, all arguments will be rejected no matter so long as a rule/guideline/moral outrage can be leveled against it. Also, WP:IAR is worthless.) It disgusts me as a rational person and as a debater who strongly believed the value of logical arguments and has time and time again seen the better course of action rejected (then appealed, then gotten re-rejected, then appealed again, then gotten re-rejected). It gets to the point where I pre-emptively would argue not to pursue a line of action because I know where it will end up, and that it will do Bad Things, and it follows the outline:

• Me: You're going to do X. Doing X is bad for reasons X, Y, Z.
• Other Person (OP): A) I am not doing X. B) What I'm doing is good. (I have The Rules on my side.)
• Me: What you are doing will no doubt result in X. What you're doing isn't good, see above.
• OP: I Am Following Wikipedia Policies, and This Wont Necessarily Mean X.

Time passes. X starts to happen.

• Me: X is bad. Don't do X. See previous arguments. (Insert more elaboration)
• OP: X is good.
• Me: Here's a rebuttal to all your arguments and an explanation of my own.
• OP: Here're some generic claims which don't really hit your arguments, misconstrue the situation, and me pretending I didn't mean X when I said Y and in fact meant Z.
• Me: You didn't address points A, D, F, G, and here's a rebuttal to what you said on points B, C, and E, explaining what you overlooked, how I view it, etc.
• OP: I follow The Rules! Rules work this way. Nevermind your careful arguments against them. THE SYSTEM WORKS MY WAY! Also, here's a response to some of what you said, and allow me to repeat Y this time in the exact context of X, even though I said it really meant Z before.

Admin makes X happen.

• Me: I appeal. X is bad. I disagree with the admin too. Also, consensus by numbers actually swings my way. Consensus as far as discussion is concerned is limited to me and OP. Consequently, for the admin to follow through with the OP, I say the admin is biased and prefers the OP.
• Admin: OP follows the system. This ridiculous editor doesn't. CONSENSUS ISN'T NUMBERS!
• Me: (I discuss. You get the picture.)
• Original OP: More points.
• Other admins: I agree! Evidently the rules follow this outline. This editor doing all this arguing is just ridiculous.

Decision upheld.

I. Simply. Give. Up. On. This. Terrible. System. Admittedly I could have taken the improper stance, but how can I tell when people don't respond to my points directly and simply point out that by disagreeing with their values, I must be in the wrong?

Further evidence of collective insanity:

• Talk:Child_pornography#This_article_needs_more_pictures At first sight, whoever iterates the request (User:Kirbytime) deserves to be shot (Figuratively, I oppose capital punishment.), and I spent a good 10 minutes laughing when someone first forwarded me the link to the article, by virtue of the name alone. On further evaluation, User:Kirbytime's requests are completely legitimate, and he repeatedly explains himself and argues that he does not endorse child pornography or request it or condone any such illegality but rather that for the sake of a frame of reference a legal material by which the topical subject matter could be readily contextually inferred should be provided. He has been banned for this blasphemy. His ban was extended to indefinite because he used sockpuppets to circumvent the ban in order to help people at Help Desk. Brilliant. WP:ABF, indeed.
• There were numerous others, but my absence from Wikipedia has dulled my memory. Admittedly, this doesn't help my point.

My experiences with Wikipedia haven't merely lowered my opinion of Wikipedia. They've lowered my opinion of democracy and of humanity in general. Consequently, for the most part, I now simply refuse to contribute here; I'd much rather abandon this crap, so do not expect any further edits from me.

Good day to you, sir.

If you do have any comments you'd like to make, I'll check back this page a few times during this week just for that purpose, so I might still reply. Lastly, this IP address is dynamic, so it'd be best to remove the notice you left there. -216.244.16.159 (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well personally, I think having multiple accounts is always totally evil! Oh, wait... XD

All that sounds incredibly frustrating, I'd probably leave the project too if something anywhere near that unpleasant happened to me. The only reason I've been able to have such a peaceful time here for so long is probably just because I don't give enough of a fuck to get past like step 4 in your outline. I'm just like 'yeah, whatever, have it your way', which is kind of too bad, but there you have it. I'm way to lazy to put anywhere near the amount of effort into something as what you're describing. Plus, I'm usually the only editor on articles I'm interested in (ah, the lonely, lonely head trauma geek), and they're not really the type of thing you get in hopping-up-and-down fights over, unless you're a scientist XD

