User talk:CaninePitDog

Welcome!

Hello, CaninePitDog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --86.25.12.173 (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Nevada death

Hi, I noticed, that you have removed the first death in Nevada twice, saying that it has been counted in New York. Do you have any evidence for that? Let me give you my facts: The first victim in Nevada has been a woman, NY resident, 70 years old and the death has been announced by Southern Nevada Health District on Friday June 12 (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jun/12/first-h1n1-flu-death-reported-southern-nevada/). Nevada Stae Health Division says, that the death occurred on June 12 (http://health.nv.gov/PDFs/Flu/Swine_Flu/Reports/2009-06-26_InfluenzaWeeklyReport.pdf). Now I cannot find a New York case, which is fitting all these criteria. All cases, which have been reported by New York officials since June 12 have been either male or under 65. There are in total only four New York cases with individuals elder than 65 years: one has been reported on June 10 by NYC health authorities, an unidentified individual elder than 65 years (http://cbs4.com/health/swine.flu.new.2.1039463.html + http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/nyregion/11flu.html?ref=nyregion), another one on June 5 again by NYC health authorities, and again an individual elder than 65 years (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/nyregion/06flu.html?ref=nyregion). The third one was reported on June 3, an elderly individual from Onondaga county (http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/dies-1263841-flu-new.html). The last one was very recent, a man from Suffolk County / Babylon. I have questioned NYCDOHMH on June 19, whether they have included the Nevada case in their counts, but unfortunately I have received no answer. Now I will not believe without proof, that NYC health department reports a case two or even seven days earlier than it has allegedly happened, according to the health authorities of the area, where the death happened. Besides, why should they report twice, without identifying the link and thus artificially give the impression of a higher death toll? The question is, whether NYCDOHMH has counted the case, because the NY numbers in the US table are partially based on their reports. They are not based on CDC data. CDC is lagging behind a lot and even right after their updates they are usually missing cases, which are then reported late one or two weeks later. So, especially in New York, one can only guess, which cases have been confirmed by CDC. Of course I can see, that CDC does not report a case for Nevada. But when CDC includes this case in their New York count, that simply means, that they are lagging behind with New York even one case more. When NYCDOHMH has not counted the case and you reduce the Nevada count, you have in turn to increase the Wikipedia New York count. I will restore the first Nevada case again, but I will happily accept your changes, when you can provide further evidence. | FHessel (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to save what I wrote earlier but then I discarded it unwillingly.
So you have evidence, that this case is not counted in Nevada. But does this mean, that it has been counted in New York? As I said above, there is no case, which is fitting. As far as I can see there are two possible explanations:
* The case has been reported in New York several days before it has been reported in Nevada.
* The case has been 'deliberately' forgotten.
The former does not really look sensible to me, the latter would fit in with the overall strategy of the public authorities to "disappear" the fatalities in the public perception. Hence I add this case as another case in New York.
FHessel (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your efforts!
Regarding the New York cases:
I have tried from the beginning to identify every single fatality being added and collected the related informations. Therefore I have been very attentive to the question, whether the Nevada case had been a double entry. But NYC authorities really give us a hard time (this is a really good strategy to gain back control).
I have put a summary of our discussion (and some additional informations) to the template talk. I have got the feeling someone might like to know later what has been done here exactly.
FHessel (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H1N1 polls

These pages accidentally ended up in main article space. I've moved these pages to your userspace, at User:CaninePitDog/Consensus polling/Should we keep the total number of case reports for each country in the H1N1 template?/Plan, User:CaninePitDog/Consensus polling/Should we keep the total number of case reports for each country in the H1N1 template?/Approval, and User:CaninePitDog/Consensus polling/Should we keep the total number of case reports for each country in the H1N1 template?/Static, until you decide what to do with them. Do note, however, that consensus polling has been inactive on Wikipedia since 2007. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you blanked them. If you would like them to be deleted completely, you can tag them with {{db-author}} . -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The race

Wow, that was a race! I had made lots of changes on the indicators, and then when there was a edit clash, I discarded all the other edits, planning to restore them afterwards. But it had been lots of edits, too (ECDC). So, when I had restored them, there was a clash again, and the same thing happened even once again. But now its over, luckily... FHessel (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dead Link in H1N1 table

Ok, I'm sorry. I only put it in twice, and only once after you removed it (which I wasn't aware was enough to warrant a warning). However, I have it working fine now (I had the same version of Adobe now as I did then when I first saw the link). Also interesting was that even when I go back into its history, the old page (the one where I put the dead link tag in) does work now, despite the fact that I had not changed anything in that period. Again sorry, just wasn't aware I was doing anything wrong there. --Matthew Desjardins 00:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine Flu Count Website

CaninePitDog, just want your opinion whether we can use some of the figures from this website and incorporate them into the H1N1 pandemic table. The website is updated quite frequently and there are some confirmed cases that are much higher compare to our current pandemic table: Swine Flu Count Let me know what you think. Roman888 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd wave of H1N1

Have a look at my comment on the talk page | br FHessel (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]