User talk:Una Smith/2008.02 - 2009.03

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chaps. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 03:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

MedCom Case

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)

Gastroenteritis

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)

NYC etc

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)

I have read cranky edits by you in several contexts in the past hour or so. My view is, Wikipedia is mostly holes around which we are all trying to make some cheese. --Una Smith (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Several is vague?!? I am not in the least bit cranky, although I completely agree about the "mostly holes" and am strongly re-considering my bit. If you can't be more specific, then there is this - a whole section for vague accusations directed towards one editor. Where are you anyway? A wild guess is Scotland, because you yearn for spring.io_editor (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

You're welcome. I think WPEQ is below par with respect to references, and too many content disputes are one result of too little research. --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is wiki

(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)

re: Competitive mounted orienteering

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)

Good article

Hi Una, I thought you might enjoy this article about stem-cells and horses..... interesting stuff! --AeronM (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Beagling

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)

I would say Beagling does not qualify as a Project Equine article, because the use of horses is so incidental. Re whether an article on your beagle pack itself meets Wikipedia criteria, the most important test is notability. Can you provide several 3rd party sources, particularly books and newspaper or magazine articles? Ditto for including mention of your beagle pack in Fox hunting. --Una Smith (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can find the resources, especially in The Chronical of the Horse, and similar.... that just reminded me of an old Gilda Radnor skit about "depleting the world's resources" in which she complains that we shouldn't just 'save the resources, there are other kinds of horses, and ponies....' (!) --AeronM (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a stab at it: Beagling on horseback. I am waiting on some Chronicle of the Horse articles to flesh out the history... --AeronM (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversial photo

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)

Hmm. just found this in Wikipedia:Image use policy: "Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article." Based on this I have removed the photo.... --AeronM (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources

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)

Per your comments a few months ago...

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)

Rhythm/calendar methods

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)

Please

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)

You first. --Una Smith (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Starting now, how's that? Montanabw^(talk) 06:21, 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))

"You first" is not civil? I think it is a fundamental principle of civility: do unto others as you want others to do unto you. --Una Smith (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Una, but "You first" is what two five-year-olds say to one another. A civil response would have been, "Yes, let's begin to do that now." But there's no need to point fingers or assign blame at this point. What is important is that the conversation about the Chaps article be conducted on the Talk:Chaps page before it is committed to the article. That way there are no surprises for either of you, no edit wars, no hard feelings.... (Taivo (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

The same holds for frentera, fiador, and Una, please quit trying to degrade the hackamore article into a disambig per your little remark at the NPOV noticeboard. That one was settled a month ago by the intervention of Rlevse, and now you are off "asking the other parent" again. My patience is about zero. This situation has now been going on for about two months and I still cannot figure out what your goal is, other than to make my life miserable and insert some kind of original research or fringe theory into all sorts of previously-stable articles on western equipment. Yes, much of the western riding tradition came from Spanish roots --500 years ago! -- Which borrowed heavily from Moorish roots based on the invasion in the Middle Ages, and the Moorish traditions borrowed heavily from ancient Persian roots. There is a mainstream view on these matters which you do not seem to "get," and instead are conducting original research in some attempt that appears to have something to do with adding more info on Spanish tack to these articles, which in and of itself is not a problem, except that you take it way too far and try to both "balkanize" articles that don't need to be split up (i.e. hackamore) and yet at the same time try to meld and universalize things that in the modern world are apples and oranges, no matter if they had some common principle in physics used (Australian cheekers are not a Frentera, a throatlatch is not a fiador, etc.). If you want to explain your overall goal here, maybe we could understand you better and try to help figure out if there is a mutually agreeable solution overall instead of these endless nitpicking edits. Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Elimination diet

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)

Santa Fe Southern RR

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)

Welcome. I am trying to identify the "second" rail with trail line in New Mexico. Any ideas about that? --Una Smith (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope -- sorry! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tapetum lucidium

See the article talk page. Spencer^T♦C 19:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOP

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)

Yes! Those are automatic; normally all the project has to do is use the table code to display the table. And I have found the table to be very useful. I have asked the Version 1.0 Editorial Team about why the table code isn't working for WP:HOP. Sorry about the ugly redlinks; feel free to revert my edit. --Una Smith (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's all automated, well and good. I'd assumed that some poor drudge had to keep updating it all. (Certainly clicking the "edit" tab on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Japan articles by quality statistics doesn't bring up any SGML comment telling people that edits aren't wanted/needed/appropriate.) Maybe human intervention is required just to start up these pages, whereupon it's all automated. ¶ I'd look into this myself, but the "real world" will make demands on my time over the next few days. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I started the table for 2 other projects and it is maintenance free. --Una Smith (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I missed a step. I have now corrected that and the next time the bot runs WP:HOP should catch up. --Una Smith (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Eyeshine photo

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)

The photo on commons [1] is the only one that exists now as we lost the original. So I'm afraid there is nothing I can do. :/ I'm not sure how much the shine was altered, I imagine it was more of a white light before.--Silversmith Hewwo 00:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. The original eyeshine must have been extraordinary. --Una Smith (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rail trails

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)

Talk:Rotavirus

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)

Diagnosing a medical condition is medical advice: "So, to answer 71.246.221.99: your gastroenteritis probably is not rotavirus." I can't partially edit your words above your signature, which would leave you saying something you didn't say. I assumed you could just put back the non-medical advice part. You cannot diagnose someone's gastroenteritis on Wikipedia, this is giving medical advice. --Blechnic (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars 'R' Us

		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)

Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Iridescence

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)

