User talk:Laetoli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hey :), pretty empty round here

Anyway, I'm saying hello because I saw the MS article saying the ilness was formerly known as "disseminated sclerosis or encephalomyelitis disseminata". I wasn't sure if the formerly was meant to refer only to disseminated sclerosis" or both terms, and as I've heard the later (ED) in use in hospital quite recently I've changed the sentence to also known as... . While digging I saw that you made quite some contributions to the article (looked quite good :), nice work), so I thought you might be able to help me. Please do change it back if you think the way it was is more correct. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slitherlink

Hi Laetoli, in December you added an interesting picture of "Diagonal Line of 2s terminated by 3" but I cannot find any description for that in the text. It would be great if you could please add that. --MadPAM (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Dylan's version of "Twa Sisters"

Our article on The Bootleg Series Volumes 1-3 says the first track of volume two is "Seven Curses". Is that what he called his version of "Twa Sisters"? I don't have that album, so I can't give it a listen to compare. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing that Dylan performed the song. That was believable enough; but I didn't find evidence of it. I overlooked the 'Genuine' of the album title, so I only looked for the more well-known Bootleg Series albums. I have put in the reference at the article. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dyk in tartan

Updated DYK query On 6 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ye Jacobites by Name, 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.

--Victuallers (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis

I have removed the "warning" you placed at the top of the article since it is not appropriate for the article. Note that no other article has a similar warning. I have left the NPOV tag, but if you wish this to remain, you should go to the talkpage and explain why you believe the article is not neutral. I know nothing about medication in MS and you may be correct for all I know. In fact I objected to too much information about drugs in part for the reasons you allude to. However, you should present your evidence (ie studies that show that the article "misrepresents whether the disease-modifying treatments are effective in delaying onset of secondary progressive MS") to other editors on the talkpage so that they can respond to it. Thank you.--Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I see that you have already posted to the talkpage. I have moved your posts to the bottom of the talkpage, since that is where traditionally new posts should go. Hopefully you will get some answers soon! If not, it looks to me, given your research that you should boldly edit the article to get rid of things you feel not accurately sourced. BTW, I think Garrondo is a psychologist: s/he did a lot of work on this, but I know from experience that s/he doesn't (and couldn't be expected to) have professional knowledge in all areas. --Slp1 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message and I agree with your concerns about drug companies etc. Why don't you propose some specific changes on the talkpage of the article that would address your concerns? I agree that probably the Cochrane reviews or other systematic reviews should be the basis of the drug sections.--Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Right now I don't have time to address your concerns since I am really busy writing articles in real life, however they are reduced to a section, and more specifically to the table added by io io. I have moved the tag to the table section, since is not the content of the whole article what is under dispute.--Garrondo (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] My bad

Sorry about that. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


I realize that these editors are in error about your actions and you may wish to drop them a polite line to explain your reasoning for the deletion. In fact I see that one has already come to the conclusion that s/he was in error. No matter what happens, I do suggest stopping deleting the table for now. Discussion is occuring on the talkpage of the article and I don't think there is concensus to delete the table yet. A few extra hours/days won't matter in the general scheme of things.Slp1 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MS

I am not the one that created or inserted the table, and I don't really mind if it is in the article. I agree that reviews such as cocrhane are more qualified that individual articles. The only thing that I said is that a table can be obtained from different sources, and that there are better ways of working than deleting others works, such as adding articles that oppose what is in the table... You could also be more polite that what you have been (at least with me). Best regards--Garrondo (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

You wrote: "I apologise for not commenting my edit. The removal of this table is because it contains unsupported assertions which are not generally accepted by neurologists. Two professional reviews have analysed the interferons and both concluded that it was unproven whether they affect disease progression. The table's author is replicating this work without allowing for control group selection, drop-out group constitution and other factors. It also counts as original research. The table is the reason for the NPOV dispute. See the talk page for more info. While the dispute is being resolved, it seems to me to be inappropriate to display the table, especially in view of the fact that it may influence people's choice of whether to use these drugs (which have significant health & financial implications). Reluctantly, I shall leave things as they stand for the time being."

Agreed, and i apologize for my mistake then. Thanks for clearing up :-) . Have a nice day. BTW: i removed the warning because it's inappropriate now. AnubisGodfatherT© 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roud folk song index

You have done some good work, and I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm but ... please don't add any more "red links" to the Roud folk song index. If anyone creates a folk song article, without priod knowledge of that particular page, then the odds are stacked heavily against them using the exact same title. Better to wait till you encounter an article of a Roud song, then add it in using the title that they have chosen. This is what I have been doing. Better still, write the article yourself. I rather dislike articles that are full of red. I write articles on folksongs about one new one per month. You are welcome to add your suggestings onto my talk page. Your suggestions should be in priority order, and no more than 6 in total please. But please no more red links. Ogg (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natalizumab

Give me until sunday to read some articles, and we will try to reach an agreement as I am not informed enough to do it right now. Only as a comment: I don't really need all those black letters to understand your comment and text is easier to read without them. I feel as if you were shouting at me. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theatre pages

Fixed your problem:

I've merged Anna Scher Theatre into Young Actors Theatre (Islington). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk)