User talk:Spaully/Archive 1

This is an archive of User talk:Spaully, if you wish to comment on an archived
discussion please copy it to or link to it from the current talk page.

To keep messages together I will respond where they originate, you might want to  if that's here.
Talk pages: Current | Archive 1 / 2 / 3
I only edit infrequently so please bear in mind it may be a while until I see any messages. Thanks.

Acropora rodriguensis

Hello, I cannot find any reference to Acropora rodriguensis on the Internet. Yet, you mentionned it as an endemic species of Rodrigues in this article. Are you sure it is an official scientific name ? Thierry Caro 16:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied on the talk page. The short answer is that the species does exist, and has currently only been found in Rodrigues, but may not be an officially recognised species currently. |--Spaully 01:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Thierry Caro 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Computer problem

Spaully, a weird thing has happened to my computer. After you made an edit to Talk:Pro-Test, I came to your user page to check out who you were. I was interested in the grey-squares optical illusion and clicked on it, then from there visited three other webpages that were linked to. These are the pages I visited [1] [2] [3] [4], though it might be best not to click on the links. I wasn't aware of anything downloading onto my computer, but since visiting one of these pages, a voice is reading out everything I do, every page I visit, every icon I click on, even though text-to-speech is turned off in my systems preferences. There's also a black square that surrounds any icon I click on, and a few other minor changes. I use a Mac, so this is very unusual, because we're usually not affected by viruses, and I can't find anything online that matches what I'm experiencing. I've rebooted, deleted preferences, deleted anything created today, and so on, but I can't get rid of the voice; it's even spelling things out for me. :-) Has anyone else mentioned computer problems to you after visiting that optical illusion page or any of the pages you link to, or they link to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim, sorry to hear that about the link. I've not had any other communication about that, and never heard of such a problem! I haven't followed the links from the WP Image page in the past, but that doesn't sounds good. I'm afraid I can't help on the computer front, as I don't know much about Macs, or viruses for that matter. I will remove the image from my user page though, at least until I find out what's going on.

Is there something we should do to flag this on WP? Spaully 18:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, Spaully. I'd say it's too early to flag it, because I don't know which page it came from. I'm about to go onto the Mac help discussion boards and see if I can find anything that sounds like this problem. The voice is a particularly grating one, and when it's not spelling words out to me, or saying "Watchlist. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia," it just repeats "Firefox has new window" over and over. :-) I'll let you know what I find out. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That could really get annoying :). I'd be grateful to know what's going on. Spaully 18:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey all -- I had the same problem today, and googling "firefox has new window" brought me here. Eventually, I figured out that I had turned on a Mac application called "VoiceOver" which was narrating my every move. It can be toggled on or off by pressing Cmd-F5 (which you might do by accident instead of fn-F5 to turn up the sound). The keyboard shortcut fn-Command-F5 might also have this effect. Not a virus -- phew! Cheers, KC 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Abortion

Abortion is most often done as post-conception birth control. Its not pretty, but its a fact. And the reasons for birth control are varied and understandable - no attempt to minimize the reasons. But in the end, women simply get abortions when they WANT them -for any and all reasons. This is elective abortion. This is almost 90% of all abortions. Even allowing that mental "stress" could be a reason for therapeutic abortion, the reasons women give are rarely therapeutic ones. Not sure why you insist on defining elective abortion by exception. There really should be some reason for doing so. Yes, it disturbs many to note in black and white that abortion is most often simply birth control. If that is your reason for listing the overwhelmingly most common reason last, then it is not good enough. 84.146.240.137

The definition you replaced it with: "An induced abortion performed for personal, social or economic reasons" includes every possible reason for abortion - it is a 'personal' reason to abort if the foetus is deformed, or if you will die because of the pregnancy. Given all induced abortions are said to fall into 'elective' and 'therapeutic', the only way for these categories to be inclusive is for one to be exclusive of the other definition.

I have no qualms with abortion most often being because the mother does not want a child, as for it most often being 'birth control' there's quite a large debate on that matter - I would not class an elective abortion of a pregnancy started because of a failure of normal birth control as a type of birth control. This makes condemning its use as such much easier.