PS, There's a problem somewhere with the above Barnstar template.Garvin ^Talk 15:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

O LOGOS

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)

Pueblos

Thanks for adding the section! Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikiversity Clinical case nr. 2: ovarian cyst during pregnancy

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)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America

We've addressed your concerns here, please review. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Una Smith (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please

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. Crash Underride 22:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The bot does not run instantly, and sometimes updates take a while to appear. Since your query, there has been an update: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Arena Football League articles by quality log. --Una Smith (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

tsk, tsk, tsk

I saw how you messed up the Project page for WP:Arena Football League. lol, Nah, I'm just kiddin'. :D Crash Underride 21:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Una Smith (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your move of Scouting

Could you please fix the about 10,000 links now pointing to the disambiguation? --jergen (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Please stop your activities concerning this imediately. This was a major move. I know about WP:Be bold but must see this as disruptive since this was not discussed beforehand. --jergen (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting#Recent move of Scouting to Scouting Movement. --jergen (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed this move back. This move was undiscussed and is causing disruption. See WT:SCOUT too. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Surgery has the potential to cure..."

...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)

Done. Let me know if/when you want me to make another pass. --Una Smith (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a million, that was very useful! I'll let you know when I have found time to expand it. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WP orienteering

Your valuable input is needed here please thankyou very much .ARBAY (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion

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)

Missing Article Trophy

Congratulations! You have captured WikiProject Medicine's Missing Article Trophy by creating acanthoma. You will probably lose it again soon, but enjoy it as long as you can! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the trophy Una! You can still claim credit for being the very first WPMED member to receive the trophy! JFW | T@lk 07:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. recent edits to Tumor

Talk:Tumor#Recent edits are confusing, will be reverted soon. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Una

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)

Alas, I don't have the vocabulary to write about orienteering in Spanish or German. I mostly translate from those languages into English. But I notice there are a lot of orienteers on Wikipedia. An external category search tool might help you locate an orienteer with sufficient skill in those languages. --Una Smith (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

okay thanks. I kinda used google translator for the an article in Russian then asked someone at the Embassy and ru.wikipedia.org to read through it. It seams that WP orienteering is taking off now with quite alot of articles being written and tagged . Thanks agian ARBAY TALKies 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Presenting

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)

Survey request

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

Your review on Low-Carbohydrate Diet

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)

Barnstar

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

Thanks! (I think I remember where the archives are; I haven't gotten around to fixing links after someone "helped" me by moving them.  :-) --Una Smith (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Truce or constructive discussion or something

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)

Totally unrelated and further truce possibility

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)

Sorry, no rabicano there. What looks like roaning on that horse was dust caked on top of dried sweat at the end of a 50 mile ride. --Una Smith (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV of Influenza vaccine

Could you pass by the talk page? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pending. --Una Smith (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hypertension

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 did it. Looking at my contributions and the WP:GAN log for that month, I think I made a mistake. Given the tags on the article now, in a GA review today it would be a quick fail. I will change the assessment now. --Una Smith (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd check. Thanks. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ring-tailed Lemur

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)

Sorry for the delay. I was interrupted between updating the status and posting the review. It is there now. --Una Smith (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The requested changes have been made, and details have been summarized on the review page. Some changes were significant, so please double-check me. Hopefully I have satisfied your requests without creating new concerns. - Visionholder (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (again) for your review of this article. I have left a couple final questions on the discussion page, and I have replied to your comments on the toilet-claw discussion page. - Visionholder (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ficus maxima

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)

Let's move this to Talk:Ficus maxima. --Una Smith (talk) 18:11, 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)

Your suggestion at FAC

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)

Competition at DYK

• Heeding your comments at DYK, I was musing under the existing guidelines how many broader more notable stubs there were out there (which could be expanded 5-fold) - see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Competition Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get your point there. The DYK requires a source, first and foremost. It may be fun to muse over what is most notable, but without a source it can go nowhere. KWIM? --Una Smith (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that I do know what you mean, as you appear to be taking it very literally (?). Obviously someone has to expand and source it, I am just using the discussion page for folks to ferret around for some interesting pre-existing stubs and see what comes up (as a large number of DYK hooks are new articles, even though 5x expansions are allowed under current rules). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comments at DYK. I think DYK is a fantastic mechanism for growing Wikipedia, that is being wasted by restricting it to new/newly 5x expanded stub articles. --Una Smith (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No no, I got that. What I mean is this - one of your criticisms is that the subjects of the hooks are often too obscure or esoteric to warrant much interest or involvement from the reader. My speculation was that within the current guidelines there may be more scope for more common/higher profile articles if people actually ferreted around for some stubs instead of concentrating mainly on creating new articles. Hence the setup and we'll see what happens. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Small shelly fauna

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)

You're welcome! I learned something from this GA review: how much less stressful it can be to make big "try this" revisions outside the article and its talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Horse

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)

