Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 28 August 2009 (→Blocked: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DYK for Anethole

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anethole, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for self-microemulsifying drug delivery system

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article self-microemulsifying drug delivery system, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lac de Monteynard Avignonet

On March 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lac de Monteynard Avignonet, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

For the love of dabs

Una, Since you like dabs maybe you have time to sort through this mess at East Friesian, which was a redirect to the sheep, as was the redirect at the top of the article about the region, although it was listed as a redirect to the horse. I only know about wild horses, and possibly at least one other horse breed should be at this dab. A picture of East Fresia is slated to be the POD soon, and I wanted to see the image in an article when I stumbled upon this. If you don't have time, someone else will dabble, I'm sure. --KP Botany (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the mess you want fixed? On the dab page, or in the links to it? Also, does this mean you are over whatever it was that led you to do that AN/I thing? Being your target got me, uh, further targeted. Blood in the water attracts sharks, KWIM? --Una Smith (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I never hold grudges, because it's too hard to keep track of them when there's so much chum in the water.

What I would like you to do is check the dab I created and see if there is anything urgently in need of fixing, not necessarily the links to and from it and its articles, as that is mere tedium, but if there are additional horses, like the Fresian that should properly be on that page. In other words, an editorial decision about the usefulness of what should be on the dab.

I usually don't ask other editors to clean up tedious messes, just important messes that may keep readers away from finding the articles they would like to read. As Misplaced Pages has a number of good horse articles on modern breeds, in spite of the difficulties in that area, making sure that interested readers can properly navigate to those articles is, in my opinion, an important task. Once I created the redirect, I realized there is probably a Fresian, and, yup, there is. Should it be on that page also? Or is it a rare breed and unlikely the mistake is to be made? I know about horse evolution and taxonomy, but not about modern breeds, so I can't really do anything about necessary additions. --KP Botany (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You never hold grudges, but do you ever apologize? I fixed up East Friesian for you, and some related articles while I was at it. --Una Smith (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, but usually forgetting what the whole deal is about precludes a genuine apology. I would have to research your involvement, my involvement, who said what when, etc., etc.

I do know I disagree with how you handle disambiguating certain very common terms, however, I also know you're likely to create an inclusive dab that will be useful to readers attempting to hit the right page for more obscure topics. This is what I take from my interaction with you, the last point, and, since we're both here to create an encyclopedia I think a compliment is better than an apology. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

PS Thanks. It looks great. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Look again. I had "deja vu all over again", and realized I'd previously made East Frisian. --Una Smith (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I had meant to check East Frisian, as that is the spelling I'm more familiar with, and I didn't! (I'm compiling and debugging thousands of lines of code.) --KP Botany (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Debugging after compiling, ew. I am a fan of Donald Knuth. --Una Smith (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

From the edit history I see I never edited (or at least never saved an edit) to East Frisian; I worked on Frisian. Nevermind. --Una Smith (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspension bridge

Here you are: File:Bridge-suspension-simple.svg File:Bridge-suspension-nonsimple.svg. I guess these two are mostly useful when shown together. Tizio 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They are lovely; thank you so much! --Una Smith (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rodeo article

I've entered some material in the Rodeo article about Mexican charreada and Chilean rodeo in order to set the article on the road to a worldwide perspective. Should be an interesting article when other nations are investigated. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work. You might let Cgoodwin know as well. --Una Smith (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple suspension bridge

Nice expansion. I do think that the original lead image was better, perhaps the diagram could replace the next image (lattice sides), which does not have sufficient resolution to show the details.

Thanks for the notice, Leonard G. (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I changed the infobox image to a photo that shows the key design elements of this type of bridge, and removed the blurry image. --Una Smith (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Input requested

== Input requested ==

Hi, your are listed in WikiProject Bridges and I wondered if you might want to weigh in on a requested move? There is a discussion here Talk:Suspension_bridge_types#Requested_move which results from a previous move. The discussion has major consequences on the content of the main article on suspension bridges? The root question: Is a suspended deck bridge the proper name for a typical suspension bridge? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That question is a red herring, unrelated to the requested move.¢Spender1983 considers them to be related. I grant that the article now at Suspended deck bridge should be moved to Suspended-deck suspension bridge. The requested move however concerns moving Suspension bridge types to Suspension bridge. --Una Smith (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Things were fine for years, just the way they were. The problems and confusion induced are not mine to solve. I suggest that things be reverted to the initial state. - Leonard G. (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy

How about notifying me on my talk page before you post on the article talk page? And how about asking that I consider an apology first rather than filing an ANI? Montanabw 04:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? I asked you twice to stop doing it. --Una Smith (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspension bridge

What does "subject of requested move" have to do with where the redirect goes? Are you projecting that the move of suspension bridge types to suspension bridge will take place? Not likely. As I see it 99.99% of the people typing in "suspension bridge" into the search window and clicking "Go" are looking for the bridges like the Golden Gate bridge, and not trying to find out what other types of suspension bridges there are. I would strongly suggest that the redirect go to whatever that article is called at the moment, until it is moved back to suspension bridge, where it has been for all but 5 hours of its existence, until recently. You will note above that the editor who created the article suspension bridge types, and moved suspension bridge for 5 hours, in 2005, and moved it back, agrees that that is where it should be. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of links to Suspension bridge right now that are being read by people discussing the (now 3) requested moves. If you change the redirect in the midst of those discussions, it confuses people. Okay? --Una Smith (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, how do you know what readers want when they push the "Go" button? That's a straight question, not sarcasm. Do you have data about how many readers use hatnotes or other links to go from one page to another, to recover from a link that took them somewhere they didn't want to go? I am one reader who was not looking for an article about suspended-deck suspension bridges when I followed a link to Suspension bridge, several weeks ago. I knew that most of what I was reading did not apply to most types of suspension bridge, but many readers would not know it. Yes, suspended-deck suspension bridges probably are by far the most notable kind of suspension bridge, but does that justify the one type occupying the name of the larger class? --Una Smith (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes. See clarinet, as opposed to soprano clarinet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies 14:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

NCCS

Yes, I noticed that silence about my need for some sort of evidence. I'll probably chime in in a day or so. Personally I really need a see a good case to move a dab page.Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

If available, your comments would be appreciated regarding 3rd and 4th level ATC categories. ---kilbad (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a request, as pointed by the recent deaths in India Swine Flu is reported to be highly communicable within humans. Please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shagnik (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Swine influenza

I have tried to structure the article as per MOS:MED. Also, I added a bunch of review articles under "Further reading" incase someone wants to read through them and add some facts. ---kilbad (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work, Kilbad. --Una Smith (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added a number of free, full text review articles to the "Further reading" section of the Influenza treatment article, from which people can add additional information to Misplaced Pages. Perhaps someone else could apply MoS guidelines to the article to improve its overall structure? What exactly should the article structure/sections look like? ---kilbad (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer there : User_talk:Yug#Swine_influenza. Thanks for your support. Yug (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Stats confirm my feeling. Misplaced Pages have a big naming trouble,[REDACTED] have 2 articles/names/topics (Swine flu AND 2009 swine flu outbreak), CNN, BBC, etc just have one : Swine flu.

• Swine flu - the page NOT on the current issue got 1.3M hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/swine%20influenza
• 2009 swine flu outbreak - the page about the 2009 outbreak got 417K hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/2009%20swine%20flu%20outbreak

This lead me to 2 conclusions :

1. People aren't getting the information they are searching for. A solution is NEED.
2. I was right, people are changing the swine flu article, into a copy of 2009 swine flu outbreak.

I sleeped 8 hours, that continue in the same way. That's an article naming trouble. Yug (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. You reverted your blanking of NAMES under the influenza. This paragraph is about the NAMES used to describe this strain. Removing cited material and replacing it with your own personal claim (no matter if it is true) without documentation is not acceptable per wiki guidelines. I will undo your edit once again. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, but don't blank other's work because you disagree with it. If you wish to add the statement that you did, I see no problem with it, but don't delete other cited information.BFritzen (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi BFritzen. I don't know what you saw, but here is the version resulting from my edit. What exactly did I "blank"? --Una Smith (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the article history you blanked all of this and entered a simple claim that the strain was not from swine.

"

The new strain is commonly called swine flu, but some parties object to the name and it has also been referred to as Mexican flu, North American influenza, and 2009 H1N1 flu. On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization began to call it influenza A(H1N1) . The outbreak is believed to have started in March 2009. Local outbreaks of an influenza-like illness were first detected in three areas of Mexico, but the virus responsible was not clinically identified as a new strain until April 24, 2009. Following the identification, its presence was soon confirmed in various Mexican states and in Mexico City. Within days, isolated cases (and suspected cases) were identified elsewhere in Mexico, the U.S., and several other Northern Hemisphere countries.

" BFritzen (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. You are looking at the diff, which parses my changes strangely. Please look at the versions before and after my edit, and you will see this before:

The new strain is commonly called swine flu, but some parties object to the name and it has also been referred to as Mexican flu,

and this after:

Although commonly called swine flu, this new strain has not been found in swine. It is also known as Mexican flu,

You can also see this in the diff, if you look carefully. I blanked nothing. --Una Smith (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Check the history page. For some reason your edit eliminates the above all together. The part blanked is in red. It could be because of a glitch due to a simultaneous edit. Re enter what you were trying to include, by all means I have no objection to that, but at the end of the edit, a large chunk was missing. It could have been inadvertent on your part, happens even to me. :-D BFritzen (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

AH, my apologies! It was just that I had recently staved off an edit war re: Names and when I saw that large part of Red Text "apparently" missing, I assumed the worst. Thank you for correcting me and please accept my apology. BFritzen (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am glad we have that sorted out now. --Una Smith (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OR

I understand that you have a medical background but please remember our WP:OR rules still apply even if you are Margaret Chan, Angus Nicoll or Joseph Bresee. Your addition to the 2009 swine influenza article stating it was not technically a strain of swine influenze was wrong on many levels. Not just because it was pure OR, but because it contradicted a later part of the article which was sourced and stated some researchers do consider it a strain of swine influenze. If you can find sources that say it is not swine influenza you are welcome to add them to the article so we can better discuss the controversy over the name, but we do need sources not your say so and it probably shouldn't go into the lead unless we can somehow find a way to sum up the controversy Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you understand that I have a medical background? Anyway, I think you mean to call it unsourced, not OR. Many people do "call" it swine influenza; unfortunately, that does not make it so. --Una Smith (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Current event

Hi. You need to explain why you delete a tag and you did not in article Swine influenza. This is a current event and you can not delete a current event tag. I understand that there is another 2009 article for Swine flue, however, this article by itself qualifies for current event. So please do not delete the tag. --Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not a good explanation. This article, by itself is qualified for a current event. If you do not change the tag, I will take it to ANI. Thank you--Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Una Smith. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Swine influenza. Thank you.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sniffly pigs

Nice work, and very much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. Do you think Misplaced Pages will get a new FA or two out of all the work on these articles? --Una Smith (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never thought of that, a nice silver lining inside this looming thunderhead! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to 2009 swine flu outbreak, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Influenza viruses are not killed by freezing, as a quick search reveals. Pontificalibus (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Flu viruses 'can live for decades' on ice, NZ Herald, 30 November 2006. is a useful free-access article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

But not nearly as well as when chilled. For frozen storage, influenza samples get special treatment. Influenza surveillance instructions specify storing the sample in a fridge, not freezer. --Una Smith (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I replied with some RS's on Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Influenza-like illness

On May 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Influenza-like illness, 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.

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Locoweed and Swainsonine

On 18 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Locoweedand Swainsonine, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Finnish heritage disease

On May 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Finnish heritage disease, 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.

JamieS93 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Drv for List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here .Bali ultimate (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Szalonna (bacon)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Szalonna (bacon), and it appears to be very similar to another Misplaced Pages page: Szalonna. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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) 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Surform

On June 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Surform, 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.

Royalbroil 03:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

-- MaenK.A._Talk 07:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case

Hello, Una Smith. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Set indices format?

Are there guidelines for page format for use with {{plant common name}}? Thanks. ENeville (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Plants uses Tree peony as an example. I have created a stub documentation for the template on Template:Plant common name/doc. --Una Smith (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx. :-) ENeville (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented on the Talk page about including identifiers with entries. ENeville (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiLove

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Aw shucks. --Una Smith (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Disambiguating AFP

I consider myself a sporadic disambiguator, and I probably won't be finishing the AFP disambiguation job. Please feel free to finish this. Thanks, Lisatwo (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Autoreview

Yes, I should have left you a note. It's pretty much as you describe, a way to reduce the workload on new page patrol and to let experienced article creators get on with their work. I noticed when I was checking new pages that you fit the criteria. Happy editing! Acroterion _(talk) 15:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Latreillia

The more I think about it, it seems to me that Latreillia should be the crab, with a hatnote pointing to the fly.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bryophyta

Hi. A while back, you tagged Bryophyta with {{disambig-plants}}, which is inappropriate for this article when you note that the text explicitly says the article is about groups with the same common name. Additionally, the tag seem to have confused at least one bot, who did not know the page was a disambguation page as a result of the specialized template. I'm not sure how to address that second issue, but given that the text of the template isn't appropriate for the Bryophyta page, I have restored the original generic disambiguation tag. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --Una Smith (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

discussion Order

Talk:Child-directed_speech: Please do not change order of users discussion. Your last intervention was after my intervention --Caceo (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it was indented accordingly. --Una Smith (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Those articles have few editors, and some of them are not very fun to deal with. You should have been around back when Deathmolor was trying to get his Linker program included in the timeline of file sharing - like , where Kbrose was reverting the mutually-agreed-upon deletion of off-topic content (pages of Deathmolor going on about how I was ruining the article, and me being stupid enough to attempt explanations of why this was unwelcome at the talk page) - this was after Deathmolor was blocked+unblocked/wristslapped for legal threats. Good times. Anyway :) It's nice to see some attempt at keeping things civil. I appreciate your efforts. Thank you.    M   06:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I was having some trouble understanding the reasoning that this message is a reply to. Are you able to see how both articles being related constitutes a reason for using a hat link over a dab page, as an exception to WP:D? You need not agree or disagree with the reason, but I was hoping another pair of eyes could pick out something that both David and I were missing.    M   00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see how David Levy sees it that way; that argument basically rests on some notion of etymology, and it is an argument that comes up often in proposals to move article pages. Anyway, the other editor is entitled to an opinion, and I know WP:RM regulars would not be in the least moved by that argument. I think you would get more mileage out of debating the question itself, rather than arguing with another editor (do you see the difference?). Seek to persuade others reading the debate of your position, and do no let your arguments deteriorate to the level of "is to" / "is not". David Levy did deny the article is the primary topic, which is strong support for your position. The reason I did not push more is that I think the article needs an extensive rewrite and then a move. Its topic and scope are not clearly defined. I added text saying peer-to-peer is in contrast to client-server and master-slave, and someone else deleted it as irrelevant. This is absurd. In some computing environments, peer-to-peer and master-slave are alternative architectures. In supercomputing, for example. Either this is an article that covers it all, in which case it has to include any computing environment the reader may have in mind, or the article has some other, narrower scope. I am thinking this article is an example of Blind men and an elephant. --Una Smith (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire Beaver

<facepalm> An elegant example of testing significance against the null hypothesis. I wish I had thought of that. Hesperian 23:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cloud Atlas

Hi! Sorry, I didn't have time to check the discussion before it was closed by harej. I've left a comment at Talk:Cloud atlas. By the way, I've reverted your insertion of links to your sandbox from article namespace here. Articles shouldn't have links to user pages or subpages. The links can of course be added when the article is moved to mainspace, though. Jafeluv (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed here as well. Jafeluv (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Donald Platt

I have done so - however, for future reference you can move pages yourself; anyone has that option. Just go to the "move this page" link and follow the instructions there. --User:AlbertHerring 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Una Smith (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cloud atlas

• I have moved User:Una Smith/sandbox to Cloud atlas, and the old Cloud atlas to Cloud atlas (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

peer-to-peer

Hey, what do you think of my recent edits to peer-to-peer? (I'd like to avoid having it all reverted again, so I'm trying to get some more feedback partway through.)    M   21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Traffic

Thanks for your message on my talk page. The article has changed a lot since 2004! --Edcolins (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names

A poll has been set up at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).

Kidney tumour vs. kidney cancer

Hello,

Thanks for splitting-out kidney cancer from renal cell carcinoma. It was something that was on my todo list. Above said, I think there has to be some more re-organization.

You write on your user page that you often edit articles about cancer. On this topic, I'd like to point-out that tumour and cancer are not the same thing; cancers are malignant, i.e. can metastasize. Tumours may be malignant. Both tumours and cancer are clonal, i.e. derived from one (mutated) cell.

Things get messy when doctors aren't sure whether something is malignant, e.g. a pheochromocytoma is sometimes malignant and sometimes it isn't. In any case, I think it is worth trying to keep things separate; things that are clearly malignant, e.g. renal cell carcinoma, are cancers. Things that are benign tumours, e.g. angiomyolipoma, cystic nephroma, renal oncocytoma are not cancer and IMHO shouldn't be in the cancer article.

173.33.192.50 (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article Cancer is watched by several editors, myself not included; have you brought up your concerns about that article on its talk page? I recommend posting on WP:MED a heads-up / invitation to any discussion. Also, for many tumors there is no bright line between benign and malignant, hence no bright line between tumor and cancer. Misplaced Pages has gradually evolved articles about tumors by location, and by histology. In creating Kidney cancer, I was furthering that trend. I have very little opinion re whether the by-location articles generally should have "tumor" or "cancer" in their page name. --Una Smith (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham links

Hi, I just noticed that you've been changing links, however at the moment you're adding inaccuracies and piping through redirects. For example, Durham City is a dab page and the City of Durham is a local government area different to Durham. Please stop until the debate at talk:Durham is resolved. Nev1 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The links to the dab page are deliberate, and appropriate. If the text says "Durham City" then it needs to be disambiguated! --Una Smith (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No they doesn't, they invariably mean the settlement rather than the local government district. Especially in the case of Bishop Auckland. Also, linking to Durham, England over Durham is a bit disruptive until the discussion is resolved. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently that is not true, since there is a dab page at Durham City. --Una Smith (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to link to a redirect page? It's pointless. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not pointless. As "Durham, England" is a common form of reference to the place, it has a redirect Durham, England and editors should use it. Two adjacent links to different articles, one only remotely relevant, are hard on readers. --Una Smith (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is pointless as it's quite likely to be removed after consensus emerges on the talk page as to what should be done. Also, your edits aren't restricted to merging to adjacent links, but include changing "Durham, England" to "Durham, England", introducing a needless redirect. What's the point in that? It's not commonly referred to as Durham, England, but Durham as Chzz demonstrated on talk:Durham. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why make this edit when South Shields, Durham, England would by your reasoning be better? Because there isn't a problem with adjacent links. It's a false argument being used to justify wholesale changes without consensus. Please desist. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In the nicest possible way. You do not know what you are doing. Please stop. I consider your edits to articles such as Bishop Auckland vandalism. They linked to the correct article and you have moved them to a DAB page. I have personally spent a great deal of time ensuring that article references the correct articles. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pit-yacker, are you saying you are personally responsible for such hideous devices as "Durham City"? --Una Smith (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you address the point about linking to the wrong page? Nev1 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who originates from County Durham, at least within the county, Durham City is frequently used to distinguish Durham from the county. However, this usage doesn't really extend beyond the county as the difference in what is quite a rural county becomes less important at a national level. However, the point is really irrelevant as in this case because I had ensured that Bishop Auckland linked to the correct article. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You might like to fix the other incoming links to Durham City. Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it might be best to wait until the present debate has finished. That way they only need doing once. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

They are all yours. --Una Smith (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my point that you do not know enough about the subject matter to make these edits. For example, at Kepier Hospital, Gilesgate is an area of Durham city so it is quite correct to say Gilesgate, Durham. I consider your edits vandalism. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Chris Brown (English footballer). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jeni 00:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're an involved party on Talk:Durham, Jeni. --Una Smith (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Chris Brown (English footballer), you will be blocked from editing. Jeni 00:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here are my edits to the article in question: . --Una Smith (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And here is the relevant discussion. If you continue you will be reported to AIV and/or ANI. Jeni 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Tony Blair. If you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, you will be blocked from editing. Jeni 01:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

As a result of your disruptive edits, I have started a thread at ANI Jeni 01:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Friendly warning

Hi! I read the thread at AN/I, and I reviewed your edit contributions and the discussion at Talk:Durham. At Misplaced Pages, we have a rule against edit-warring, which disrupts the encyclopedia and prevents us all from getting useful work done. While you haven't violated the three-revert rule on any one page, your edits related to Durham appear to me to have the net effect of edit-warring. It looks like there's no consensus that these links need to be changed, and although you are aware that other editors disagree with you that this change is the best thing for the encyclopedia, you seem to be trying to force your desired version into the encyclopedia. That's a problem. As far as I can tell from reading the discussion at Talk:Durham, you are the only person who thinks that these edits should be made, which means that, at the moment, you're editing against consensus. That's a problem, too. It looks like you've been informed that your edits are a problem, and been asked to pause until the discussion is complete, but you've chosen to continue. The next step would be a short block, which will allow the conversation to continue to form a consensus on this question without the distraction of your edits. If you'd like me to help in this situation by blocking you, let me know by making another edit related to Durham which doesn't have clear consensus at Talk:Durham. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I was also reviewing the situation at the same time as FisherQueen, and I have to agree with her 100%. Please do not make any more edits in the fashion that you are making without clear consensus on the Talk:Durham page. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

1. ^ Radio Netherlands. WHOs call new strain of H1N1 "Mexican flu" (29 April 2009).
2. "Press Release: A/H1N1 influenza like human illness in Mexico and the USA: OIE statement". World Organisation for Animal Health. April 29, 2009. Retrieved April 29, 2009.
3. "Influenza A(H1N1)". World Health Organization. April 30, 2009. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
4. Swine Flu Timeline