User talk:Laetoli

Hey :), pretty empty round here

Anyway, I'm saying hello because I saw the MS article saying the ilness was formerly known as "disseminated sclerosis or encephalomyelitis disseminata". I wasn't sure if the formerly was meant to refer only to disseminated sclerosis" or both terms, and as I've heard the later (ED) in use in hospital quite recently I've changed the sentence to also known as... . While digging I saw that you made quite some contributions to the article (looked quite good :), nice work), so I thought you might be able to help me. Please do change it back if you think the way it was is more correct. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slitherlink

Hi Laetoli, in December you added an interesting picture of "Diagonal Line of 2s terminated by 3" but I cannot find any description for that in the text. It would be great if you could please add that. --MadPAM (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan's version of "Twa Sisters"

Our article on The Bootleg Series Volumes 1-3 says the first track of volume two is "Seven Curses". Is that what he called his version of "Twa Sisters"? I don't have that album, so I can't give it a listen to compare. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't disputing that Dylan performed the song. That was believable enough; but I didn't find evidence of it. I overlooked the 'Genuine' of the album title, so I only looked for the more well-known Bootleg Series albums. I have put in the reference at the article. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dyk in tartan

On 6 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ye Jacobites by Name, 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.

--Victuallers (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis

I have removed the "warning" you placed at the top of the article since it is not appropriate for the article. Note that no other article has a similar warning. I have left the NPOV tag, but if you wish this to remain, you should go to the talkpage and explain why you believe the article is not neutral. I know nothing about medication in MS and you may be correct for all I know. In fact I objected to too much information about drugs in part for the reasons you allude to. However, you should present your evidence (ie studies that show that the article "misrepresents whether the disease-modifying treatments are effective in delaying onset of secondary progressive MS") to other editors on the talkpage so that they can respond to it. Thank you.--Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I see that you have already posted to the talkpage. I have moved your posts to the bottom of the talkpage, since that is where traditionally new posts should go. Hopefully you will get some answers soon! If not, it looks to me, given your research that you should boldly edit the article to get rid of things you feel not accurately sourced. BTW, I think Garrondo is a psychologist: s/he did a lot of work on this, but I know from experience that s/he doesn't (and couldn't be expected to) have professional knowledge in all areas. --Slp1 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and I agree with your concerns about drug companies etc. Why don't you propose some specific changes on the talkpage of the article that would address your concerns? I agree that probably the Cochrane reviews or other systematic reviews should be the basis of the drug sections.--Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I don't have time to address your concerns since I am really busy writing articles in real life, however they are reduced to a section, and more specifically to the table added by io io. I have moved the tag to the table section, since is not the content of the whole article what is under dispute.--Garrondo (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

Sorry about that. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that these editors are in error about your actions and you may wish to drop them a polite line to explain your reasoning for the deletion. In fact I see that one has already come to the conclusion that s/he was in error. No matter what happens, I do suggest stopping deleting the table for now. Discussion is occuring on the talkpage of the article and I don't think there is concensus to delete the table yet. A few extra hours/days won't matter in the general scheme of things.Slp1 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS

I am not the one that created or inserted the table, and I don't really mind if it is in the article. I agree that reviews such as cocrhane are more qualified that individual articles. The only thing that I said is that a table can be obtained from different sources, and that there are better ways of working than deleting others works, such as adding articles that oppose what is in the table... You could also be more polite that what you have been (at least with me). Best regards--Garrondo (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

You wrote: "I apologise for not commenting my edit. The removal of this table is because it contains unsupported assertions which are not generally accepted by neurologists. Two professional reviews have analysed the interferons and both concluded that it was unproven whether they affect disease progression. The table's author is replicating this work without allowing for control group selection, drop-out group constitution and other factors. It also counts as original research. The table is the reason for the NPOV dispute. See the talk page for more info. While the dispute is being resolved, it seems to me to be inappropriate to display the table, especially in view of the fact that it may influence people's choice of whether to use these drugs (which have significant health & financial implications). Reluctantly, I shall leave things as they stand for the time being."

Agreed, and i apologize for my mistake then. Thanks for clearing up :-) . Have a nice day. BTW: i removed the warning because it's inappropriate now. Anubis Godfather^T_© 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roud folk song index

You have done some good work, and I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm but ... please don't add any more "red links" to the Roud folk song index. If anyone creates a folk song article, without priod knowledge of that particular page, then the odds are stacked heavily against them using the exact same title. Better to wait till you encounter an article of a Roud song, then add it in using the title that they have chosen. This is what I have been doing. Better still, write the article yourself. I rather dislike articles that are full of red. I write articles on folksongs about one new one per month. You are welcome to add your suggestings onto my talk page. Your suggestions should be in priority order, and no more than 6 in total please. But please no more red links. Ogg (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalizumab

Give me until sunday to read some articles, and we will try to reach an agreement as I am not informed enough to do it right now. Only as a comment: I don't really need all those black letters to understand your comment and text is easier to read without them. I feel as if you were shouting at me. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre pages

Fixed your problem:

I've merged Anna Scher Theatre into Young Actors Theatre (Islington). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk)

In Search of Nic Jones

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of In Search of Nic Jones, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.nicjones.net/search.htm.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they both contain accurate track listings but, despite referencing this page, I have not copied from it. It is to be hoped that all Wikipedia's album pages have accurate track listings. It is my intention to expand this page with more substantive information. What happens next? Laetoli (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2011 (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) 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Young Actors Theatre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Young Actors Theatre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Actors Theatre until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Davey2010^Talk 12:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Laetoli. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to say hello again

Hey, this is kind of difficult to put well, but I just was looking through messages on my talk page (I've not been editing here in quite a while), and saw yours. I wanted to say hello because it's been quite some time since then.

Kind regards, Sean - Sean Heron (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Slitherlink-diag222.png

The file File:Slitherlink-diag222.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]