Archives
| |
|
Hi, I'm Keilana. I've just accepted the aforementioned MedCom case. I've commented on the Mediation talk page, where mediation will take place. I hope that this mediation will be productive and satisfactory to all. I have asked all participants to make a statement, more details are on the talk page. Regards, Keilana| Parlez ici 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In Reply to: Thanks for your edit to Gastroenteritis re E. coli causing bloody stools; that led me to do a literature search and I found "enterohemorghagic" Escherichia coli and particularly Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157 strains ( PMID 18366637). Is that what you had in mind, or is there more? Nasty! -- Una Smith ( talk) 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Enterohemorghagic E. coli is one stain of E. coli that produces dysentery in gastroenteritis patients. This strain happens to be the most common strain of E. coli producing disease in developed countries. However, there is another strain known as Enteroinvasive E. coli which is rare/uncommon in developed countries that also produces bloody stools.
Murray, Patrick R. (2005-06-033). "Enterobacteriaceae". Medical Microbiology (5th ed. ed.). Mosby. pp. pp.326-367.
ISBN
0323033032. {{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
By reply, yes it's Spring, and finally nice and sunny. So only an hour left here. What are you refering to, wiki-med or the NNT page? I dont know what you do, but actually I am in wiki-Crohns right now, and if you know anything about it, there are big holes there. io_editor ( talk) 20:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the polocrosse references. I did not write the article, just supplied the photos and really needed these references as things were turning out. Cgoodwin ( talk) 03:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
(From my talk page) Your comment is pretty close to a personal attack. According to policy, it is the burden of the person seeking to add information to defend it. I am sorry, but you really do have some truly unique theories of horsemanship and need to accept the consequences for adding data from various fringe theories. Montanabw(talk) 06:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una,
Thanks for your note. I am VERY new in Wikipedia and although I aspire to gain some facility as a Wiki participant, I will make no promises! Actually I have little content expertise in CMO. I started the CMO stub as a way to lure the wife of a good friend of mine to share her considerable knowledge of and passion for the topic, and to get her involved in the Wiki community. Having read the Competitive trail riding page, as well as reflecting on my conversations with Amie and recalling the CMO source material that I used to create the CMMO stub, I have come to conclude that CMO and Competitive trail riding are different enough to deserve seperate entries in Wikipedia. It's possible that CMO would be a sub-category under Trail roding. I will ask Amie to review the CTR page and perhaps weigh in with her observations.
Best regards,
-b. Bwoodson ( talk) 17:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una, I thought you might enjoy this article about stem-cells and horses..... interesting stuff! -- AeronM ( talk) 14:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Me again... two questions: would Beagling qualify as a Project Equine article? (Traditionally it is done on foot, but here in Middleburg, we have the only (as far as I am aware) pack to be followed on horseback.....)... which brings me to question #2: would our beagles (as the only pack to hunt fox and be followed on horseback) be worthy of a separate article? I think they are noteworthy enough.... or do you think they should stay as part of Beagling? Thanks, -- AeronM ( talk) 18:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una, I have another question..... Regarding the Fox hunting article, if a photo is controversial (added for shock value) and the editors are not in consensus regarding it's inclusion, does the photo remain in the article until the dispute is resolved, or out? Also, is this something that should be submitted to RfC? I noticed that on the Abortion page, shock photos were not allowed in the article. Thanks, -- AeronM ( talk) 00:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una,
Thanks for your comment on my talk page, and please continue if you think that a point has been missed or if I'm being unduly harsh or mis-representing Io's actions. I appreciate the dissenting opinion as a good check on something as serious as a RFC or AN/I posting.
I was stalking your talk page - I noticed your 'how to link to pubmed' link. Were you aware if you include the pmid = feature in a citation template that it will put the pubmed # in the reference and link to the abstract? I ask for two reasons - I used to link to pmid and url pubmed abstract, until I was informed they were redundant. I'm also acutely aware that there are many advantages to doing things that I'm totally unaware of and was wondering if there was an added benefit to including the pubmed link? Learning new stuff is fun. Also, were you aware of geo reference generator? Useful for obscure citations, social science and stuff pubmed doesn't spit out. SandyGeorgia also turned this neat isbn finder which is easier than Amazon. I find it handy.
Final comment - have you seen WP:POPUPS? I love spamming things I've found handy. If you use anything except Internet Explorer, User:Wikidudeman's hodgepodge worked very well in the brief time I was able to try it out. WLU ( talk) 01:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I remember your comments during the FAC process for Everglades National Park. I also remember my promise. It is taking me some time, as I knew it would, but I am steadily banging away at Everglades. So far, I have added Etymology, Geology, Climate, and Native American history, including a satellite article for Indigenous people of the Everglades region. I anticipate there will be three more satellites and perhaps four or five. I invite you to critique and make suggestions, please. I would like to take the Everglades article to FAC someday along with all of its satellites. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
regatding you you conflict/mediation with Dreadstar and Keilana i suggest you look at my discussion page... The group you are involved in mediation with always act together..I some times suspect the are all the same person...I also wonder if they just do things to create issues to allow the to play through the process.. I wish you luck kate
100%freehuman (
talk)
16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know I replied to your comment. Thank you for your response to my request on the doctor's mess. Lyrl Talk C 20:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so here we go again. Two things, please: 1) This is English wikipedia. Adding stuff on Spanish and Latin American traditions is nice and interesting, but keep it in context of WP:UNDUE, a guideline that you yourself pointed out to me a while back. 2) On articles where you KNOW we are probably going to disagree, why don't we propose edits on the talk page of the article and sort out if there can be common ground? When we have done this, the overall article usually is the better for it; if you and I can agree, it has to be almost a universal truth!
Oh and another thing: If any of your sources are on Google books or elsewhere online, it would be a courtesy to provide a link in your citation to make verification possible without requiring others to obtain lesser-known texts via a two-week wait for interlibrary loan, with fees. Montanabw (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, Una, keep it civil. The NUMBER ONE rule of Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. I can't stress the importance of talk pages enough in articles where two or more people have strong feelings. I work on the Book of Mormon page because I am from Utah and grew up there (although I'm not LDS). Talk about strong opinions between two mutually opposing camps! But on the Talk page we work out every piece of wording BEFORE it goes to the main page. It has been a very beneficial practice because we have formed (both believers and nonbelievers) very strong bonds between us of respect and a mutual attitude toward "protecting" the article from the casual editors with a POV. This article has (at least) two "caretakers"--you and Montanabw, at least--who want it to be the best, but you come from different viewpoints. It is critical that you work out issues ON THE TALK PAGE. It's simple cut-and-paste once you have agreed on some wording. ( Taivo ( talk) 09:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
At your request I have prepared a first draft for this proposed Article, it is located in a sandbox with that name accessed off my Talk page. Let me know if this is what you envisage and any comments you might have, also feel free to edit it further. It needs some more work and referencing, which might be some time before I get back to it. Jagra ( talk) 00:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for writing this new article. As for the C&T -- yeah, I guess it is a Short-line railroad, as that article specifically mentions tourist RR's. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
See the article talk page. Spencer T♦ C 19:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by this edit of yours, in which you add a pile of links to pages that don't exist. I haven't examined them, but are they perhaps like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Japan articles by quality statistics? If so, are you proposing to create and maintain them? (You'd be welcome to do so!) -- Hoary ( talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have inserted a speedy delete tag into the image file on Wikipedia and copied the description from Wikipedia to Commons. -- Bowlhover ( talk) 00:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am referencing the bottom of the article of segregated cycle facilities "[edit] Cycle facilities in promoting recreational cycling" and the sentence "In the US, the Rails-to-Trails program seeks to convert abandoned railroad beds to recreational trails." And if you refer back to discussions of the article's naming, segregated cycle facilities is the term that gained common consensus of any pathway dedicated to bicycling. Thus under this "global" definition, rail trails are segregated cycle facilities. And seeing that no one has challenged the inclusion of rail trail text into the original article would suggest consensus on this as well. So it is not suggested they are, they indeed ARE segregated cycle facilities, only that in America this is not the universal term. .:DavuMaya:. 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una. I have boldly removed this part of your response to the IP editor at Talk:Rotavirus as that could, unfortunately, clearly be construed as medical advice. I hope that's OK with you (removing your response entirely as done by another editor certainly wasn't a good idea); per WP:TALK, removing content not necessary to discussing improvement of the article is acceptable, and I think removing that particular note to the anon doesn't detract from the rest of your comment. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 16:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Hidden Page Barnstar | |
I award you one for catching the bleedover. (I missed the closing }}.) Thanks. Trekphiler ( talk) 01:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
I've replyed to you at Talk:Iridescence. You may delete this post since its purpose is only to draw your attention to the reply. Garvin Talk 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
under the Terms of the Commons [2] the LOGO fair use category does not allow the upload. ARBAY ( talk) 20:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the section! Nyttend ( talk) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I addressed most but not all of your concerns on
v:Talk:Clinical case nr. 2, could you comment on my changes and replies? Discussions like this might be very educational, and after all, that's what these cases are intended for.