On the point of the obsetrics definition of pregnancy - that doesn't apply in terms of abortion, and the intro defines abortion perfectly without need for further clarification. Spaully 13:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The point you make about IUDs is precisely why it is important to note that many people reject the new medical definition (which, by the way, has a very political history). The reader is being informed, and that information helps him understand some of the contoversy surrounding the entire issue of "reproductive rights". 84.146.240.137

My point on IUDs is that these are not considered to cause abortion, or seen as a method of causing abortion. The same can be said for the morning-after pill.

While the definition of pregnancy currently in the article may be disputed, it is the correct definition in terms of looking at abortion. The abortion article is not the right place to discuss the accuracy of this definition, and indeed this definition is needed to define and deal with abortion. Spaully 13:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The revised sentance you've put is good, I'll agree with that. Just need to iron out the definition of 'elective' now :). Spaully 13:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I will log off for awhile. My frustration with this article is apparent. The double standard continues to vex this article. I don't expect all bias to be removed in one day. I thank you for any efforts you make to improve the article in this regard. Again, thanks. 84.146.240.137

{{unsigned}}

Why are you substituting the {{unsigned}} template? Do you have a good reason? — Omegatron 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that templated were to be 'subst'ed wherever possible, and had noticed this being done to many pages on my watchlist with justifications in terms of server load. I was doing it more as a test for WP:AWB while trying to do something useful. I apologise if this was innapropriate, or incorrect; I was not trying to antagonise. |→ Spaully°τ 00:00, 1 March 2006

It's very disputed, actually. My personal opinion is that subst'ing templates wherever possible is tremendously harmful. The "server load" argument has been refuted by Wikipedia's lead developer. Did you read this somewhere specific? — Omegatron 00:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere specific I believe. As I say it was in several edit comments where a user was substing templates in the User_talk namespace. I'm afraid it seems to have fallen off my watchlist, but I can let you know if it turns up again.  :::I have just found WP:SUBST, I notice the unsigned template is under discussion. |→ Spaully°τ 00:17, 1 March 2006

Bypassing Redirects

Hi there! I noticed today that you did a redirect bypass somewhere changing Prosecuted to Criminal Law. Just so you know, it is not necessary to remove redirects unless they are double redirects. The server is not put under extra stress by the redirect (but it is by the action of 'fixing' them). I used to do this myself until I was advised that it is not needed. Just so you know :) -Localzuk ^(talk) 19:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. Thanks for the heads up. |→ Spaully°τ 20:36, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

Re: Template:Antibiotics

Great work on collating so many antibiotics, it should serve as a very useful nav box.

I hope you don't mind me making a few (hopefully constructive) comments.

I have been standardising the series of medical and anatomical navboxes and have been advised of the current use of '|' as a seperator. The current standard, as you can see on most of the boxes on this list use '|' as a separator, and allow the links to become bold when self-referential. It might be worth considering a change for the sake of continuity.

Currently you have transcluded the whole of this template into a few antibiotic artcles. I might suggest it would be best to avoid having such a large template in an article. Perhaps a list of classes would be best for the Template:Antibiotics?

Thanks, |→ Spaully°τ 21:51, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

Sorry, deleted most of my comment having realised you have created sub-templates. |→ Spaully°τ 22:01, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

I don't mind at all - in fact, I greatly appreciate that you've taken the time to comment on my work. Without input from the rest of the community, an article will never be able to reach its full potential (it will likely be riddled with errors as well). If you come across anything else that you feel like commenting on regarding drug-related articles (or anything I've edited), I would be happy to hear from you. Also, if you are particularly interested in antibiotics, you might want to join the WikiProject on Drugs (it unfortunately seems as if no one has been working on this project recently). And lastly, you might check out my project page for antibiotics (its basically a place where I've deposited all the information that needs to be incorporated into articles).

I agree that the template is a little too large to be on every page. Perhaps the sub-templates should be used instead? In this case, they should probably be renamed slightly to reflect the fact that they are antibiotics (e.g. just calling bacitracin a "Polypeptide" doesn't explain much, as there are thousands of polypeptides). In other words, each sub-template should say "Polypeptide Antibiotics" (Polypeptide being replaced with the respective class).