Thanks for the advice. I thought about it beforehand, and I will think about it again. It kind of depends on how this plays out. --Una Smith (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate what you mean by "how this plays out"? I am not sure exactly what you mean by "this". Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The real question is this: can the WikiProject Equine clique be dispassionate? So far, the answer looks to be: no. --Una Smith (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that as the "real question" at all. The real question is can the reviewer be dispassionate? Project members do not as a rule review articles within the scope of their project at GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why you think it is better for me to wait until FAC to bring up what I see as significant problems with an article? --Una Smith (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bringing up problems is not the same as a quick fail. I'd rather suggest that you should have brought the problems up on the talk page, but not done the review, leaving that to someone else. No one who is in a particular project, especially one that seems to have some strife, and which they themselves seem to be an axis of, should be reviewing their own projects articles. And, speaking frankly, after the WP:WQA thing, I think you are particularly unsuited to be reviewing articles proposed by Dana or Montana. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The quick fail is your concern? Please see my comment about that on Talk:Horse. --Una Smith (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, or at least not completely. (Sorry if what I just said wasn't clear)... That you are reviewing it at all is my concern. There appears to be enough past history here (again, you raised a WP:WQA on editors in the project, which was roundly rebutted) that an uninvolved observer would likely conclude aconflict of interest is present... Hence, you ought not to be reviewing this work, or the work of Montanabw in general, at all. Not until you are on far better terms. ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The take home message I got from the WQA was that I should take it to RFC. I did not do so only because Montanabw's behavior improved. Now, Lar, think about what you are proposing: by making hostile ad hominem remarks toward an editor with whom she disagrees, remarks so offensive that they provoke a WQA, she can eliminate the editor as a potential reviewer of "her" articles. Do you really want to give any editor such immunity? --Una Smith (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, and I'm sorry it is coming to this: The take home message you SHOULD have gotten from the WQA is that your allegations against Montanabw were completely unfounded (she is a pillar of the horsey set project and everyone else gets along with her just fine) and that you need to look within yourself to see where the real issue lies. I have been investigating your behaviour and I am seeing a pattern that is quite concerning... it seems that you make edits to articles that do not meet with consensus, and the next thing that seems to happen is that there is a dispute arising between you and the other editor(s) and further, that it's always the other editor(s) fault, not yours. I strongly suggest you take a word to the wise here, and don't get embroiled in disputes which cause you to then do further things that give the appearance that you are seeking revenge. This pattern is not confined to Montanabw, it just happens to be the example I noticed first. I am sorry that I have had to speak plainly here but it seems you weren't quite getting my meaning when I was more elliptical. I specifically urge you to not get involved in further reviews of horse related articles where you would be the sole arbiter, except to give positive, constructive advice. I am seeing on the Talk:Horse page that at least two other reviewers think your quick fail was not well founded. I've done a few GA reviews myself, over the years, and in my view, while the article has a ways to go to make FA, it's easily GA with a few minor tweaks. In view of the previous pattern I saw, it appears to me, an outside observer, that the quick fail was not dispassionately decided on, and thus not supportable. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am coming out of wiki-retirement to comment on user:Lar's comment: "[montanabw] is a pillar of the horsey set project and everyone else gets along with her just fine" which I find laughable. Clearly user Lar is not familiar with user:Montanabw, or at the very least, he is one of her minions sent round the wiki-globe to puff her up -- a habit for which she is well-known. AeronM (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Lar wrote: I have been investigating your behaviour

Why? --Una Smith (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you came to my attention, and as an admin (and checkuser) that's what I do. You need to focus on the aspects of your behaviour that are problematic, I think. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What (who?) brought me to your attention? --Una Smith (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is what you are going to do to improve your interactions with other editors, going forward. ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

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)

Save article?

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)

RE: Orienteering

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)

Hi una Ive added some cites to the history section of the O article I was wondering if you agree with them as your more experianced and have been editing Orienteering alot .安東尼 TALKies 15:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico article split and WikiTravel

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:

• Contact contributors to the Wikipedia article and get their permissions; the author can license the same content more than once.
• Rewrite content.

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)

OK, from a brief sampling of the Wikipedia list, it looks like most of these attractions are already covered in WikiTravel. So I'll go through the list carefully and if there's no coverage for an item on WikiTravel I'll write something there. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Once the list content is gone, I think it may be easier to see what content is needed in the article here on Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Route choice (orienteering)

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)

Your edits

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)

Orienteering DYKs

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).

MEDRS: Steps towards consensus

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:

1. Your current position as to how MEDRS should be formulated (and reasoning why)
2. Some idea of where you're willing and able to compromise on that position.
3. Your current view/ best estimate of where each of the other participants stand, singly and as a group (and reasoning why).
4. Your current best estimate of where other participants are willing to compromise.

Paul Gene (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NM

Are you an Albuquerquean? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Map board in orienteering

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)

Move this to Talk:Orienteering? --Una Smith (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My rewrite of 'Personal equipment', I think, covers this. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Control point (orienteering)

On 5 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Control point (orienteering), 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.

– RyanCross (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Foot orienteering

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)

Done. --Una Smith (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

antbird phylogeny

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)

Fiador

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)

• You can ask that user yourself. If they continue you can try WP:AIV or WP:AN. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. --Una Smith (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• As you two appear to have been in a dispute for some time I would suggest just working in a sandbox on the edit so you can do all the edits you want. Then once you are done treat it like an edit request on a fully protected page. That may be the least conflict riddled way to do it. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tired of being run off the page (as the edit history shows). --Una Smith (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with a sandbox. Una, you are not being "run off," what I have are legitimate concerns about WP:NOR. The new definition section, by the way, as I already stated, was nicely done and I haven't touched it. Some of the material I questioned and removed is parked verbatim on the talk page and that section can be edited there as far as I'm concerned, or it can be moved into a sandbox, no big deal to me. We can discuss the philosophical issues of "what is a fiador" on the talk page as well. Sources can be added to the existing article where there are tags as they are located. Now, I'm going to go let things cool off for a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 03:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, I am sorry to say this but you are being obnoxious. Now you want to control where I can add sources? Take a wikibreak, please. --Una Smith (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

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)