I really can't speak to the example you were describing, since I didn't see it and don't know anything about it. I don't know whether I'd agree with you or not if I looked at the situation (which I'd undoubtedly be way too lazy to do :-P ). But I can totally imagine how a few folks could drive a sincere editor away, in fact, I bet that's usually how people end up leaving the project. Very upsetting. I always think about the depressingly high attrition rate we have, but I've never been able to figure out what to do about it :( I guess I'll spare you the "it's not always like that" business, which I'm sure you've considered at length.

I think I'll just leave the note on the IP's talk page, but if you care to remove it, go ahead.

Good day to you, too. It's actually ma'am, if you're at all interested, but 'hey you' works just as well :-P Peace, delldot talk 14:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Guide

Thanks! Since there are other guides which cover the same material, once I finish the main section I'm planning on doing a guide for fictional topics (since that's what seems to need the most help.) Cheers, David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to it :) delldot talk 13:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's still a bit rough, but at least it's been fleshed out. Take a look here. Comments are welcome. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll be copyediting it and cleaning it up when I get around to it. G'day, David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Aristarchus

The ancient astronomer Aristarchus of Samos was the first known heliocentrist and was persecuted for the offense much like Galileo was many centuries later. The addition of this important historical precedent to the Wikipedia article on Aristarchus has infuriated an intolerant religious vandal who has also been pestering other articles (e.g., Richard Dawkins) as he pleases. Despite alerts (which can be traced through a February 5 summation) and numerous vandalism-warnings to the offender, the Aristarchus article remains controlled by the unprincipled tactics of one who is trying to forge history by the threat of vandalism. None of this speaks well for Wikipedia reliability, sanity, and governance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.140 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about that, it does indeed look like there's one user making problems with that IP. Unfortunately, it looks like it's a shared IP and others are using it too. My advice to you would be to first make sure all your edits are backed up by reliable sources such as textbooks or journal articles. It's generally agreed that you shouldn't remove well-sourced info without discussion, whereas anyone can remove unsourced material at any time. So that would be your first step. If they keep doing it, you should take it to the talk page or through dispute resolution, which I can help you with. It would be great if you could create yourself a username so I can figure out who you are when you leave me a note (I'm not going to be able to remember the string of numbers in your IP address), it's free and very quick. Thanks again for looking out for the encyclopedia! delldot talk 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to a late relpy

Hey, deldot. This is me WikiSandbox1. I know we have got something to talk about so I though we should discuss it.

I hope you understood my last reply that you got, it explains everything that was my excuse. Im here having to reply after school because this is the only opportunity i have to communicate.

Im glad i dont need to resond quickly, I just do fast so that I have time for other things, just to get it out of the way. By the way, my computer crashed (which means broke down), so i have no other alternative except after school at school.

Yes well I wasnt really taking a break from editing, I just have a small break (we went on a holiday). Anyway its good to know that so in the future I can state that to other users. Thaks for answering question.

After the Dan027 response, Im only going to give you a buzz if I need to, otherwise not. Feel free to reply at any stage, though I may not be able to reply straight away. Dan027 has done lots of work on the VRLocos template, which is what im currently working on as well. Maybe you should have a look at whats been happening over the past 3 months? Here's the template:

The references are sort of going okay. Also, my goal is to put an image of every loco or carriage in the template, so you could help me with that if you wish to. I'll be able to get some, but not all.

Its great replying again, reply soon. Cheers!

WikiSandbox1 (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 03:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

== reverting ==

Ive read the article about reverting (still not that sure how to do it) and it needs to be reverted too unless "FREDDY COUGAR MICHEAL MIRES AND JASON AND CHUCKY WAS HERE" is supposed to be there : /

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agameofchess (talk • contribs)

My reply delldot talk 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFC Backlog Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation needs your help!

WikiProject Articles for creation has done a tremendous job in working at WP:AFC over the past 7½ months. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication! Together, we've made the submission process easier and more streamlined, developed tools to make the process go faster for reviewers, and cut the backlog down to a mere fraction of what it once was. Well done! As you all are aware, however, our work is not quite yet done. The project still has 10 archive pages left to complete, which include over half a month's worth of submissions, many of which have not been completely reviewed. We need your help to finish looking over these neglected submissions so that we can finally remove the backlog notice from the page, and put an end to the more than two year old backlog that has been a thorn in our side for ages! Participants will receive an AFC Barnstar, so hurry up and help out while there's still work to be done! Make sure to sign in on the WikiProject's talk page so we know who is involved in what promises to be our final effort to complete this goal. Thank you for all your help! - Happy editing as always, Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this letter because you are listed as a participant in the Articles for creation WikiProject at WP:WPAFC. To avoid receiving further notices, please remove your name from the list. Thanks!

I copied your userpage layout

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I copied the layout for your userpage for my own. I hope that's okay with you? Thanks for the idea for the layout. Cheers! Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, replied on their talk page instead of here delldot talk 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Othonna

Delldot,

Your "pages I like to work on" reminds me of that standby question about "Which of the following does not belong..." Othonna, that's who! Maybe you can tell me if any spp. are known for medicinal properties? They can exude resins that dry and harden like shellac.

Thanks for your supportive note. I plan to re-visit and give it a boost with references and further info. I need to learn how to add the links to special terms. Othonna is one of my favorite genera and I grow about 40 different species. I'll try to get some photos to add to the entry as well, though these plants are not photogenic for me.

My interest is in plants on a broad scale, both horticulture and botany. I edited Ficus and Alstroemeria a while back also under a name I forgot about (password etc). It's just a matter of time as for all of us. I'd really like to amplify a number of the genus-level entries.

Your chosen field/s are great. The squeamish will always be in debt to those who can get going when the going gets bloody... or anatomically rearranged. How does Othonna fit into all of the other?

I use the W sparingly and I agree with the general (?) sentiment that for non-controversial subjects it is a good resource.

I hope Othonna does not become controversial.

Regards,

Tallusman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallusman (talk • contribs) 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Paging Delldot

Are you online? Your attention is needed in gmail chat. kthxbai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.6.7 (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Duly chatted. Yes, it's sad but true, people know that it's quicker to get a hold of me by leaving a note here than by emailing me XD delldot talk 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi delldot,

Thanks for the comment. I am a theoretical/computational chemist making a transition to the investigation of biochemical processes. Recently I was reading a short account on the role of telomeric DNA in the fibroblasts of the people suffering from progeria, checked the wikipedia article, and supplied it with the reference. Sorry to have done it anonymously - it was such a small correction that I did not want to bother to recollect my wiki password ;)

Art —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.188.205 (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Touch My Body

Thanks for your comments. It's just that it's an easy article to keep track of — reference the critics, reference the charts, take out the garbage. But yeah...thanks! :D SKS2K6 (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: ER

Nah, you can archive it if you want. If you do want to give me a review, feel free ;) _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 12:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. I would like to, but with the backlog being what it is, I think I'll spend the time on folks that really want one. Sorry the page is so neglected that it didn't work for you :( delldot talk 13:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All right then. Have fun! :P _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: ER

No, it's okay, you can archive my review. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 15:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much, sorry you didn't get one :( delldot talk 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PTS/PTE

Hi, I responded to some of your questions over at WP:MED. Here are some comments I have after reading your draft. Remember that I could be talking rubbish, so check with your sources. I think you're doing a good job, so keep plugging away:

PTS

•  Done Make this singular, as with most WP articles.
•  Done Your definition, "seizures that occur as the result of an injury to the brain" is not precise enough. Injury due to oxygen starvation, stroke, neurocystercosis, encephalitis, hydrocephalus, etc. would not fit. You need to emphasise the physical trauma. In addition, it is worth stressing that this is physical trauma, not emotional trauma (which causes another post-traumatic syndrome).
• Post traumatic seizures and post traumatic epilepsy don't occur at the same time (in my interpretation). The ILAE actually exclude PTS from their definition of epilepsy syndromes. So the question isn't whether they also have PTE, but whether they will develop PTE.
  • Some sources apparently use "late PTS" interchangeably with "PTE". It doesn't make sense to me; if you have one late seizure, does that mean you have PTE? I really just need to find a source that gives good definitions of both. That's what the move to the mainspace is waiting on. delldot on a public computer talk 08:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Done The term "seizure disorder" is a horrible euphemism that should be deprecated,[1] though it has a limited usage;[2] it isn't synonymous with epilepsy. I see some sources/papers use the term "Post-traumatic seizure disorder". This is most unfortunate, and IMO too close to "post-traumatic stress disorder".
•  Done The point to get across in the lead is that epilepsy is defined as "A chronic neurological condition characterised by recurrent epileptic seizures."
•  Done "Immediate and early PTS are also called provoked seizures, while late PTS are called unprovoked seizures." This implies the terms are synonymous, whereas provoked/unprovoked is a classification that may extend to other causes.
•  Done You don't define TBI.
•  Done "Late PTS are present in 5% of people hospitalized with traumatic brain injury." do you mean "will at some point occur in"?
•  Done "For most TBI sufferers," try to avoid the word "sufferer".
  • (Though I dunno if "victim" is any better...) delldot on a public computer talk 07:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Removed delldot talk 08:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Done Seizures are diagnosed clinically and the "post-traumatic" adjective comes from the patient's recent history. The use of MRI/CT scans is to establish what can/should be done.
•  Done You mention a trial of midazolam as an emergency medication to stop the seizures. However, there are well-established drugs used to stop a prolonged seizure. I can't read your source, so don't really know why midazolam is being singled-out. I'm aware that it is establishing a role as a drug for stopping seizures outside of a hospital setting (when given by the buccal route).
  • Removed - probably should stick to established treatments delldot on a public computer talk 08:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• You may want to separate treatment from prevention.
  • You mean have a section for prophylaxis and one for treatment of a seizure in progress? delldot on a public computer talk 08:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Done This article might not fit the disease/disorder suggested sections since it isn't a chronic condition
  • Removing infobox delldot on a public computer talk 08:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

PTE

•  Done Again, try to avoid "seizure disorder" and call this a form of (or cause of) epilepsy. Again, "injury" isn't specific enough.
•  Done I'd argue that surgery is really a form of trauma and should be covered in any discussion of the various injuries.
•  Done Because this is epilepsy, there's going to be some overlap with the main article. You might want to drop sections or aspects that aren't specific to PTE. For example, the classification into generalised and partial.
•  Done "As time goes on" isn't very specific. Can you explain this change? Remember that some generalised seizures can have a partial onset.
•  Done "For unknown reasons, trauma can cause changes in the brain like those found in epilepsy." This is a form of epilepsy, and epilepsy is a very big category. I'm not sure what this statement is trying to say.
•  Done "Antiepileptic drugs prevent seizures within the first week of injury but not after" isn't saying what you want it to. The drugs will (as your first sentence says) prevent seizures as long as you take them. Since this article is about PTE rather than PTS, the patient has a diagnosis of epilepsy and so will almost certainly be started on long-term anticonvulsant therapy (unless surgery is indicated). Perhaps you want to leave the "prophylaxis" controversy to the PTS article, or the prevention section.
  • I assume they mean that use of antiepileptic drugs within the first week of injury prevents sz within the first week but not after (i.e., treating early PTS doesn't prevent PTE), but they don't actually say that. removed. I'll deal with the prophylaxis question in the prevention section (but will have to mention it in PTS too)
• "Brain trauma is the largest cause of epilepsy in young adults." I suspect you mean "largest cause of new cases of epilepsy in young adults". Children with epilepsy grow up.
  • I don't know, the source says "In young adults, TBI is the leading cause of epilepsy," and it cites a book I can't get access to. Hiding it for now. delldot on a public computer talk 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Done See this article too.
• You ask about early/late PTE. My guess is you move from PTS to PTE once they realise it is chronic. This could be after a week of frequent seizures, or after four seizures at 9, 10, 11, 12 months.

-- Colin°^Talk 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness Colin! Thank you so much, I never would have expected such a thorough review, but I'm very grateful for it. I have to go to work right now, but I'll definitely work on your suggestions ASAP. delldot talk 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit of research

Some sources on Google Books

•  Done Yudofsky, Stuart C.; Silver, Jonathan M.; McAllister, Thomas G. (2005). Textbook Of Traumatic Brain Injury. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. pp. 309–321. ISBN 1-58562-105-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Chapter 16 has a section on seizures.