As for the main article about antibiotics, I find it quite messy and incomplete. The strangely colored table isn't exactly easy to read (and it isn't complete either). I'll try to make it easier to navigate and edit (when there are tables composed of html code, the tendency is for people to either botch or ignore the article).

Cheers,

Fuzzform 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the antibiotics page, definitely needs some work, although I don't know enough about templates to tackle that.

I think using the sub-templated, with the header either as you say with 'Aminoglycoside antibiotics' or 'Antibiotics - Aminoglycosides' would be much neater and easier to handle.

The 'other' category seems a bit of a dumping ground at the moment for whatever reason. Just from noticing that rifampin is in there on it's own, not linked to rifamycins. I'll contribute what I can to the antibiotics, although it wont be for the next few weeks.

I'll take a look at the project, although I don't envisage getting too bogged down in any one subject, especially right at the moment.

Thanks for the reply, |→ Spaully°τ 00:02, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Diambiguation - Asp

Hi. You removed the image I placed on this diambig page, stating it is a DAB page as explanation. I've read through Wikipedia:Disambiguation and there are no guidelines or discussions on this matter, are there any guidelines elsewhere on this? I added the image to add interest to the page, while remaining in keeping with the topic. I was hoping you could clarify why pictures should not be placed on such pages. Thanks. |→ Spaully°τ 14:38, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Hi Spaully, I'd say the picture distracts from the main task of a DAB page: bringing the user ASAP to the page they want to get to. Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), I think this is consenus:

Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term. This style guideline is intended to make this process more efficient by giving disambiguation pages a consistent look and avoiding distracting information, such as extraneous links (internal or external).

Hope you agree. And really, no offence intended. Thanks, --S.K. 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken. Thanks for that quote, makes it pretty clear; although maybe it could be made clearer on WP:DAB. I'll have to lay off making DAB pages look nice it seems. Thanks again, |→ Spaully°τ 15:01, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for all the work you're doing on the medical articles. --Arcadian 18:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you comment. I was in fact going to thank you and Diberri for what you have been contributing to the articles also, it's very much appreciated. They're getting bettter, and I think the Navboxes provide a very useful tool to find out about a particular subject. |→ Spaully°τ 22:14, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Tawkerbot2's warning system

Hi, first of all to congratulate the creators of the bot some more, hopefully it should allow more encyclopaedia writing.

Regarding this vandal, User talk:218.103.140.114, you can see from their talk page a mess of warnings 4 from Tawkerbot2 and 4 from humans. It appears the user should have been banned after User:Tawker gave a final warning, but unfortunately was not. This resulted in recurrent bot warnings. Is this a malfunction?

I feel in this case the warnings have not been productive, does the bot recognise pages it has already warned on recently? Does it have escalating warning messages?

Just wanted to bring this case to your attention, as I assume it is not what the bot is supposed to do. Thanks, and keep up the good work, |→ Spaully°τ 18:10, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Its a work in progress in the moment, all thats running there is an auto append to talk pages, no checks for multiple warnings no higher level warning monitoring (yet) - the new warning module is in the works though (along with a new whitelist option) :) -- Tawker 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds promising, I hope I run into the bot reverting lots of vandals in the future. Thanks, |→ Spaully°τ 19:35, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Influenza talk page comment

You said: "The reason for old variants dissappearing is development of herd immunity through generation of neutralising IgA antibodies, meaning it must mutate to survive. The fact that RNA mutates often is not the important factor in elimination of old strains, as if they were still effective variation would be selected against and they would still exist." To the best of my knowledge the neccessary gene sequencing to be sure this is true has never been done. I'm aware of mathematical models (that I disbelieve in) that could conclude such a thing. Can you point me to whatever evidence you are relying on in the making of that statement on a talk page? Thanks. WAS 4.250 02:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any papers I can link to, my understanding of the process is through lectures, essays, papers and tutorials. But I must admit I have never read this directly in any primary literature. That's the main reason I've not talked about it in the text.

However if you consider that the periodic epidemics are caused by antigenic shift, presumably this has the effect of changing the virion antigens sufficiently that it can infect a significant proportion of the population. Given neutralising IgA is the way immunity in conferred for flu, it seems fair to assume this is the important factor in preventing spread.

As for this being the reason for instability in flu strains, imagine a situation where a flu virus hits the jackpot - an antigen that for whatever reason the immune system could not produce antibodies against, there would be significant selective pressures to remain unaltered.

Anyway, it is more of a personal view, and I don't plan to write about it in the article anytime soon. Although if I do look into it at some point, I'll let you know if I find anything to back up my claims. Thanks, |→ Spaully°τ 09:35, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Influenza talk

Now that perhaps people have calmed down, I've moved the more personal comments to our user pages. My aim is not to reopen the confrontation but to explain my comments hopefully in a less agressive atmosphere.

further discussion

I'm not going to get drawn into an argument over this article, and for the benefit of future editors I suggest you adopt a less confrontational style of discussion. The fact is these articles are not logically separated or cross-linked. Hopefully at some point someone will be allowed to change that. I apologise for stepping on anyones toes. |→ Spaully°τ 20:46, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

You critisized me when I avoided arguing with you by giving my reason in the edit summary rather than the talk page and you misrepresented that by saying:"There was perhaps some irritation at the section being deleted without so much as an explanation on talk (which you'll notice I did when I reverted the first time, you did not)."

Now you critisize me by misrepresenting a full and substantive response as "confrontational". Your emotional response to simple evidence provided by me does not consitute evidence of anything wrong done by me.

You change the subject when you sneer: "The fact is these articles are not logically separated or cross-linked. Hopefully at some point someone will be allowed to change that." insinuating falsely that any such thing has occurred. In fact, I have reverted data contributed by you to this article that was completely unreferenced, partly false, and wholly neither new nor appropriate for this article and your response is to become upset, lie about my behavior and change the subject. If anyone wishes to help, I warmly welcome their help. These articles can use a lot of help. You did not help. That you added data that was "not logically separated" and then complain that's an area that needs improvement and critisize me for trying to keep the article from becomeing more "not logically separated" by reverting you ... well, the mendacity boggles the mind. WAS 4.250 21:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

First of all I apologise for some of the comments I made, those which I have put a line through and the original "you did not" regarding using talk.

To explain my second reply which was a bit short I've copied parts of your first talk page comment with why I felt it was innapropriate:

1st reply

"I've looked at some of your edits so I know you are neither stupid nor ignorant. So I am left wondering what you are talking about."

Suggesting you think my edits to influenza are "stupid" and "ignorant".

"Notice the linked item described as the causative virus? Click on it. That IS the "hard to find" virus information. See the box on the right marked "Flu"? The last item is labeled "Phylogenetics" which links to the same article."

How am I supposed to feel anything but indignation at the patronising tone?

"Please don't edit war until you get your facts straight. (And even then, talking rather than edit waring is better)"

1.The second of my two edits was different to the first, taking into account your previous edit comment 2.Prior to my second edit I started a new section on the talk page, in which I explained my reasoning.

"As it is clear you don't know what you are talking about when you say "If I was wanting to find information about influenza, I would find it very hard to find out about the virus itself" I am going to revert you."

I tried to find the information, and so am in as good a position as anyone to make that claim. "It is clear you don't know what you are talking about" is hardly respectful.

---

I do not feel this adheres to WP:CIVIL, and incorrectly I responded to this in the same tone.

My comment regarding allowing others to edit the article was again innapropriate and stemmed from a feeling from looking through previous edits that you are close to violating WP:OWN. I don't still think this.

I will not retract my comment about your confrontational tone, as I feel you were confrontational, although I responded to this badly.

Reply if you wish, but my aim is just to explain and apologise for some of my comments. I hope that we can work together to improve these articles at some point. |→ Spaully°τ 13:18, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

I accept your apology

WP:AGF. Your mind reading activities with regard to me are wholly inaccurate. WAS 4.250 19:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, although whether my mind reading was accurate or not does not matter, only the conclusion I came to. |→ Spaully°τ 20:00, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

I don't have a clue to your meaning. WAS 4.250 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether I got what you were trying to say, what matters is what I thought you were saying. |→ Spaully°τ 14:17, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

edit conflict

I was going to just let it go at that, but WP:AGF says explain yourself, don't just throw "AGF" at people. So here goes:

"I've looked at some of your edits so I know you are neither stupid nor ignorant. So I am left wondering what you are talking about."