It is nothing personal; the problem is with the customary practice and the tools that practitioners have to use. --Una Smith (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is personal when you cite me as an example (two very poor examples), and the fact that you felt the need to tell me to be a 'considerate editor' on my page and a vandal on the speedy delete page. Adding a single reference tag to an unreferenced article you started was not personal , if there was a reference there when the article was made I could have just ticked the page patrolled and moved on to the next one. I took that comment as a personal attack and have treated it as such. Regards. Waterden (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete taggers are getting out of hand

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)

You're welcome. I hope it helps. --Una Smith (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pawtuckaway

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)

You're welcome. It would be nice to have some photos of boulders in the woods to illustrate Pawtuckaway State Park... Also, with some history and other information that article easily will be GA quality. --Una Smith (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine's Missing Articles Trophy — Awarded to Una Smith (talk · contribs) for the significant expansion of Enterolith

Lead

See talk page of leag (leg) article. I explained why the photo has been removed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Pawtuckaway-ring-dike-Google-Earth.jpg

Replaceable fair use

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:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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)

ctr.jpg

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)

Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Enterolith

On 2 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Enterolith, 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.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Two track

In what way does this mean a footpath\trail? Simply south (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What is "this"? An article? A contribution? --Una Smith (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

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)

"Appear to reject"? "Better to accept"? Please explain. --Una Smith (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You were answered there. You should go read what answers you got, think about what they mean, and then act in ways that are more collegial, and in ways that show you have accepted the feedback given. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Lar. --Una Smith (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Starting an AN/I thread calling for the blocking of Montanabw is not exactly what I had in mind. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Weymouth

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)

Thanks for the heads up. I left some comments at Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please could you wait until the move request has been resolved before altering any more links to Weymouth, Dorset. Thanks. BarretBonden (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I have not done very many; someone else must be doing it too. I began because I saw how the list of links was shrinking. Do you mind if I change links such as [[Weymouth]], [[Dorset]] to [[Weymouth, Dorset]]? That change has no direct impact on the move proposal. Also, links that have nothing to do with this particular Weymouth need to be fixed anyway. Do you mind if I go ahead and fix them? --Una Smith (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it would be a good idea to remove the direct link to Dorset, but its up to you! I have left a reply on the move discussion. If the page isn't moved, I will help with fixing the links pointing to the disambiguation page. BarretBonden (talk) 19:33, 22 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)

Article request: Heeling

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)

Do you mind if I copy this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs? I would like to reply there. --Una Smith (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me... just wondering what you were looking for.--Hafwyn (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Polls at Ireland disambiguation taskforce

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)

You are saying I missed the current poll? I still am not clear which one you mean. Do outsiders have more or less sway there, than the regulars? --Una Smith (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ousiders we desperately need - the same old blood has been haunting the issue for years!

The poll I meant was the 'live' one linked to from the bottom of the talk page at WP:IDTF. It is still live certainly if you want to vote (please do), but it's all changed a bit since I wrote the above. I originally started the taskforce with a poll that I put on hold, as people objected to me doing it (and the to the entire taskforce as it happens) - the crazy thing is that I'm thinking of bringing the poll back. The current one is far too close for comfort, and I've invested to much in this to see it fail (ie no change happening at all - which means more edit wars etc).

I started the taskforce as a relative newcomer to the matter (comparatively anyway), as I found out that variations were polled every 6 months for several years - always just losing out to the 'status quo'. All the Irish Talk pages were being filled with it, and 'moratoriums' were being put in place to stop polling for another 6 months - but they never stopped the debate and anger of course. All the while the Ireland and Northern Ireland articles were falling behind. Hence starting the taskforce.. Something could still happen from it, but I'm not sure what it will be now - I'm awaiting comments on my last input. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. To me, that says the polls (being used as a form of majority rule) are part of the problem. Restarting polls is especially bad. How about Wikipedia:Mediation? What you all need is to not start over and over again, but keep going and get into the nitty-gritty. Identify what the real sticking points are, and possible solutions to them. --Una Smith (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I could be so inhumane to a mediator (or even a group of them)! In a way, we are working it out. The great thing about the taskforce is that noone can run away or out-talk the debate. It was why some people were so hostile to me doing it. We will get somewhere in the end, it's just like the route is walking through mud, that's all. It's not just opinions - it's people. I gave it a long break (and almost retired, as I think I said to you), but I'm fighting it through now anyway.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:59, 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)

You're welcome. Re the extent of catch-all, you could do a small experiment. Check all links on one page of "what links here" and keep a tally. --Una Smith (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RM on Ireland disam

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)

moving dab pages

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)

I know of no consolidated discussion. That is my observation of the requested moves involving disambiguation pages in the past few weeks, both the kinds of moves being requested and the discussion of each one. --Una Smith (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Irelands

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)

Los Angeles County, California → Los Angeles County

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)

Reasons for requested moves

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)

Reason are okay, but I think long discussions belong in the discussion section on the relevant talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Polo picture in Commons

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)

Dieterich

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)

The senator's page has been moved. The senator's own campaign website mostly omits his middle initial, so I think the better solution would have been to move the senator's page to William Dieterich. Anyway, having one topic article occupy an ambiguous title is in my opinion the least useful approach, because it interferes with disambiguation of incoming links. To disambiguate incoming links, two approaches are useful: (1) the ambiguous title is a redirect to a page about the "primary" topic (if there is one), that has an unambiguous title; or (2) the ambiguous title is a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute

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)

primary topic and dab pages

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)

