`  ==Hansi Brand DYK? Nomination== Hello,  I have just responded to your comments hereTemplate:Did you know nominations/Hansi Brandand addressed all of the concerns that you had in regards to this DYK? nomination. Please respond back to me whenever you are able to. Thank you very much.    : Hi, Futurist ... I'm sorry I didn't get back to this, but I see that all was resolved.  Thanks for the quick and amicable resolution!      == Pisco Sour ==  Dear Sandy,  I hope all is well. Pardon the abrupt question, but could you please provide an update on your views at the Pisco Sour FAC?  Best regards. |   : No.      == Tyrannosaurus FA ==  Hi Sandy, I was wondering if you would have a quick look at the Tyrannosaurus article and see if it looks to you to meet current FA standards?  I am wondering whether to initiate a discussion on it with a view towards it needing an FA review as the text to me seems repetitive, handling of units hap-hazard and inconsistent, significant overlinking, and needing some reorganisation.  I would welcome any thoughts you may have, and to be clear I am not asking that you take on the job, I just seek the view of an experienced FA contributor.  Thanks.     : Hi, EdChem ... I'm sorry I have been of so little use in responding to your requests for help lately !  I've been quite busy in real life, so haven't had the time for the sustained commitment needed to review at the FA level, although I can occasionally dip in to DYK for a quick source review.  (Will respond to Tony's DYK issue as soon as I can I'm more concerned about sourcing, padding, and copyvio issues than how interesting hooks are at DYK I think interesting hooks might be a concern if the basic pillars of Wikipedia were being met, and I'm concerned that DYK is still a place where not even basic pillars that apply to all articles are upheld.)   When I was new to Wikipedia, dinosaur articles were all the rage; as often happens, it seems that many of the editors who maintained those articles have moved on.  At a quick glance, I can see numerous problems (as you outlined, including uncited text) with the article, but those problems aren't as bad as many older FAs that typically appear at WP:FAR.  It's not surprising that a high-profile topic like tyrannosaurus would deteriorate after its principle editors move on. Instructions at FAR ask that editors post to the talk page before initiating a review, in hopes that some interested editor will improve the article and remove the need for FAR.  You cannot go wrong by listing some of the obvious issues on talk to see if anyone will surface to work on the article.  If no one surfaces in say a month, I agree that the article probably needs to go to FAR.  But there are so many FAs in so much worse shape ... I digress )  Best,     == Cochrane Library Sign-up ==  Have you seen Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Free_Research_Accounts_from_Leading_Medical_Publisher._Come_and_Sign_up.21?   : Thank you so much for pointing me to that ... if that comes through, it will be immensely helpful to me ... much more so than HighBeam or Jstor, which have turned out to be not very useful for medical editing, although quite useful in other topic areas.  I appreciate the pointer.      Correct link:  Wikipedia:Cochrane.      == Better late than never ==  Hi Sandy - thanks for your email way back when. I've finally gotten around to responding via email - I'm sorry it took me so long. Cheers. ''''''   : And I responded.  I think.  Quite busy here !  Well, if I forgot to respond, it's the thought that counts ???      == Move request ==  Hi, I saw you on the administrators' noticeboard.  Could you please move Wikipedia:Davy Chou to Davy Chou.  As you can see, I made a mistake while moving the page from my user space to article space. Thanks.    : Thank you, Bencherlite!      == Schizophrenia 3RR ==  With respect, I disagree with your statements about my edits on the schizophrenia page. I made significant revisions to this latest version and used the Huntington's disease and Parkinson's disease pages as models for categorizing and referencing my text. Both of those disease pages are similar in length and still included text like the new text I wrote for schizophrenia. Can my text be reconsidered or can you be more specific as to what I need to fix/add to get this information included in the article? Many thanks.    * We need secondary sources that put these  into context.  ·  · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)  * Hello Rmlewinson.  1.  I haven't looked recently at Huntington's or Parkinson's, but knowing the editors involved there, I doubt that they are using primary sources to support that type of text.  As explained to you several times in several discussions, we should use secondary reviews, not primary sources.  2.  In the event those articles are using primary sources, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aka, two wrongs don't make a right.  Because another article may do something against guideline isn't a reason to do it elsewhere. 3.  I realize you want to get that information into the article; please review WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory) and our medical guidelines at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS.  If you can locate secondary reviews that discuss those organizations and their research efforts, then we can discuss on talk whether the information you find should be included, but holding the size of that article to something manageable has been difficult.  You might recall that the topic of research wrt Huntington's was a very important breakthrough (I was living in Venezuela when those discoveries were made, and remember the significance of that research a situation dissimilar to schizophrenia, and discussed in secondary reviews).  Wikipedia is not a directory; important research and support organizations are covered in secondary reviews for many conditions similar to schizophrenia, and we should limit our text to what is important enough to be mentioned in secondary reviews.  It is not our job to provide a directory of all research or all support orgs to readers.  4.  More importantly, when your text additions have been removed once, please do not continue re-adding them without gaining consensus on talk.  Regards,     Thanks very much. This is the kind of explanation I needed. I have found Wikipedia rather difficult to navigate, but this at last makes sense.   : I can relate to that when I was a new editor, I had something to the effect of ``who wrote the manual here`` on my user page for months.  I found the place indecipherable.  I'm glad the explanation was helpful, and appreciate that you took the advice on board.  It's always nice to encounter pleasant editors round here!  The others who have weighed in on talk:schizophrenia are generally experienced medical editors, so if you're ever confused again, going to the talk page of fellow editors for discussion may be helpful.  You can always post questions here even when I'm busy, someone else may be around to help out.  Regards,     Great, thank you again for your gracious responses. I now have hope I can eventually get the hang of this site!   `