User talk:Midgley/mumpsbumps

It looks to me like your new article on Mumps vaccine is an attempt to waylay my article on Mumpsvax. I especially think you are a proponent of the combined MMR vacine. I have to question your problem with the article in the first place. Heathhunnicutt 23:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything in your reply sounds reasonable to me. What I think you have left out, and what I don't like, is the seeming obfuscation of Mumpsvax, and that you can recieve it disjoint from the MMR.  I know as an Establishment POV Physician, you want people to take the MMR.  I agree people shouldn't worry about autism and vaccines.  But I think it is important that the people who do worry will find easy information that Mumpsvax is a severable vaccine component of MMR.  That way, more people who fear vaccines will get vaccinated.  Heathhunnicutt 23:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, please do not make an effort to subvert the Jeryl Lynn page on the Jeryl Lynn strains of mumps virus into a page on Jeryl Lynn Hilleman. Thank you.  Heathhunnicutt 23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With your most recent edit, you have subverted the Jeryl Lynn page. At this rate, I'm going to have a go at repairing it.  The introductory topic is now about the person.  The article, mind you, is not about the person.  That is the kind of editorial behavior that leads me to believe you are pursuing an agenda of obfuscating details about that articles' actual content -- on the topic of vaccine strains.  The introductory sentence of the Jeryl Lynn article must state that the topic is a vaccine strain. Heathhunnicutt 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. The explanation of why it is called that seems to me a very sensible introduction.  I think the story is rather nice, and very encyclopaedic, so I'm not trying to make it obfusc at all.  I think you'll find that if you start off the story with stating it is a vaccine strain it begins to look awkward - see the version before I re-ordered and extended that bit.  We could try boxing her if you like - use a box as in Edward Jenner perhaps, but there is a risk that someone will unbox it later.  I think a bolded headline 4 lines down the page is pretty eye catching as far as vaccines go, and if you wanted to make it abundantly clear that it was a vaccine strain, why not do so in teh title when you initiated the article "Jeryl Lynn strain mumps vaccine" or whatever, plus or minus brackets.  Midgley 00:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've stooped to a civility war. It's rather ironic that you would accuse me of incivility. Yesterday, by your own admission, you contacted the PR department of a corporation and invited them to make off-topic edits to an article. (To edit Jeryl Lynn under your redirect Jeryl Lynn Hilleman.) This behavior, while sugar-coated with nice-sound English grammar, is inherently uncivil. I feel you have been disingenuous and scheming in your effort to disband my articles which you dislike due to what is apparently a pro-MMR agenda. Heathhunnicutt 17:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is untrue. Repeating it suprises me, as does the fabrication and embellishment.  As previously noted the contact is not to the PR department but to the company through their common entrance, for the attention of Ms Jerryl Lynn Hilleman, this being the only route I know, and for the purpose of notifying her of the existence of the article on the strain of Mumps vaccine named after her.  I take this to be a courtesy, and see no justification for this attack.  As for any agenda on the MMR, this also is a suggestion I find bizarre and is untrue.  And heading for RFC - or mediation...
 * I think there is some basic misunderstanding of how redirects work and what they are for going on.

Midgley 17:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also a misunderstanding of irony. Midgley 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)