Suggesting you think my edits to influenza are "stupid" and "ignorant".

I am complimenting you. I said plainly I know you are not stupid. I said plainly you are not ignorant. I am expressing my confusion, saying I can't figure out what you are talking about. Saying I am ignorant of what you are talking about.

"Notice the linked item described as the causative virus? Click on it. That IS the "hard to find" virus information. See the box on the right marked "Flu"? The last item is labeled "Phylogenetics" which links to the same article."

How am I supposed to feel anything but indignation at the patronising tone?

Since I can't even guess what you are talking about I'm making stabs in the dark. Is this it? Did you know this? I did not expect to be aacused of a bad tone, since I just finished complimenting you and saying I was ignorant of what you were talking about. WAS 4.250 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to commonly italicise, embolden and capitalise parts of the sentance which is unneccesary and gives the impression you are shouting or trying to get across a simple concept to a dim person. It also makes you sound irritated. Thats why I thought you were being patronising to me. |→ Spaully°τ 14:17, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Once you felt indignate, everything went to hell in a handbasket. I went out of my way to be complimenting and you piss over over me; so then we were both indignate. Well, thanks for bringing this up in a way that allows us to put it behind us. I really actually honestly do want you (and everyone else) to help the H5N1 and flu series of articles as much as posible. They are a long way from being perfect. WAS 4.250 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems we both thought the other was being confrontational, and presumably that the other initiated it. A tricky situation, and very much better for explanation. |→ Spaully°τ 14:21, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Talk page editing

I was about to delete the last few comments again with this explanation:

Rest of the discussion moved to user talk pages (Spaully and WAS 4.250), as per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages#Remove off-topic comments under not having any relevance to writing the article (linked to from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; also suggested on Wikipedia:Taking it outside, although this is as yet only an essay. The content will be preserved on the user talk pages. |→ Spaully°τ 14:17, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

There seems to be a precedent for removing non-contributing comments from talk pages, and there is no doubt the final few messages were not useful. I'll wait for your comment however before I remove the information again. |→ Spaully°τ 14:17, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Image:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg promoted

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations! ~ Veledan • Talk 21:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurando-san + FPC problem

Several, if not all, of User talk:AllyUnion's bots are currently down, including Kurando-san. Given that AllyUnion is on Wikibreak, and his email link does not work, contacting him to get his attention on the matter has been difficult. Over on WP:CFD, where another of his bots works, we've been having to do things manually until the bot situation can be fixed. Unfortuneately that's the only solution I can offer you currently for Kurando-san's tasks as well.

I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#AllyUnion's Bots for possibly getting a clone of some of the bots running, and there is someone trying to figure out how to clone them. Until that happens, or someone manages to reach AllyUnion, I suspect we're all stuck manually doing his bot's tasks. - TexasAndroid 21:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nematocyst-threads.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nematocyst-threads.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Spaully,

Sorry, but it seems that I have a bad piece of news concerning the nematocyst image which you asked me about. The point is that I had found it in the Internet in *.doc document, that contained a short essay on Scyphozoans. It's author allowed me to use it in Ukrainian Wikipedia, but I did not save our mailing history. So unfortunately now I do not have any evidence that it belongs to public domain.

Sincerely

Shao

Do we have the same problem with Image:Nematocyst-discharged.png? AxelBoldt 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but Shao would have to confirm that. I uploaded it from the Ukrainian wikipedia, but I don't know if Shao got it from the same source.

It's really a shame as they are great illustrations, and I havn't been able to find the document|→ Spaully°τ 22:57, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

Image:Nematocyst-threads.jpg

You removed my speedy delete tag. As explained when I added the tag, I uploaded the image from the Ukrainian wikiedia, and following the challenge to the copyright status, I asked the original uploader. This is his response. Hence the addition of the speedy tag. Thanks, |→ Spaully°τ 17:40, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

I understand that, however there is no entry on WP:CSD representing your concern. CSD I4 requires a seven-day wait, this is not negotiable. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion poll

Please weigh in with your view on this abortion wikipedia poll. ____G_o_o_d____ 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)