•  Done Swash, Michael (1998). Outcomes in neurological and neurosurgical disorders. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 172. ISBN 0-521-44327-X.
• Dodson, W. Edwin; Giuliano Avanzini; Shorvon, Simon D.; Fish, David R.; Emilio Perucca (2004). The treatment of epilepsy. Oxford: Blackwell Science. pp. 775-. ISBN 0-632-06046-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Chapter 64: Surgery of Post-Traumatic Epilepsy

• Daniel L. Barrow (1992). Complications and sequelae of head injury. Park Ridge, Ill: American Association of Neurological Surgeons. pp. 127–132. ISBN 1-879284-00-6.

Chaptre 8: Post-Traumatic Epilepsy

Jennet's 1975 book ("Epilepsy after Non-Missile Injuries", 2nd Edition, 1975) appears to be the definitive work from which others are based. Its age means that some definitions may have been superseded. If you can get hold of this book, your articles would benefit immensely.

Temkin's 1990 study ("A randomized double-blind study of phenytoin for the prevention of post-traumatic seizures" N Engl J Med 323:497-502, 1990) seems to be the critical study into prophylaxis.

Jennet is responsible for the classification into early and late post-traumatic seizures, with the early form occurring with the first week. This definition still holds. Some have suggested a refinement to consider the first day as another threshold. Several sources state "One third of early seizures occur within the first hour of injury, another one-third within the first day, and the last one-third during the remainder of the first week"

The Textbook Of Traumatic Brain Injury says "Technically, if seizures occur after the first week postinjury and are recurrent, the term post-traumatic epilepsy should be used, but the literature uses the terms posttraumatic seizures and posttraumatic epilepsy interchangeably, and most seem to favor the use of posttraumatic seizures.

I'd say we can classify post-traumatic seizures into two groups: early (within 7 days of injury) and late. The early group can be further subdivided such that immediate seizures occur within 24 hours of injury.

The issue is that if one has epilepsy, then one also has seizures. But one may have seizures without epilepsy (i.e., if they are provoked). It is safer for authors to use the term "seizures" since they are observable unambiguous events that may be counted and dated. The transition from saying "these seizures are caused by the original injury" (provoked) to "these seizures are due to the long-term brain damage" (unprovoked)" is the key to the use of the term "epilepsy". The "one week" threshold is, according to most, rather arbitrary. Your source for the provoked/unprovoked distinction is using the early=provoked late=unprovoked grouping in an approximate manner. They aren't directly equivalent due to the arbitrary nature of the 7 day cut-off.

• Hauser WA, Annegers JF, Kurland LT (1991). "Prevalence of epilepsy in Rochester, Minnesota: 1940-1980". Epilepsia. 32 (4): 429–45. PMID 1868801.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

(not free) This is the definitive epidemiological study of epilepsy, and the one where the 5% figure comes from.

• Garga N, Lowenstein DH (2006). "Posttraumatic epilepsy: a major problem in desperate need of major advances". Epilepsy Curr. 6 (1): 1–5. doi:10.1111/j.1535-7511.2005.00083.x. PMID 16477313.

This reports that one study suggests even a single late seizure should be a strong indication to initiate antiepileptic drug treatment. A few people define epilepsy as a propensity to recurrent seizures rather than have a history of recurrent seizures. That would effectively diagnose these people with epilepsy due to the injury + one seizure.

• Chang BS, Lowenstein DH (2003). "Practice parameter: antiepileptic drug prophylaxis in severe traumatic brain injury: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology". Neurology. 60 (1): 10–6. PMID 12525711.

This is your expert report you need to give current best-practice recommendations on prophylaxis. They recommend prophylactic treatment with phenytoin for one week in cases of severe TBI. They discourage the routing use after 7 days, and make no recommendation for mild to moderate TBI. The paper also contains useful stats.

• Massagli T (1992). "Prophylaxis and treatment of posttraumatic epilepsy with phenytoin". West. J. Med. 157 (6): 663–4. PMID 1475952.

Written after Temkin's 1990 study, this confirms the tradition of one year of prophylaxis but recommends only one week.