-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 22:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
We've addressed your concerns here, please review. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out how I can get the Statisical Summary to update. I don't know what I did or didn't do. I followed the instructions and I ran the bot and it did't give me a number on update the thing or anything. HELP!!! Here is the link to the one I am talking about. The statistics are for the WikiProject Arena Football League. Cra sh U nderride 22:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw how you messed up the Project page for WP:Arena Football League. lol, Nah, I'm just kiddin'. :D Cra sh U nderride 21:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please fix the about 10,000 links now pointing to the disambiguation? -- jergen ( talk) 07:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
...and so I started the article metastasectomy, so I was hoping you could have a read and do some copy-editing... -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 18:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Your valuable input is needed here please thankyou very much . ARBAY ( talk) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bug you, but I wasn't sure if I'd addressed your concerns about pulmonary contusion at the FAC. When you said "needs more copyediting", was it just in reference to the issue with using different terms, or was it more general? Did I interpret your comment about substitution of terms correctly? Any comments you have are most welcome (of course). Thanks much for the help so far. Peace, delldot talk 15:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Tumor#Recent edits are confusing, will be reverted soon. Emmanuelm ( talk) 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to create some interwiki Orienteering links, I have noticed that the IOF does not an Article on most WikiProjects, I have created one on the French wiki, could you possibly create a Spanish and German Articles. I will Try to create the Chinese one oaky thanks ARBAY TALKies 23:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Presenting, 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 should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 15:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Una Smith I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject ( talk) 08:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una,
Thanks for your comment. Yes, the research has been approved by the IRB, although I confess that my colleagues in the nursing school are spearheading things on that end. I believe we obtained an exemption, given the relatively low risk to participants. I can find more details if you'd like.
-JK
Thank you so much for your review. I posted some questions regarding your comments and, if you have time, would be most grateful for additional clarifications.
Thanks again!
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 15:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Una. You deserve a barnstar. (By the way, I can't find your archived Talk pages.) Axl ( talk) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Medicine Barnstar | |
To Una Smith, for numerous contributions to medical articles. Axl talk 6 August 2008 |
OK Una, what shall we do to straighten this out between ourselves rather than running off and dragging in a bunch of third parties again? It's obvious that we seem to rub each other the wrong way, so what do we do about it? Montanabw (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I am curious about the horse used for Image:Saddle-crupper.jpg. It appears to have some white hairs or roaning around its flanks. I am wondering if it has other traits of a rabicano? If so, do you have another photo of this animal that shows more of the horse and more roaning?? (I'm assuming from the tail that the horse is an Arab or part-Arab, and rabicano shows up in Arabs) I'd like to consider adding that image to the rabicano article, but not unless the horse really does have rabicano traits...I am assuming you have some knowledge of the animal...?? Montanabw (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you pass by the talk page? -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You promoted this to GA status, did it have a formal review or nomination? Would you still call this a GA now? -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 18:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you put the GA review of Ring-tailed Lemur on hold today, but gave no comments. Where there specific improvements you are looking for? If so, please post them on the talk page. Getting this article to GA status is my highest priority, so just tell me what you want to see and I'll work on it. - Visionholder ( talk) 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious about how you came to the conclusion in your GA review of Ficus maxima that "90% of the content concerns figs in general, not Ficus maxima". Based on straight text (no header, no figures, no refs, no taxobox...all of which is F. maxima-heavy information) I came up with 1675 words, 8939 characters. After the "general" information (reproductive behaviour that's sourced to general references, information about taxonomy of the genus and subgenus) I have 1451 word, 7684 characters.
I am puzzled by your review. Guettarda ( talk) 17:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for complaining and then disappearing. Real-world work caught up with me. Thanks for the clarification at Talk:Ficus maxima - I can work with feedback like that. Guettarda ( talk) 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You suggested during the FAC for Samuel Johnson to have a chronology. I like that idea. I will try to produce one while working on a list of complete works (or, publications at least). Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Una, thanks for stepping to get this GA review back on the road - and for the challenges, they were fun and I'll do my best to remember them. -- Philcha ( talk) 15:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una, I would suggest that if Horse comes up for GA again that you ought not to be the reviewer. In fact I have to confess I was surprised to discover you were the GA reviewer this time. You've been in conflict with a number of the primary contributors to the article (you started a WP:WQA on Montanabw for example), and you yourself have made some edits so I'm not sure you necessarily are dispassionate enough when it comes to horse related subjects. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Lar wrote: I have been investigating your behaviour
Following on from this discussion, I offer you this possible solution: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_new_nomination_process. Thanks for listening. GDallimore ( Talk) 08:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I see you've had some trouble with tin-pot wannabe dictators...& that you've been interested in articles on hiking trails and medicine. You may or may not be sympathetic to a problem regarding an article on so-called Wilderness Diarrhea that a couple of zealots want to merge with Travelers Diarrhea.
I've gone balistic and no longer wish to participate in the discussion. But an article of interest to hikers is effectively going to get killed. Calamitybrook ( talk) 16:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice edits. It is very close to being ready for review. I will continue trying to improve the article and I will add some more info to the Wikiproject Orienteering talk page. Anonymous101 ( talk) 12:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
On New Mexico split you suggested that we move the tourist attractions to WikiTravel. There's a snag, though, because Wikipedia and WikiTravel have incompatible licenses for their content and it is not in general possible to transfer content from one to the other; see for example WikiTravel licensing. Do you have other information that indicates the content could be transferred? If not, do you have other suggestions for the list of tourist attractions? Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Two approaches:
Either way, technically it is not a direct move, but a deletion on one site and addition of much the same information on the other site. -- Una Smith ( talk) 23:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Route choice (orienteering) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
TallNapoleon (
talk)
22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the HANGON tag does not replace the SPEEDY tag. Please use it like so:
{{db-(topic)}}
{{hangon}}
Thanks! ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez
Get to know me! /
Talk to me!←at≈:→
22:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for listing the DYKs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orienteering. I do not know about other than those two DYKs that focus on orienteering. It is a bit cumbersome to search through the archives though, because they are split into so many files. I have just nominated your recent article, Control point (orienteering), for DYK (as a triple nomination along with Bromma kyrka and Spånga kyrka, which I used in the suggested hook). So you can probably expand the trophy list in a few days. Just be patient, not much will happen until about 4th or 5th October. The hook facts are cited in the article and supported by the reference, and your article satisfies all other requirements as far as I can judge. But if somebody raises an issue, it's best to solve that right away. Oceanh ( talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC).
If you are still interested in reaching a consensus at WP:MEDRS which could include your views, please at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Steps_towards_consensus, answer the following questions posed by Kim Bruning:
Paul Gene ( talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you an Albuquerquean? — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una! OK, I can accept the map board entry if we note that it is used in some orienteering variants. After all, I have done ski-orienteering for 23 years too, and used it in every race! :-) However, as the article mostly deals with the basic properties of orienteering, and the minimal setup is that of foot-o, which has more starts than all the other variants combined, I feel that this entry is somewhat awkward. The current entry gives the false impression that you would see map board among foot-o orienteers, (which is not the case, I have a lot of experience in this area). Therefore it would probably better fit in a section for specialised equipment for each variant. Alas, I have insufficient time to make the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetil ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
– RyanCross ( talk) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Foot orienteering, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ppgracing.pl/?title=Orienteering. 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 ( talk) 16:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I hope you aren't thinking I am being too contrary. I simply am trying to get clarification (while pointing out/defending why I presented the article as I did. I just need some specifics of where you think I need to take this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una, just letting you know that I again parked all the stuff about neck ropes on the talk page. We have a real difference of opinion on this issue, and until it is resolved, this material should stay on the talk page. I kept the pictures and everything intact, and I would like us to have a civil discussion in good faith about why you think that Australian neck collars are fiadors. I also cleaned up some other material in the main article. I liked your new material on the definition and origins of the term, that was well done. And by the way, the edits on Frentera were very nice. Montanabw (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
I have been working on
Fiador (tack) all day long, making some complex changes, including large structural changes. I am far from done. Montanabw has now twice reverted my work, despite my tagging the article {{inuse}}. Would someone please ask Montanabw to back off? --
Una Smith (
talk)
02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Two articles out of the one hundred and fofty or so I have patrolled today. Firstly, I suggested a reference of the orienteering article to stop it going to afd. Perfectly acceptable. Second I tagged the article with two items and on reflection decided it met, in my opinion, criteria for speedy deletion. Maybe you would like to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wp:bite. After spending nearly two hours patrolling pages and then being referred to as vandal is a little bit rich. If you care to take a look at my articlces created you will see I am a very constructive editor. Similar types of articles to the one you clearly have objected to my tagging. Waterden ( talk) 16:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for starting the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy delete taggers are getting out of hand. I'm sure many editors believe this is an important issue. Johnfos ( talk) 03:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una -- Hey, thanks for working up the Pawtuckaway State Park article into something that was DYK-worthy. It was a nice touch to add that mistaken meteor-impact impression from the Concord Monitor. I haven't done much orienteering but did go one time at Pawtuckaway and enjoyed the assortment of mega-boulders strewn through the woods -- made for a memorable course! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
— Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
See talk page of leag (leg) article. I explained why the photo has been removed. Montanabw (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pawtuckaway-ring-dike-Google-Earth.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Veggy ( talk) 02:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The picture should not be renamed. It's existed since October 2006. The file on Commons with this name was just uploaded TODAY. So since this image has existed for over 2 years, it should stay with the name and the commons one should be changed. TJ Spyke 15:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) ( talk) 02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