Surely there is a better place for such a discussion than on my talk page? --Una Smith (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think is better, Una? Because what Born2cycle has said is the crux of my objection to your wanting to have dab pages at the primary topic, as I said at the Weymouth discussion. ++Lar: t/c 11:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Born2cycle posted about this on Talk:Harrisburg and I replied there. The meta issue of what is a "primary topic" is being discussed also on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I know of no better place to question and discuss a particular user's purpose and motivation than that user's talk page. My questions above, plainly made in good faith, stand unanswered. Please continue to show good faith and answer them. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So, are you going to answer the questions? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:59, 5 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)

Many a disambiguation page "Foo" has a companion "Foo (disambiguation)", which is a redirect to "Foo". That companion page has several uses, including collecting "legitimate" links to the disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So, are you going to asnwer my questions above yet? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the relevant talk pages. --Una Smith (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve Harris

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)

Calculus' tone

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. --Kizor 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I have no medical background. --Kizor

Re the article I replied on the article talk page, Talk:Calculus (dental)#Tone. Re you, not to worry, just look up information. If you write much here, expect to visit a library more and even become a frequent user of interlibrary loan services. --Una Smith (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

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)

Enfield

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

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)

Another disambig page-move case

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 tracking only discussed moves involving disambiguation pages. I would report that move on Wikipedia Talk:Requested moves and ask if reverting is appropriate (personally I think it is). --Una Smith (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

List of skin-related conditions

I am watching you sort the sections on that page—thank you so much! kilbad (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Post town

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)

talk pages

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)

Yes, my edit summary should have noted the text move. Sorry about that. --Una Smith (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Station1 (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to apologize for forging my signature? --Una Smith (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Actually, you added a paragraph to my talk page with my signature, making it appear that I had replied to you on my talk page when in fact I had not; I had replied here, which you deleted (which is of course your right). I added your "signature" after my own to try to make clear you added the paragraph, not me, at the same time as your following indented paragraph. Even so, I did not and would not accuse you of "forgery," which I think in incivil. Station1 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ATP

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)

Pharmacologic categorization

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)

Corispermum

See note on talk page to discuss the changes rather than reverting. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you write the article on tumbleweeds in botany before you continue to redirect plant articles in their first sentence to an article that isn't about what you're redirecting it to? --KP Botany (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I had to move the tumbleweed article without discussion because of your refusal to discuss your redirects. You can't create a neologism for an article title just because you refuse to discuss the subject of your improper redirects. Consider this a warning. --KP Botany (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What neologism? --Una Smith (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The title you created. "Tumbleweed (diaspore)" after I clearly stated my justification for the correct name, namely tumbleweed, when you refused to stop making incorrect redirects to it under its current name. --KP Botany (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, that is your opinion. I disagree. In my opinion, Tumbleweed should be a dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your justifying it entirely with "your opinion" after making multiple attempts to discuss the issue with you is plane incivility on your part. You're simply wasting everyone's time, by making them correct your improper links to the same sentence, and making them move back ridiculous articles that have "0" supporting evidence for a title. But, I'm pretty sure that is precisely what this is about. --KP Botany (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. --Una Smith (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

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)

You are the subject of a post at AN/I

[5] --KP Botany (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this a second AN/I by you against me, KP Botany? The link is malformed. --Una Smith (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tumbleweed (diaspore)

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)

Una, I'd strongly recommend that you desist from recreating this page. If you have an issue with the deletion, take it to deletion review, but recreating pages after deletion, multiple times, is disruptive. No actual information or history was lost, the article has been moved back to a non neologism name. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Lar. By the time I saw this notice the page was already deleted. I merely followed the instructions to put {{hangon}} on the page. Hours ago, now, wasn't it? That is not disruptive editing. I don't know what all was lost, but per the logs in fact some edit history was deleted and under the circumstances I would like to know. I know you encouraged KP Botany to request the speedy deletion; I am surprised you would do that in the midst of a related AN/I in which you are involved. --Una Smith (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The only things in the deleted versions are (for the mainspage page) your recreations, and (for the talk page) discussion of them. Thus nothing was lost to the deletions, as the article content remains, as do all the attributions for the edits that contributed and created that content. I hope that helps. As for encouraging KP to request speedies, I'm not sure that's an accurate characterization. How did you come to that conclusion? ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi (related to WP Orienteering)

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)

Save me some time and give me a link to where the deletion is being considered. --Una Smith (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BOrienteering-org-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Orienteering_organization_stubs 安東尼 TALK ^圣诞快乐 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(For the record, I do not approve of creating Wikipedia articles for every orienteering club, especially not stub articles; that is too close to using Wikipedia as a directory.) Does that mean you do not approve of the IOF member stub creations? 安東尼 TALK ^圣诞快乐 18:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's right. I am not opposed to creating articles for IOF member organizations; there is no question that they qualify as notable, and many of them have interesting histories. However, I wish you would not create them as stubs. You are not a newbie here anymore, and you know from experience the time sink that stubs about organizations can become. Rather than defend those stubs against deletion, why not create them in start-class condition? --Una Smith (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the Linguistic skills to understand the websites. I'm trying, BOF is now at least Start, When I've seen other stubs created people have contributed to them. Which is why I think they seem to be a good starting point , I do agree it would be better if they could get to start Class 安東尼 TALK ^圣诞快乐 18:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. You might start the articles in a user subpage, and post requests for help on the project talk page. Also there is a translation project that might be able to help. The eastern European IOF member org pages need special attention now because 2009 will be in Hungary. --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tumbleweed (diaspore) - more

