To keep messages together I will respond where they originate, you might want to watchlist me if that's here. | ||
---|---|---|
Please click here to leave me a new message | ||
Talk pages: Current | Archive 1 / 2 / 3 | ||
I only edit infrequently so please bear in mind it may be a while until I see any messages. Thanks. |
Hello, I cannot find any reference to Acropora rodriguensis on the Internet. Yet, you mentionned it as an endemic species of Rodrigues in this article. Are you sure it is an official scientific name ? Thierry Caro 16:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Thierry Caro 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Spaully, a weird thing has happened to my computer. After you made an edit to Talk:Pro-Test, I came to your user page to check out who you were. I was interested in the grey-squares optical illusion and clicked on it, then from there visited three other webpages that were linked to. These are the pages I visited [1] [2] [3] [4], though it might be best not to click on the links. I wasn't aware of anything downloading onto my computer, but since visiting one of these pages, a voice is reading out everything I do, every page I visit, every icon I click on, even though text-to-speech is turned off in my systems preferences. There's also a black square that surrounds any icon I click on, and a few other minor changes. I use a Mac, so this is very unusual, because we're usually not affected by viruses, and I can't find anything online that matches what I'm experiencing. I've rebooted, deleted preferences, deleted anything created today, and so on, but I can't get rid of the voice; it's even spelling things out for me. :-) Has anyone else mentioned computer problems to you after visiting that optical illusion page or any of the pages you link to, or they link to? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply, Spaully. I'd say it's too early to flag it, because I don't know which page it came from. I'm about to go onto the Mac help discussion boards and see if I can find anything that sounds like this problem. The voice is a particularly grating one, and when it's not spelling words out to me, or saying "Watchlist. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia," it just repeats "Firefox has new window" over and over. :-) I'll let you know what I find out. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey all -- I had the same problem today, and googling "firefox has new window" brought me here. Eventually, I figured out that I had turned on a Mac application called "VoiceOver" which was narrating my every move. It can be toggled on or off by pressing Cmd-F5 (which you might do by accident instead of fn-F5 to turn up the sound). The keyboard shortcut fn-Command-F5 might also have this effect. Not a virus -- phew! Cheers, KC 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Abortion is most often done as post-conception birth control. Its not pretty, but its a fact. And the reasons for birth control are varied and understandable - no attempt to minimize the reasons. But in the end, women simply get abortions when they WANT them -for any and all reasons. This is elective abortion. This is almost 90% of all abortions. Even allowing that mental "stress" could be a reason for therapeutic abortion, the reasons women give are rarely therapeutic ones. Not sure why you insist on defining elective abortion by exception. There really should be some reason for doing so. Yes, it disturbs many to note in black and white that abortion is most often simply birth control. If that is your reason for listing the overwhelmingly most common reason last, then it is not good enough. 84.146.240.137
The point you make about IUDs is precisely why it is important to note that many people reject the new medical definition (which, by the way, has a very political history). The reader is being informed, and that information helps him understand some of the contoversy surrounding the entire issue of "reproductive rights". 84.146.240.137
I will log off for awhile. My frustration with this article is apparent. The double standard continues to vex this article. I don't expect all bias to be removed in one day. I thank you for any efforts you make to improve the article in this regard. Again, thanks. 84.146.240.137
Why are you substituting the {{ unsigned}} template? Do you have a good reason? — Omegatron 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It's very disputed, actually. My personal opinion is that subst'ing templates wherever possible is tremendously harmful. The "server load" argument has been refuted by Wikipedia's lead developer. Did you read this somewhere specific? — Omegatron 00:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! I noticed today that you did a redirect bypass somewhere changing Prosecuted to Criminal Law. Just so you know, it is not necessary to remove redirects unless they are double redirects. The server is not put under extra stress by the redirect (but it is by the action of 'fixing' them). I used to do this myself until I was advised that it is not needed. Just so you know :) - Localzuk (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind at all - in fact, I greatly appreciate that you've taken the time to comment on my work. Without input from the rest of the community, an article will never be able to reach its full potential (it will likely be riddled with errors as well). If you come across anything else that you feel like commenting on regarding drug-related articles (or anything I've edited), I would be happy to hear from you. Also, if you are particularly interested in antibiotics, you might want to join the WikiProject on Drugs (it unfortunately seems as if no one has been working on this project recently). And lastly, you might check out my project page for antibiotics (its basically a place where I've deposited all the information that needs to be incorporated into articles).
I agree that the template is a little too large to be on every page. Perhaps the sub-templates should be used instead? In this case, they should probably be renamed slightly to reflect the fact that they are antibiotics (e.g. just calling bacitracin a "Polypeptide" doesn't explain much, as there are thousands of polypeptides). In other words, each sub-template should say "Polypeptide Antibiotics" (Polypeptide being replaced with the respective class).
As for the main article about antibiotics, I find it quite messy and incomplete. The strangely colored table isn't exactly easy to read (and it isn't complete either). I'll try to make it easier to navigate and edit (when there are tables composed of html code, the tendency is for people to either botch or ignore the article).
Cheers,
Fuzzform 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
|
Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
![]() |
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox. |
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde Weys 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Spaully, I'd say the picture distracts from the main task of a DAB page: bringing the user ASAP to the page they want to get to. Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), I think this is consenus:
Hope you agree. And really, no offence intended. Thanks, -- S.K. 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for all the work you're doing on the medical articles. -- Arcadian 18:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Its a work in progress in the moment, all thats running there is an auto append to talk pages, no checks for multiple warnings no higher level warning monitoring (yet) - the new warning module is in the works though (along with a new whitelist option) :) -- Tawker 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You said: "The reason for old variants dissappearing is development of herd immunity through generation of neutralising IgA antibodies, meaning it must mutate to survive. The fact that RNA mutates often is not the important factor in elimination of old strains, as if they were still effective variation would be selected against and they would still exist." To the best of my knowledge the neccessary gene sequencing to be sure this is true has never been done. I'm aware of mathematical models (that I disbelieve in) that could conclude such a thing. Can you point me to whatever evidence you are relying on in the making of that statement on a talk page? Thanks. WAS 4.250 02:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask. |
Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that perhaps people have calmed down, I've moved the more personal comments to our user pages. My aim is not to reopen the confrontation but to explain my comments hopefully in a less agressive atmosphere.
I'm not going to get drawn into an argument over this article, and for the benefit of future editors I suggest you adopt a less confrontational style of discussion. The fact is these articles are not logically separated or cross-linked. Hopefully at some point someone will be allowed to change that. I apologise for stepping on anyones toes. |→
Spaully°
τ 20:46, 12 March 2006 (
GMT)
First of all I apologise for some of the comments I made, those which I have put a line through and the original "you did not" regarding using talk.
To explain my second reply which was a bit short I've copied parts of your first talk page comment with why I felt it was innapropriate:
Suggesting you think my edits to influenza are "stupid" and "ignorant".
How am I supposed to feel anything but indignation at the patronising tone?
1.The second of my two edits was different to the first, taking into account your previous edit comment 2.Prior to my second edit I started a new section on the talk page, in which I explained my reasoning.
I tried to find the information, and so am in as good a position as anyone to make that claim. "It is clear you don't know what you are talking about" is hardly respectful.
I do not feel this adheres to WP:CIVIL, and incorrectly I responded to this in the same tone.
My comment regarding allowing others to edit the article was again innapropriate and stemmed from a feeling from looking through previous edits that you are close to violating WP:OWN. I don't still think this.
I will not retract my comment about your confrontational tone, as I feel you were confrontational, although I responded to this badly.
Reply if you wish, but my aim is just to explain and apologise for some of my comments. I hope that we can work together to improve these articles at some point. |→
Spaully°
τ 13:18, 20 March 2006 (
GMT)
WP:AGF. Your mind reading activities with regard to me are wholly inaccurate. WAS 4.250 19:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a clue to your meaning. WAS 4.250 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I was going to just let it go at that, but WP:AGF says explain yourself, don't just throw "AGF" at people. So here goes:
Once you felt indignate, everything went to hell in a handbasket. I went out of my way to be complimenting and you piss over over me; so then we were both indignate. Well, thanks for bringing this up in a way that allows us to put it behind us. I really actually honestly do want you (and everyone else) to help the H5N1 and flu series of articles as much as posible. They are a long way from being perfect. WAS 4.250 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I was about to delete the last few comments again with this explanation:
There seems to be a precedent for removing non-contributing comments from talk pages, and there is no doubt the final few messages were not useful. I'll wait for your comment however before I remove the information again. |→ Spaully° τ 14:17, 21 March 2006 ( GMT)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~
|
Congratulations! ~ Veledan • Talk 21:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Several, if not all, of User talk:AllyUnion's bots are currently down, including Kurando-san. Given that AllyUnion is on Wikibreak, and his email link does not work, contacting him to get his attention on the matter has been difficult. Over on WP:CFD, where another of his bots works, we've been having to do things manually until the bot situation can be fixed. Unfortuneately that's the only solution I can offer you currently for Kurando-san's tasks as well.
I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#AllyUnion's Bots for possibly getting a clone of some of the bots running, and there is someone trying to figure out how to clone them. Until that happens, or someone manages to reach AllyUnion, I suspect we're all stuck manually doing his bot's tasks. - TexasAndroid 21:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nematocyst-threads.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You removed my speedy delete tag. As explained when I added the tag, I uploaded the image from the Ukrainian wikiedia, and following the challenge to the copyright status, I asked the original uploader. This is his response. Hence the addition of the speedy tag. Thanks, |→ Spaully° τ 17:40, 10 April 2006 ( GMT)
Please weigh in with your view on this abortion wikipedia poll. ____G_o_o_d____ 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)