In what way does this mean a footpath\trail? Simply south ( talk) 14:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed this edit you made in which you appear to reject another user who is offering to compromise on some long-running dispute you have had. It seems like this would be an offer you would do better to accept. Please think about it if you can, and let me know if I can help you in any way. -- John ( talk) 01:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I have requested that Weymouth, Dorset be moved back to Weymouth. Please leave any comments you may wish to add to the discussion here. Thanks. BarretBonden ( talk) 13:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Una: I strongly suggest you not change any links until the move request is resolved. Your move seems to have been not well received, the vast majority of comments suggest it be undone. In future you should seek consensus first. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there a wikipedia article that explains heeling? ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs)
Hello Una, what exactly are you looking for? There is an article on Obedience training. Heeling can be just getting your dog to walk with you, or the highly formalised competitive training sport called "obedience", which has very exact requirements for heeling in the ring (see Obedience trial). Also see Clicker training. The term heeling is also used to refer to a style of livestock herding, where a small dog nips at the heels of large animals (usually cattle) to get them to move (see Herding dog.) -- Hafwyn ( talk) 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me... just wondering what you were looking for.-- Hafwyn ( talk) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it's the hothead from AD (no, not OM). I noticed you passed by the Ireland taskforce - not somewhere you'd want to lay down a towel. You voted in a couple of polls, but the 'compromise poll' we are finally deciding on - Ireland/(state]/(island) - was about half way up the page. I don't know if you passed it or not (not everyone voted on all 3), but I thought I'd inform you as you easily could have missed it, and I know you voted for 'Ireland (island)', which is the main change I want to see myself. You were unsure about the name of the state, I think (so maybe you did let it pass). It is currently very close, anyway (change needs 2/3 to pass and I think it's on that) - so it could be a dramatic ebay-style ending! It looks like a neutral admin is coming in to decide the closing date.-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that - I've been staring at it for about 10 mins but am dropping off! I'll have to look at it again in the morning - it seems to make good sense! One thing I will add tomorrow (if it still makes sense) is that I personally think that most people use Ireland meaning the state (even though Ireland is supposed to be the islands article_). That could make it even more of a catch all. Possibly.-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 21:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you see the disam page Requested Move poll started on Talk:Ireland? (and on Talk:Ireland (disambiguation), though not sure why it was both - it is moving that to Ireland). I felt it was rash at the time, and it looks like it is probably going to fail - but I thought you might want to vote, given your support for the idea at the taskforce. Your reasoning has been quoted quite a lot. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Quoting you from Talk:Yonsei#Primary Topic: "That is why there is a trend toward moving disambiguation pages to the ambiguous title."
Where is this being discussed? (John User:Jwy talk) 18:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Una Smith. Ya hit the nail perfectly. Ireland must be the disambig page. Neither the country nor the island articles should have the title. GoodDay ( talk) 17:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the survey at Talk:Los Angeles County, California#Requested move. I've asked some questions there to clarify what your position is. As I'm sure you know, consensus is best reached through discussion, and I invite you to join the discussion on this issue by answering these questions (ideally with an open mind). Thank you. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Why do you remove reasons for move requests at WP:Requested moves? The reasons are requested in the template that creates the move request. - Rrius ( talk) 19:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I found a picture: Image:Polo 070922 18-crop.jpg cropped by you. I sent a message into the talk page of the original author, but I didn't get an answer so far. My idea is to tag that interesting picture that's so exemplar dealing with with horse controversies... I'm a "ironfree" rider (barefoot and bitless). In brief: I added a Commons:Category:Controversial animal use and I added both pictures, the original and the cropped one, to that category. I'd like to use a stronger Category, but I discussed it in to Commons Village Pump and I think that I found a good compromise. Your opinion would be welcome. -- Alex_brollo Talk| Contrib 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you think about moving the judge to a page without his initial so that he can have a page without a parenthetical disambiguation?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have filed this Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute and named you as one of the involved parties. I would appreciate it if you could make a 500-word-or-less statement there. -- Evertype· ✆ 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Una. Sorry this is so long, but I would really like to understand what you're trying to accomplish with respect to dab pages and ambiguous topics, and why, so that we can stop butting heads as we seem to have been doing. I've read your comments in a number of places, and I can't make sense of why you hold the position that you seem to hold.
First, I have no beef with having a dab page at an ambiguous name when that name has no primary topic. But primary topic says that when there is a primary topic, "that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article". What does that mean to you? Let's take an example, say Harrisburg, and assume that the capital in PA is the primary topic. To me those quoted words mean that the article about the PA capital needs to be at Harrisburg, or it's somewhere else (like Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), and Harrisburg needs to be a redirect to that other location. Do we agree that that is what "should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article" mean, when applied to Harrisburg (and assuming it is a primary topic)?
What you seem to believe (please, correct me if I'm wrong) is that any ambiguous term (or almost any ambiguous term), even if it has a primary topic, should either be a dab page, or redirect to one (after all, you've even argued that London should have been a dab page, but it's too late now). So in this case you believe that, since Harrisburg has more than one meaning, and despite the PA capital being its primary meaning, that Harrisburg should be a dab page, or at least that Harrisburg redirect to Harrisburg (disambiguation) and not to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Right?
If I understand your position correctly, can you explain why you think anything would be improved by this? Especially for the reader? The whole point of the primary topic convention is so that anyone who types in London or Harrisburg will go directly to the page they are very likely looking for, and not to a dab page (at the cost of sending those who are looking for the more obscure meanings to also be sent to the article about the primary topic, and requiring them to click on a hat note link to get to the dab page). Why would you want to send users to a dab page when they are very likely looking for the primary topic (by definition)? That's what I can't understand. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 03:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that you asked me (at Talk:Harrisburg) the following question: "Do you assume that for every ambiguous title there exists a primary topic". That section is now archived, so I answer here.
