Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:44, 19 September 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)

Reverting at will?

I dont understand, Which bot? --Frankie0607 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your edits were so fast and unreasoned that I though you were a crazy bot.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My edits follow policy when reverting. I only revert clear evidence of vandalism. Please feel free to continue this on my talk page. --Frankie0607 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain which policy was followed here? And how you can judge "vandalism" so fast?--Nutriveg (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a console which displays differences in red, I apologise for reverting your edit, as it was good faith. Sometimes the software jumps or collides with other articles. I was veiwing another peice of vandalism before I edited yours, which may of still been displayed when I was looking at your changes.It is easy to identify vandalism quite quickly. Which is majorily helped by the software. Sorry again :) --Frankie0607 15:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table. Thank you.

You made a major change to the table - adding another column - without anything in the edit summary. It is very important for other users to see what you are doing, especially when making large changes. Thanks |→ Spaully† 12:27, 29 April 2009 (GMT)

Swine Flu tables

Hello,

I see you have a tendency to try and add new information (columns) to these tables. While I appreciate your desire to get "as much info as possible" into the tables, this kind of stuff is better handled in the text of the articles. The tables are not meant to be a substitutes for the article and should stick to only the # of cases. Lest they become unwieldy and also make the text beside them difficult to read. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also please try to use edit summaries - especially when making major changes to an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks / roundup

I just saw your restructuring of the Roundup article. That looked like a lot of work...but I think the article is a lot clearer now. Thanks much! Cazort (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

You just removed some information from this article and failed to provide an edit summary. As you have been instrcuted before, please be sure to provide an edit summary as it help other editors establish what you have done to an article. Faethon Ghost (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism doesn't require justification. "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary." Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from using words like 'duh' in an edit summary. Please remember WP:Civil. Faethon Ghost (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's so good we have people like you around to take care of us, it feels like kindergarten all again.--Nutriveg (talk)

Bisphenol A

Regarding this edit: I'm curious why you think it's better to summarize there, and I'm also a bit concerned about the disappearance of several citations referencing journal articles. Would you explain your reasoning, please? Rivertorch (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It was confuse, the first phrase of that introduction was a reference to a study and that study wasn't representative. Feel free to rewrite it.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard

When you ask for comment in a place like this (and I want to point that it was you who asked for it), it is to have open ears to what people has to say. Right now 5 different editors have stated that Kheiffets can be used... You can say that I was heavily involved in the discussion; fine; that is four and only you against using it; but then; no one more than you has been more heavily involved; so you should neither count. That's four people against nobody denying its use and it's called CONSENSUS, you can accept it or put your hands over your eyes/ears and deny it.--Garrondo (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

SA also said his opinion wad biased, WhatamIdoing didn't evaluated my arguments so far, and the other two just now joined the discussion and didn't say she was an "expert in Alzheimer", after you campaigned asking for a different question "if she was an expert". So you're making early conclusions at best. Please use to noticeboard or article page for any further comments.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I bothered you: I posted it here because it was related to how I see your behavior, and not to the sources themselves. Regarding WhatamIdoing: there is no need for him to evaluate your reasoning: he can reach his own valid conclusions by himself.--Garrondo (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your comment

thank for your comment on my talk page. I did originally add to some of the articles edited, but then read the article that Beland (talk · contribs) directed me to (Strand AD, Baquet ZC, Aragaki AK; et al. (2007). "Expression profiling of Huntington's disease models suggests that brain-derived neurotrophic factor depletion plays a major role in striatal degeneration". J Neurosci. 27 (43): 11758–68. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2461-07.2007. PMID 17959817. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) and found no reference to all the conditions listed. Given that this was completing misleading, it was better to removed it. Thanks for now adding other references, although there are still some concerns about some of these (see discussion on schizophrenia and WikiProject Medicine talk pages). Regards Earlypsychosis (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Glutathione supplements

Please see this discussion here.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#New_article.2C_may_need_the_old_once-over--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)