Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:45, 20 April 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Your recent edits

You removed tons of information (which is possibly vandalism), and your edit summary was not clear. Please enter in a better edit summary. Thank you. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot external report site offline.Undid revision 257929121 by ClueBot is not good enough for an edit summary. You did not say you moved it until after my revert. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Information was moved from an article to another. Reasoning was explicit in those articles contents . Numbers of lines on a single article is not everything, watch out before making false accusations based on shallow guesses.Nutriveg (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But you said that after my edit. Your edit summary before my revert was not clear. Because of that, I thought it was vandalism (by a very large removal of content). After all it says: "If you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary.", which did not happen by the time of my revert. I will continue to watch my edits, and hopefully you can enter in a better edit summary. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Again, please do not remove large sections of articles without an edit summary and/or note on the talk page. Providing such will ensure that your edits are not perceived as accidents or vandalism. Also, when creating any article, including spin offs, it is important to follow the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. In this case Misplaced Pages:Layout and Misplaced Pages:Footnotes are of particular importance. I've fixed the most obvious migration errors, but I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the above pages. --DO11.10 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Zineb

I see you added the latest banning orders fron EU. Looking at the refs you supplied it does not mention Zineb but does mention maneb and mancozeb, which seems strange to me as the active ingredient is generally agreed to be the dithiocarbamate ligand, which is present in all three. Am I missing something here or have the legislators? --Axiosaurus (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Zineb is not listed in list of the examined substances, I think they missed it.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps Zineb was banned previously- if it hasn't been it should be examined - must try to find anything about it. I must get round to adding something on dithiocarbamate health issues- compounds containing them have been used in large quantities worldwide.--Axiosaurus (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship suggestion

I've been informed of your WP:WQA thread, and I have added some points there. I'll only repeat here that I think you have made some very good contributions and citation additions, but have some concerns for other poorer edits. If you would like to discuss this further then I'm happy to do so - would feedback on your edits (without obligation) be helpful/welcomed ? If not, perhaps consider this of another editor whom you respect (or see Misplaced Pages:Mentorship#Voluntary mentorship). Yours David Ruben 04:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No. If some of my edits are poor is because of I don't have enough time to do better ones, go improve them instead.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Alzheimer

I have given the reasons for the elimination in the talk page. I hope you join the disccussion. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)