My answer is: of course not. For one thing, there are countless examples of dab pages sitting at ambiguous titles. Some ambiguous titles have primary topics, others do not (e.g., orange is a dab page, but lemon is not; Portland is a dab page, but Harrisburg is not). I really don't even have an idea of what the ratio is, though I assume the number that do have primary topics is relatively high since many or perhaps even most article titles are ambiguous. Every article which is at Name (disambiguation) implies the existence of an ambiguous name with a primary topic at [[Name]]. For example, Lemon (disambiguation) the dab page and Lemon the primary topic. Similarly, every dab page which sits at Name , like America the dab page, implies the existence of an ambiguous name (in this case "America") for which no primary topic exists. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
So, are you going to asnwer my questions above yet? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I answered your comment on Steve Harris's talk page. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 06:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Another answer. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 08:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Top of the morning to you. I saw your tone tag added to Calculus (dental) and wish to fix the matter, but can't see anything actionable wrong with the article's tone or style. Could you go into more detail about your concern? If not, feel free to ignore this message and I'll remove the tag after a few days. Thanks. -- Kiz o r 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 13:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the vicarage was near Southgate, but Southgate was itself created a parish in 1851 from Edmonton, rather than Enfield, [3] so presumably the vicarage was still within Enfield proper. Cresswell was given the living, so whatever applies to Rich must apply to him as well. (See [4] which locates Rich's memorial.) Gallacher's title appears to apply to the borough, and I've linked Cadogan to the town, since the borough didn't exist at the time. Choess ( talk) 14:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed Adam (Bible) has recently been moved to Adam, contrary to a previous move discussion, and without a subsequent discussion or notice at WP:RM. I know you are keeping track of this kind of thing, so I thought I'd point it out. I was thinking of reverting the move, but not sure if that is appropriate. Sam5 ( talk) 20:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I am watching you sort the sections on that page—thank you so much! kilbad ( talk) 00:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you understand what a post town is? Please do not vandalise the list by adding false information. 91.85.166.159 ( talk) 09:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
It is considered impolite to edit someone else's talk page without signing or making clear precisely what you're adding or deleting. Station1 ( talk) 08:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, FYI that addition Talk:Adenosine_triphosphate#factoid:__why_keep is being discussed here. All the best Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad ( talk) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
See note on talk page to discuss the changes rather than reverting. Thanks. -- KP Botany ( talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Tiptoety talk 04:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
[5] -- KP Botany ( talk) 05:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Tumbleweed (diaspore), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. KP Botany ( talk) 02:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if you saw it . But I created a WP orienteering Stub template (see my talkpage) yesterday its now up for deletion I just wondered what your opinion was regards and happy new year. 安東尼 TALK 圣诞快乐 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know if you need any help with this. Gwen Gale ( talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping by. Yes, I took some pictures under a microscope and will try to find the better ones to fit in the articles that need it. I ran into the Requested pictures category and that prompted the move. Again, thanks for the tap on the back. Bobjgalindo ( talk) 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Una. Just noticed your bio. on Born2cycle. I just assumed that he was an admin when he responded to my request. I've been trying to make editors on the 'Roma people' page aware of issues I don't think were considered when this article name was revived. Am I over-reacting? Will the Google searching issue 'fix' itself in time? The last thing I want is another series of RM's to accommodate an article on 'the Roma'. Perhaps I haven't been expressing my concerns too clearly, or maybe I'm seeing difficulties where there really aren't any. Any advice appreciated. The Roma (ethnonym) suggestion looks very interesting. Should I bring it up now at the Talk page or wait for the RM to go through? RashersTierney ( talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message at Talk:Battle of the Strait of Otranto. This isn't a sensible practice, and I've warned the editor responsible. Nick-D ( talk) 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that you have done a good job with this difficult article. Some mention in the actual article about spinal injuries would improve the article though. Drownings are a lesser issue and have involved various situations. I don't have any citations and really don't think that it warrants inclusion, now. At least the male injuries have now been mentioned to add some balance. Cgoodwin ( talk) 08:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, and thanks for your note and link. Tameamseo ( talk) 16:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see what I can do.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 12:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your comment at the Paracetamol FAR. Paracetamol is indeed metabolized through several pathways: the least prominent one produces toxic NAPQI, and all others (which account for 85 to 95% of metabolism) produce inactive, non-toxic metabolites. This does not mean paracetamol is a prodrug (although it might be, its mechanism of action is still unclear), neither does it mean NAPQI can be formed by several pathways in the liver (it can't). How is this unclear in the article? Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 11:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for interfering somewhat, but on balance I think it's probably better to hold off from making changes a little until things are a bit clearer than to end up with the page protected and having to wait a lot longer. Looking at the discussion I get the feeling that it is close to an agreement, so it shouldn't be long -- Gurch ( talk) 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced material to articles being prepped for FA, and then ask others to find the sources or tag the newly added material, as you did at Horses in warfare. To do so is disrespectful of the contributions of others. Instead, find a source for each proposed addition before you add it, and make sure you have consensus for your addition if there is any chance it will be controversial or will take an article in a direction counter to prepping it for FA, or you will find yourself properly reverted. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, the equine template name move was fine, but removing it from all the breed articles was not. Can you please replace it on ALL the breed and type articles you removed it from? If you don't want to do so due to your opinion about the role of templates and nav boxes, then add List of horse breeds to ALL of them, that list is the navigation cross-reference to every breed and "type" article we have in wikipedia. One or the other. Your call. But please fix the mess you just made. Thank you. Montanabw (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox does not look like a truce to me, and per the edit history Montanabw started it before waiting for any reply to her "truce" proposal. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Una, Sorry I was actually talking mainly to Montanbw there, saying that the history doesnt show you working the article until this recent group of changes.-- Kevmin ( talk) 07:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You gave me a good laugh by putting flying ambulances under artillery. A salut to you with the big healing howitzer. Greetings Wandalstouring ( talk) 08:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears I've been making myself misunderstood a bit too often. This wasn't really an improvement—Pseudomonas is very, very, very rarely associated with necrotizing fasciitis. I mean, there have been like a dozen cases reported in the literature if I recall correctly. What I meant by my comment over at WT:MED was that very dramatic cases such as this one are really not that uncommon—many people who develop necrotizing fasciitis, for instance, have equally dramatic and unfortunate disease courses. I did not mean to imply that necrotizing fasciitis is caused by Pseudomonas, and I'm sorry if my comment led to any confusion behind your edit. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 18:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Una – just to say I like your improvements to Landrace – clearer and better. Richard New Forest ( talk) 11:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Una,
Thanks for your comments on the Sorraia GA review. Please keep in mind that it is important to remain civil, and avoid unnecessarily inflammatory language. Calling another users good faith contributions "nonsense" is inappropriate. You may not agree with the statement, and it may be wrong, but its not nonsense. Nonsense means that it is a statement devoid of meaning. Please be polite and ensure that your posts aren't unnecessarily offensive. Thanks
-- Thesoxlost ( talk) 00:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
So sorry. It was not a comment about the contribution, but about the theory. Not everything published in a book merits repeating on Wikipedia. Anyway, I will gladly refactor it. Would you like me to do that? Perhaps you would like to refactor your remark "has Una in a huff"? -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Una, thank you for alerting me to activity on the review of the Sorraia article. I'll spend some time looking over the concerns and alterations and will offer a comment if I cannot sit on my hands. That's the beauty of the internet, it doesn't matter if my mouth utters declarations of affront, unless my hands get involved, allowing fingers to tap out these utterances, they dissipate with only the dogs and cats and fine husband wondering what the fuss is all about. It should be noted, I am not an aspiring Wiki editor and, I don't necessarily possess a NPOV, but I do represent a desire to get as much "verfiable" information on Wikipedia as regards the Sorraia. Selona ( talk) 00:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Una, there was no need to create a new category for feral horse "breeds" then randomly assign half the feral horse articles into it. We have the feral horse category and the horse breeds category. If people consider a particular animal to belong in both, that is the thing to do, just assign relevant categories, not create a new one that only makes it harder to use categories to find things. There is no governing body out there for what makes a horse "breed" a "breed," a "landrace" or a "type", hence your new category not only makes navigation more difficult, but your assignment of articles was unsourced OR and, as far as I can tell, random. You also are putting in breeds that are for the most part domesticated with a few feral animals still roaming around somewhere. From here forward, would you PLEASE run some of your organizational ideas past WikiProject Equine before implementing them? You are wreaking absolute havoc on the organizational scheme of the horse articles and doing so with no consensus or collaboration. Wikipedia is a community and as a community, we need to work together. Thank you. Montanabw (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Una, would you be so kind to move back Tarpan to its original page? The move was not discussed and is controversial, just like the move of Wild horse. I know from reading the discussions everywhere that you like to make each and every page with multiple topics the disambig page, but that policy change has been rejected by most editors, and to go on unilaterally is disruptive and counter productive. So, please be so kind to undo your unilateral move of Tarpan. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
... because as long as you continue to try to de facto change Wikipedia policy without discussing the change and gaining community consensus I will continue to keep pointing it out to people wherever and whenever I see you do it. I have opened a space for you. Now, get over to AN/I and file away. Hurry, hurry. [6] -- KP Botany ( talk) 08:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Una, it is general practise not to bold scientific names, just use italics. if you want to change that, please take it up at the appropriate wikipedia wikiproject, guideline or policy place. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No prob! Anything to further the cause of science on WP. :P Shrumster ( talk) 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't know what my answer is. I agree that you're right as far as applying the disambiguation rules go. I also agree that, based on what I believe about the rights of WikiProjects to name their subjects, that they're right. The problem is that I don't care about rules, I care about what would work best. And I don't think that either a dab page or the current page are actually the best choice. I think we need a new idea. Guettarda ( talk) 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for getting back so late; I was preoccupied with some plant hybridization stuff. But I checked what refs I had, and there was litle immediately useful. The one book I mentioned earlier in the horse evo discuz is basically where it's at.
I have refs galore on certain prehistoric taxa; Equid for example should not be, in the end, the modern genus Equus only but include all the stem genera. For those taxa I have found quite some stuff (hence my earlier gripes). Something along the lines of Phoenicopteriformes#Evolution. I'll annotate-in the refs by and by, so there'll be the odd new source every now and then & can progress as you see fit. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
In the future, please do not make page moves that are quite obviously against consensus. If you did not feel this move was controversial, as you claim, please, in the future, discuss all page moves before making them, as clearly it was in this case. It can be disruptive to be constantly moving pages, and discussion of page moves beforehand helps abate that. Prodego talk 03:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, will take a look at it over the next couple of days. I think the best way to deal with the situation is to gather all the relevant publications and journal articles so we can sort out the mess ourselves. Shrumster ( talk) 12:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I have reverted your edits, and asked them to be discussed first at the talk page. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Una, you (and perhaps others) have been linking repeatedly to WP:PRIMARY (which is about primary, seconday, and teriary sources) when I'm sure you mean WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 14:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion has been moved to Talk:Equus ferus ferus#More tarpans. -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Una, I just wanted to stop by and say that I support the idea of systematically turning ambiguous common names into disambiguation pages. For the past few years, I've been doing exactly that for all of the binomial snake articles I've been working on. It's fun, it's logical and it's as orderly as I imagine is possible. On top of that, I've discovered that I could even get away with this for some of the most high-profile snake names, such as Anaconda and Cobra, so long as I create some nice SIA pages for them instead of the usual bland disambiguation format. However, I say "get away," because I've always known that this is controversial. That's why we so badly need a new naming convention for all of our natural history articles. Once that's been approved, with any luck we'll be able to take this strategy as far as we want. Cheers, -- Jwinius ( talk) 11:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Una,
What is the significance of your recent addition to Grey Wolf? The Opinion 2027 article is just a vague description and a list of species.
-- Thesoxlost ( talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The creation of this redirect into a dab should have been discussed first as you have been asked countless times to do. I reverted it. Please discuss the change on the dab's talk page before redoing this. -- KP Botany ( talk) 08:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I edited the Treatment section of the
Hyperuricemia page. I saw in the history you have done a lot of work on it. As a particular, I removed the cleanup tag that I believe you added on 19 Dec 08. I'd be happy to talk with you if you have concerns about any of the things I changed.
Spookmaster (
talk)
10:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, please, please - stop editing without collaboration or at the very least considering previous discussions on the topic. It was a small battle to "dumb down" the lede and change that oppose to neutral so PLEASE don't make any more edits that (even if unintentionally) add complexity to the article. I do believe you raise valid points, sometimes, but I think that WP:BOLD need not be instituted until discussion has passed on the topic. Clearly I and Graham Colm disagreed on some of your views, and thankfully you haven't taken the progressive to make an eytiology section. Again, I urge you to allow collaboration to run it's due course - if the community believs the points you raise are valid than surely they will support you in pressuring I (and anyone else who wishes to contribute) to make the necessary edits. Thank you. FoodPuma 02:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your edit to the name of the image, because I thought that your edit had stopped the image showing. However, to my dismay it made no difference. After some digging around, I eventually worked out why it really stopped showing - it got added to the Bad Images List on 27 Feb and is only allowed on the scrotum article. I've requested that it also be allowed on the testicle article. Hopefully, that should fix it. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 07:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this article. I just wanted to let you know, if you need resources or information for expanding the article, User:CostelloDc has a lot of stuff (he might be more easily reachable by e-mail). There is a lot of coverage online and stuff, I just don't have much time to work on the article myself right now. Anyway, thanks again, and happy editing. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 03:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me, Una, for my position towards you. In all honesty I felt threatened by you, as if you were looking for ways to prevent OCD from making FA. Looking back on it now, I realize it was a foolish and immature response to criticism. My teacher even warned me not to take the reviews I received during FA as personal, and yet I still did. I am sorry, Una, I prejudged you based on your critiques of my peer's article on the Banker Horse (which I read because it is on my watch list). At the same time I thank you for bearing with me; surely without your edits (most notably the recent contributions), OCD would probably have failed it's FAC.
Saying sorry and admitting one's wrong doings is a hard thing, Una, so please accept this - it couldn't be more sincere. :-\ FoodPuma 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
-- Maen. K. A. ( talk) 21:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Una Smith. Thank you for taking the time to reviw the article. I responded your comment on DYK nomination page. Best wishes.-- mbz1 ( talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)