Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:17, 21 September 2008

Template:Archive box collapsible

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Chaps. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 03:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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| 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 _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 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Starting now, how's that? Montanabw 06:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, Una, keep it civil. The NUMBER ONE rule of Misplaced Pages: 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages and copied the description from Misplaced Pages to Commons. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The photo on commons 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 " 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

O LOGOS

under the Terms of the Commons 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)

Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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)

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)

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)