Please let me know if you need any help with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please undelete the two pages you deleted, Tumbleweed (diaspore) and Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore). I would like to examine the deleted edit histories, but admins keep deleting them again before I get there. --Una Smith (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page, Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore). There's nothing worth restoring at Tumbleweed (diaspore): everything, along with the whole contribution history, was moved back to Tumbleweed and all that's left are a few db/hangon tag edits from today. Anything meaningful from the contrib history of the article under both titles is at Tumbleweed. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. In fact, this is exactly what I pointed out two sections above, at 04:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC). Now that Gwen has created a redirect from Tumbleweed (diaspore) to Tumbleweed, I'm not sure exactly what the talk page is needed for, redirects typically don't have talk pages, (sometimes they do, of course) and this one seems to contain not much other than an attack on KP Botany. ++Lar: t/c 05:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll likely delete the talk page again with the day, after Una has had time to look at it. I don't see anything worth keeping there, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen. Normally I would not care, but those pages are the subject of an AN/I so I think it would be wise to keep the edit histories, just in case. Even the hangon tags. Yes, they are mere housekeeping, but in this case that is important information. --Una Smith (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Any admin can see the deleted edits, Una. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That is good to know, but non-admin users cannot see them, and may make strange guesses about what was deleted. I have now seen the edit summaries and I am satisfied. --Una Smith (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is going to care what's there, Una. Given you've seen it now (not much), I've redeleted Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore). If you need the content for some reason, please ask and I'll userfy it for you. I should say again, no meaningful edits or contribution history whatsoever have been lost from Tumbleweed, everything is there. Moreover, the logs show all the move and deletion histories. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

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)

RM Roma people

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)

FWIW, Born2cycle has half the edits I do, and I am also not an admin. To answer your question, I think Google searches are a total non-issue. Once an article on this topic exists, the readership and Google hits will go there. I see absolutely no need for any article to "squat" on a "preferred" page name. As I tried to explain in reply to your question on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves (see diff), I think the new article should be made at Roma (ethnonym). --Una Smith (talk)

(edit conflict) I would proceed as you were, as if there had been no interference. --Una Smith (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Its difficult to tell where we were. I presume you are referring to B2c's edit, but there have been a number of other changes that altered what I thought was at issue. The page couldn't remain as a proto-article and simultaneously a Dab. RashersTierney (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would ignore B2c's edit. It looks to me like the situation calls for both disambiguation and a new article. The disambiguation might be handled adequately on the disambiguation page Roma. By the way, a Wikipedia page name (the name that appears in the URL) has almost nothing to do with ranking in Google search results. --Una Smith (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. When you mean 'ignore', do you mean revert that edit while discussion on the RM is ongoing, or let things go as they are. RashersTierney (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would let it go, while you and the other content contributors to those pages figure out what article you want to write and where to put it. --Una Smith (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed your edit at Roma people and think it is an improvement. Hopefully others will too. RashersTierney (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. --Una Smith (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Una, the new proposal appears as mine at the RM page, which it certainly isn't. Can you, or whoever changed it please make that clear.RashersTierney (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I tried to fix it. Is it okay now? --Una Smith (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Grand. Thanks, but this thing has lost me. RashersTierney (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

Health concerns

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)

Thanks, Cgoodwin. I don't find the topic difficult in the least. Of course it still is incomplete, in several respects. Besides information about back and neck (collectively, spine) injuries, it needs a sensible precis of "the helmet question". There is growing evidence that bicycle helmets are not protective so much as the habits of voluntary wearers of helmets. It is the old problem of correlation does not imply causation. --Una Smith (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just wanted to say that it's so far, so good as to the content actually added to the article. Sandbox was a good idea and well-used. Been good collaboration from a number of editors. Possible that if there's a lot of expansion, it may necessitate a spin-off separate article eventually. Anything similar for other, non-horse, sports we can use for future comparison? (I'm thinking skiing as a high-risk example that may have a bit article with spinoffs...or rock climbing, or ... ) Montanabw^(talk) 06:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pelvic floor

OK, and thanks for your note and link. Tameamseo (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Horse (response)

Ok, I'll see what I can do.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Paracetamol#Metabolism

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)

You are thinking that paracetamol -> NAPQI -> conjugate is one pathway; I am thinking it is several: 3 different cytochrome enzymes and possibly others (I have not followed the links from Paracetamol#Toxicity) can metabolize paracetamol to NAPQI. Perhaps a minor expansion of Metabolic pathway would be helpful? --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you like Paracetamol#Metabolism now? --Una Smith (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Equidae

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)

No problem. I'm easy. --Una Smith (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding unsourced material to articles that are being prepped for FA

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)

Was there a reason that you went here instead of just addressing the issue here? Rather odd. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am feeling harassed by you, Lar. Please stop. --Una Smith (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that way, but a claim of harassment, while serious, is not a shield for behavior that merits scrutiny. I suggest that you take the advice that I, and others, are giving you to heart, and change your approach... to be more collegial, more respectful of others, more consensus building and seeking. I think then these feelings will go away. If that approach (that is, to change what is at issue with your own actions) is not one you feel comfortable with, then further steps, such as a user conduct RfC, may be warranted. Because, really, you've got to stop these behaviors of yours and stop claiming that others are at issue when it's really your own behavior that is the source of difficulty. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you fix your mess, please?

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)

Discussion continued here. --Una Smith (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we take another run at a truce between the two of us? The template issue should be solved by a real consensus, not a false one. You know that you just singlehandedly destroyed weeks of my work on wiki without so much as a "sorry." Believe it or not, I AM perfectly capable of working out a compromise with you if you will make any effort to communicate and meet me half way. So can we open a discussion, it can be in a sandbox on the side, or whatever, either just you and I or with a neutral mediator, but figure out a way to deal with each other? I am tired of these constant problems, I'd prefer to just edit articles and I most sincerely hope you do too. So once again, may I make a sincere, good faith attempt to extend to you an olive branch and suggest that we learn to work together? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 05:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not "fighting" with you, Montanabw, so we have nothing to make a truce about. This is nothing more than ordinary change, a part of progress. That said, if you think mediation is needed to deal with any article, template, or category, please do not hesitate to request either informal or formal mediation through proper channels. --Una Smith (talk) 17:07, 26 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)

This is most certainly more than "ordinary change" and you know this. "Proper channels" begins with discussion on the individual user's talk page, and that is what I am doing. I think carrots are good, I like them, I am offering one. We need to figure out how to function in a universe that contains the both of us. You have in fact made any number of personal attacks against me over the last several months, and as of late are deliberately targeting areas where you know I have an interest and are refusing to enter into a good faith discussion with me. I have made prior attempts to negotiate and discuss our differences of opinion, and am trying again. If you sincerely want to work on articles, then you know you are supposed to discuss changes in good faith with other editors when there are people who also care, particularly those who have been the most involved (such as myself), prior to making sweeping changes. And you have been told this over and over and over again by any number of people other than myself. However, consider your latest round of behavior to be very close to harassment. And per wiki policy, I am discussing my concerns with you here first. I have not filed anything and would prefer not to. So the ball is in your court. We can discuss this in a private sandbox, or we can ask a mediator to get involved with you and I. Your decision. Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify? Are you saying that you refuse to collaborate or work with me? Are you saying that you do not want to enter into a good faith discussion of how we can learn to work together rather than to have conflict? I do not want to misunderstand you. I am making a sincere, good faith effort to figure out how to not keep having these endless conflicts and battles. Are you not willing to discuss this at all? Montanabw^(talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

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)

horses in warfare

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)

Thanks for the howitzer! That's actually where the topic belongs; they were inspired by the "flying artillery". --Una Smith (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm...

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)

I am sorry too. I did not mean to give the impression that necrotizing fasciitis is a common result of infection with this bacterium. I was responding to a so what? comment by another reader in an older section on the talk page. The article would benefit from a list of resulting medical conditions, including mention of relative risks. That would be more balanced and neutral. I think your point is not getting across. I think your point is that NF is fairly common and when it occurs then rarely does it involve any species of Pseudomonas, so it is extremely unlikely that Pseudomonas was involved in the case in question and certainly that case should not be mentioned in Pseudomonas aeruginosa on the basis of media (?) speculation that a Pseudomonas was involved. --Una Smith (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my point is certainly not getting across! My sole point is that sepsis is not that rare, and, sadly, often leads to tragic outcomes such as Mariana's. There is nothing to suggest that she had NF—it was merely an example. In fact, she most probably did have a Pseudomonas infection, that led to sepsis, that led to her death—as happens to many people; that doesn't mean we mention them in the Pseudomonas aeruginosa article. We don't mention people who died of NF in the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus article. The Mariana Bridi da Costa article, if not deleted, should certainly mention that she died of sepsis. If her case becomes a rallying point for the media to bring attention to a little-known condition (like John Ritter's death did for aortic dissection, or Maurice Gibb's death did for bowel ischemia), then we may mention it in the sepsis article, or even in the urinary tract infection article. Right now, mentioning her death anywhere other than Mariana Bridi da Costa would be recentism. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Landrace

Una – just to say I like your improvements to Landrace – clearer and better. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have been working also on Feral horse and related categories. There are feral horses and feral horse breeds. Wild horse may be getting a makeover; see Talk:Wild horse. Care to participate? --Una Smith (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on the Sorraia GA review

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)

The GA Review of the Sorraia

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)

Not to worry. NPOV applies to articles, not contributors. Vent, cool, edit, post. --Una Smith (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Feral horse "Breeds"?

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)

Montanabw, it appears you demand that I seek your permission before editing any article, template, or category of interest to you. No thank you. Regarding your content remarks, please see Category talk:Feral horse breeds. --Una Smith (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, Una, Montanabw is not "asking you to seek his permission before editing any article, etc." Please, feel free to reread the post.

Montanabw asked you to first run reclassification schemes past WikiProject Equine before implementing them. It's easy to assume by the name that this WikiProject might be interested in horse classification organizational issues. That's why Montanabw asked you to run your proposals by them, a group of editors, not by Montanabw, a single editor. Also, Montanabw did not ask you to seek his permission, merely to run the organizational schemes past a group of interested editors to gain consensus. WikiProjects are groups of editors who have expressed an interest in a topic. Wikipedia works by consensus. --KP Botany (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Una, I am asking that you work WITH the WPEQ community. While I am one of the most active editors there, I am not the only one. There are a number of other active editors who have been primary providers of content (much of it GA and FA quality) and they have done extensive research and editing work to get these articles to the point they are today. What you are doing is going into things you do not fully understand, and inserting your own scheme of how you think things ought to be with minimal collaboration or cooperation, then you attack anyone who disagrees with you. Further, your attempts to derail the GA run of Sorraia smacks of a personal vendetta of some sort. That is out of line, and you know it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw, I want nothing to do with your "WPEQ community". I spoke up about the Sorraia article to save Wikipedia editors from making fools of themselves by promoting to GA an article that as much as says a horse color breed known to be about 80 years old is actually 5.33 million years old. --Una Smith (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Request related to page moves

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)

I would second that request, Una. We've been through this before. You have a lot of very valuable knowledge to offer but this sort of behavior is disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think discussion of page names for that article belongs on Talk:Equus ferus ferus#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I ask you to move it back because it was a unilateral controversial move, and it is perfectly legimate for me to ask that here at the person who did the move in the first place. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please file the AN/I immediately

... 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)

That's perhaps a bit pointy and uncalled for, KP... I realise you're frustrated but try to refrain from doing that sort of thing if you can. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lar, another editor deleted it. However, Una is now thoroughly informed that she can and should post on AN/I about me whenever she wants. In fact, Una, please post on AN/I before you ever go near my talk page again with a lame threat to post on AN/I about me. I insist. --KP Botany (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bolding scientific names

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)

Kim, you are correct. However, alternates to the article title are bolded in the lead of Wikipedia articles. --Una Smith (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that reasoning, but I would suggest you try to change that at the Tree of Life level before changing at random some pages, as that will result in some pages with bold and most without.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation, Kim, I have done as you request. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#MOS question. --Una Smith (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added my 2 cents there also. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wild horse

No prob! Anything to further the cause of science on WP. :P Shrumster (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

When scientists write for a non-scientific audience, be it in "pop sci" book or a magazine article, etc., they tend to use non-scientific common names to refer to the topics that they discuss (when applicable). How is it furthering the cause of science on WP to do something different from what even scientists do? After all, our audience must be assumed to be primarily not scientists and no specialists. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:32, 3 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)

How about the rights of Wikipedia editors who are major contributors to the article? I have been working on extinct Equidae articles for many weeks now, and I am a major contributor to Equus ferus ferus, also Equus (genus), Grullo and some other articles on related topics. --Una Smith (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the rights of Wikipedia projects, I think that granting them special rights tends to encourage ownership of a kind that is not constructive, where editors who claim to speak for a project feel entitled tell other editors what to do concerning any article within the project's scope. WP:EQ is especially bad that way. I work with many projects, and no other is as oppressive and negative as WP:EQ. In no other project am I and other "outsider" editors told not to edit an article, but instead submit my requests for review on the talk page. Sometimes they even tell us to use a sandbox instead of the talk page. Some examples are Sorraia and Horses in warfare. As Montanabw often mentions, I am not a member of WP:EQ. But years ago I was, and I was very active and cooperative too. One might wonder who, if anyone, is to blame: me, for not being compliant enough; or WP:EQ, for casting me out. --Una Smith (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh Una, do give me a break! WPEQ has repeatedly tried to explain that you need to work WITH the group, discuss your changes before you make them and don't attack people who disagree with you. Yes, we do challenge and remove your constant insertion of OR and [{WP:FRINGE]] theories, and the only reason you feel "oppressed" is because you never learn to WORK WITH US. Find consensus and compromise. We work well over there most of the time with many other users. So be a part of the community! But a "major editor?" Oh, please. You moved Tarpan to Equus ferus ferus without discussion or consensus, and added very little actual content, you never touched Grullo until last week and since then all you added was a list and some resynthesized material from a 1906 source in a manner that constitutes OR, pretty much messing up a perfectly quiet, decent article. You also did virtually nothing to Equue (genus) other than move it from Equidae and put all the pictures in a gallery. Well, I guess if by "major editor" you mean you have contributed a lot of bandwidth in the last two weeks, I"ll grant you that. Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Horses

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)

Equus ferus ferus and Tarpan

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)

Tarpan & E. ferus systematics

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)

Tarpan and Equus ferus ferus

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)

Primary topic

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)

More tarpans

The discussion has been moved to Talk:Equus ferus ferus#More tarpans. --Una Smith (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

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)

Sounds like a cabal. Great. Food_Puma 02:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion 2027

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)

It means that the scientific name is a conserved name. --Una Smith (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

ICZN

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)

Hyperuricemia Page

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)

Hi Spookmaster. Thanks for your heads-up. Your edits did not get at the reason I tagged the section as needing cleanup. I have now done most of the cleanup I had in mind. I removed the mentions of selected XO inhibitors and uricosurics; those are now more thoroughly discussed in other articles. There remain some loose ends. Eg, is Sevelamer a uricosuric? --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for you that might help me

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. Food_Puma 02:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I read and considered the article talk page and the FAC reviews; is there some important discussion elsewhere? I prefer to work together with you, rather than persuade others to pressure you. The former is collaboration; the latter is politics. Could you be more specific about where you think I have added unnecessary complexity? Provide a diff or a quote? Also, did you notice the hidden inline questions I added? Let's discuss on the FAC page or on the article talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with image on Testicle

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)

Cool. --Una Smith (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

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)

European Organization for Rare Diseases

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)

You're welcome. I saw the page delete log on EURORDIS, and the AfD. Much effort could have been saved by all parties, by asking WikiProject Medicine for help. --Una Smith (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry.

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. :-\ Food_Puma 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

On a separate note, I wanted to ask if we should remove the inline citation for the rate of incidence statistic. It's used back in the epidemiology section and while perusing random the article's talk page I noticed Graham asked for references to be removed from the lede (if they weren't used elsewhere... or something to that effect). This is used later on in the article, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Also, I suppose it's fine to leave the definition reference in the lede (without it appearing again)? Cheers, Food_Puma 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

WikiProject Medicine's Missing Articles Trophy — Awarded to Una Smith for the creation of Kidney cancer.

-- Maen. K. A. (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK Lac de Monteynard Avignonet

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)

Thank you one more time for helping me with the article. I added you to my DYK nomination. I hope you do not mind. Best wishes.--mbz1 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is very kind of you. Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Traffic light control and coordination

On 18 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Traffic light control and coordination, which you recently nominated. 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) 05:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)