• "Post-traumatic epilepsy". Br Med J. 2 (6132): 229. 1978. PMID 98198.

Written between Jennet and Temkin, this is somewhat dated. The stats on 7000 PTE cases per year in Britain are interesting. Without the benefit of later studies, the author's repeat a claim that "100,000 Americans develop epilepsy each year because they have not been given prophylactic anticonvulsants" and suggest it is "prudent to continue [anticonvulsants] for at least two years, after which the drug should be tailed off slowly".

This article contains an interesting quote from Wilder Penfield that the gap between injury and seizure is "a silent period of strange ripening". Might be worth repeating that.

• Jennett WB (1965). "Predicting epilepsy after blunt head injury". Br Med J. 1 (5444): 1215–6. PMID 14275018.

This paper by Jennett predates his 1975 book. The early/late distinction (one week) is present even then. He uses the word "epilepsy" in a way that wouldn't be allowed now (for example, to describe a single generalised convulsion one minute after injury). Epilepsy by definition is not provoked and must be recurrent. I think Jennett is the origin of the misuse of seizures/epilepsy terms. Many later author's have preferred to say "seizures" rather than use his words, leading to a mix of usage.

Colin°^Talk 13:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you are now my favorite person ever. Well, except for Leonard Cohen. Who's really more of a god anyway, so yeah. XD Thank you so much, I'll read the articles and go through your suggestions more thoroughly after I've slept. delldot talk 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if it's not already obvious, you're completely welcome to make any edits to the articles in my userspace if you want. The suggestions are helpful because they help me learn, but I would thoroughly review any changes you made too. delldot talk 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

FINALLY AN ANSWER!!!!!

I can't believe that I got an answer out of out PEOPLE!!!!! And so quickly?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.163.80 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot on a public computer talk 06:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I guess I just felt in the mood to write a lot… :) Kakofonous (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

After leaving you the note, I saw the rest of your talk page, and from the looks of it you are doing an awesome job. Reviewing articles, writing your own... keep up the excellent work. delldot on a public computer talk 06:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your comment over at my talk. I should decide what method I am going to use for talk page responses…sometimes I respond one place, sometimes another. --Kakofonous (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I never know what to do about that either :\ delldot talk 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration

Sorry about being uncivil, this fellow has been removing sections without justification for days and I lost my cool. Thanks for the notice on the possible copyright violation, I'll make the necessary changes. - Schrandit (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Lord willing it will quiet down after a few days, if it doesn't I'll drop you a line. - Schrandit (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Goonadz

Thanks for the note. I tend to try and leave a final warning when I see someone like that, and then watch a bit for them to thumb their noses at it before blocking. Same effect, slightly longer process... still fairly new with the tools, so I'm trying not to run around blocking anything that moves. (Yet.) Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Here's a barnstar for improving Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! The Helpful One (Review) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw, thank you :) delldot talk 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: WS

You could guess who this is.....

Yes, its me! WikiSandbox and i'm replying back to you. I glad you got the message (i got a computer but not Apple).

The template has made good progress so im really happy about that, it can still be expanded though.

The photos are limited to only some locomotives unfortunatly, I can get BL class XR class (if lucky), so I have to travel if i want to get more.

Hey, maybe have a peek at Robinvale railway line, Victoria, it needs alot of expaning, mabye you can help out (the link is provided at the start of sentence) ?

Its good to catch up, reply if neccesary

WikiSandbox1 (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: it was my birthday on 26 Feb

My reply delldot talk 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

As per your question here, yes. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks much :) delldot talk 03:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandal

It linked to something which isn't suitable for all users. It is not vandalising. Please remove the message. Guy0307 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 10:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pants kick

Thanks a lot for remembering... I know I flew off the handle on that one, and since I've got other projects I'm just going to avoid the whole mess for a while. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 21:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you kicking pants delldot! Seriously, though, you're doing great work. (Now to work out why I was here in the first place...) So yeah, keep it up. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 12:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

XD All legwear must cower in fear before my kung fu style. delldot talk 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the feeling... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply is on my talk page. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition: Pipeman

Dear delldot,

Thanks for the note. How quick!

The term "pipeman" was created by me and is sourced from a vanity press publication I wrote and produced for the pipe smoker and collector. It is also a more au courant word form than "pipe man" or "pipe-man." That's evolution for you.

I do take your note on the definition being placed more appropriately in Wiktionary. I will try and place it there, too.

THX

GBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbschrier (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot on a public computer talk 07:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I already received a warning for that

And I will not do it again. The user was Personal attacking me. It is not a proper excuse, and I agree I shouldn't have done it. Guy0307 (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry and thank you. delldot talk 06:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hey!

Not too bad, got another FA recently. And got Twinkle, which is so useful. You? SGGH ^speak! 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, have a good evening, or whatever time zone you are in. SGGH ^speak! 22:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good talking to you again :) delldot talk 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On March 6, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles post-traumatic seizure, and post-traumatic epilepsy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done Delldot! Double strike! Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much!

I certainly appreciate the time you took to perform the review so thoroughly. :o) I'm glad to see the positives were as positive as they were. Something to be said for learning by osmosis after all.

I also appreciate the unflinching not-so-positive criticism. I think even since I posted the request for review, I might have regressed in a few areas, as you pointed out (for instance, once or twice not even making it to two when trying to count to ten before responding). I'm not sure if you looked deep enough into my edit history to see the several instances I apologize to other editors for jumping to wrong conclusions after not doing my homework well enough. I intend to take everything you say to heart.

I'd not seriously considered requesting for administratorship, as my edit count and participation in other areas besides editing are fairly low, also as you noted. In spite of the flashes of temper you've seen (or perhaps in part because of them), I don't believe I have the edge needed for adminship right now; at present, I believe I'll leave that task to those better suited while I try to improve my editing. But we'll see what the future holds.

Thanks again! Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot talk 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hey there,

Thanks for the reminder. I've nearly forgotten about my ER of late! Still though, i would appreciate any feedback on my editing. Late is better than never!

Cheers,

Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 00:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply delldot on a public computer talk 09:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks?!

Hey, nice picture that you have there, it was really unexpected, but made lots of sense. Thank you.

Whoops, looks like someone editing part from me would have made that mistake, it has been fixed though, so dont worry.

Its nice to see you working on stuff like disorders and sicknesses, it helps to know that one day, and it makes a big help too.

Listen dont say anything:

I generally try and remove the reply so that it doesnt waste space, though you probably wrote this explaining why beacuse I tried to go to my talk page via a llnk on the reply, thats why it poped up.

Theer are other stuff including railway station and railway lines that I am working on, that dont exsist, if you have time definatly send a message to me and we can get cracking. If not, well thats your choice, though I would recomend you try to talk to me about what evers you concern....................

Any way I tried to upload images off a website called vicrailstations.com (most of our station photos come from here), if you want to help, that is if you have time, you can send a message and try to get the copywright to us so that we can use it, it would be a help

If anything trobles you, give me a reply and can discuss it

WikiSandbox1 (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ps: I heard that they are completely getting rid of the BG Albury Line and making it SG. Can you tell me if thats true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSandbox1 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply delldot on a public computer talk 07:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx

You are welcome and thank you for the cute little ladybug.— Ѕandahl 06:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, they're cute and all, but really they're fearsome predators, ridding their hunting grounds of damaging pests, and they deserve their propers. XD So thanks for ladybugging :-) delldot on a public computer talk 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on my ER

Must be a good sign! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 10:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Well, that or I'm just oblivious. Probably both XD delldot talk 13:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I, Perfect Proposal, award you this Wiki Cookie for a comprehensive ER. I'll try to take your comments into consideration when making further edits.

Cheers, Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! My first ever wikicookie! Suh-weet! :-P Thank you :-) delldot talk 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:ER?

Hey, I've been off line for a long period of time giving priority to my real life and had forgotten all about it. I would like to hear/read what you have to say and would really appreciate any feedback you can give me. Thanks! --Kimon^talk 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help me!!

Hey, there was someone who made an article called "Pee.Wizard" put Rich Boy's article there and redirected "Rich Boy" to it. Since, I can't really delete the page maybe you could help and possibly block any user that contributed to the page because it is pure vandalism.

Thanks! Chris Iz Cali (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fixed, right? delldot on a public computer talk 06:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15