User talk:Qwerty Binary/archive12

Cell Distruption
Hello. It may interest you that someone called tenofalltrades seems determined to completely delete the "cell disruption" page, to which you previously contributed (you asked me for better refs). Over a 11 minute period in March they deleted ~22,500 words (virtually the entire page), and made no attempt to rebuild the page. Of course, the page was imperfect but I think it was still a useful compendium of information. Now it's pretty much gone.

I've tried to communicate with this person, and then reversed their changes, an effort that has now itself been reversed. I don't have the wiki experience (or the time) to deal with this anymore. So I'm writing to you and several other contributors in case others feel like preserving the page. Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamloftus (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Alveolar osteitis
Thank you for you work on the above page to make it comply with other encyclopedia articles. I am concerned about the "cleanup-rewrite" tag, since I was mostly responsible for the content of that page, and I've probably written many other pages in a similar way. I request more detail about what is wrong and how to correct this, thanks. Lesion ( talk ) 14:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again. It's been a week or so since you placed the rewrite tag on the above article. Placing tags with no explanation on the talk page is discouraged. I am willing to discuss any changes you suggest, but otherwise I think it is appropriate to remove the unqualified tag... Lesion  ( talk ) 15:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Lesion. Apologies for the lack of reply and for this untimely reply.


 * I have been thinking about this, but I honestly don't precisely know how to better restructure or rewrite the page at this juncture. In my mind, I think it would be nice to have more structure (Etymology, History, Epidemiology, Signs and Symptoms, Causes / Pathophysiology, Management (with subsections for Diagnosis, Prevention, Treatment, Prognosis)?) or flow to the article.


 * As a side thing, surely, while tagging pages without further qualification shouldn't be condoned, wouldn't it be better to tag a page that would reasonably require action than not tagging it at all? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with you on the last point, and if I'm honest I do this too, but I was near quoting from Template messages/Cleanup: "Avoid "drive-by" tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below"


 * Re. changes to the article, I was expecting that you wanted more changes than this, so it is a surprise. For headings, tend to follow the recommended wording and order of headers for disease type medical articles:


 * Classification
 * Signs and symptoms
 * Causes
 * (Pathophysiology)
 * Diagnosis
 * Prevention
 * Treatment
 * Prognosis
 * Epidemiology
 * (History)
 * (Society and culture
 * (Research directions
 * (Special populations
 * (Other animals


 * I have bracketed some headings in this list because in this article there is currently no such content for these sections. The only issues I can see is that "epidemiology" should be moved to the end of the article instead of the beginning. However this is just a guide and it is not necessarily the best way to order things on all such articles. The etymology section is also about classification, so it might be argued that this section be split or renamed "classification". Since the MOS doesn't mention where to put the etymology, I assume at the beginning is a logical place. Lesion  ( talk ) 20:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a cursory reply for now, but I prefer to have history and epidemiology towards the top of an article, as context, introducing the disease entity in terms of its developments and in terms of its significance. This, naturally, is after a lead (lede) section at the very top of an article. Following this, I would then prefer to read on the more clinical facets of a given disease. Any thoughts to that? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There were no details of the epidemiology in the lead to give the article context from the beginning ... the lead is supposed to summarize every section of the article. I like to try to follow the above order of headings for consistency between articles more than anything else. They are a relic from before my time on wikipedia, but I assume like everything else a lot of discussion over the earky years, a process of evolution, has resulted in something fit for purpose that should be followed unquestioningly ... but then again maybe that is terrible logic. Perhaps the people who decided on that order were acknowledging that most people are more interested in the signs and symptoms and the causes of the condition rather than an epidemiology section.

Therefore I've expanded the lead so there is some epidemiology at the beginning, and split the classification, and moved the epidemiology section to the end. There is no mention where to put etymology, so I sometimes just put it at the beginning of the classification section for want of anywhere better to put it, and because it gets it out of the way at the beginning ...

See what you think, and please feel free to make more changes/suggestions. Lesion ( talk ) 22:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I linked to this discussion from the alveolar osteitis talk page for reference. Lesion  ( talk ) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

About Time

 * Hi QB. You have edited About Time and I would welcome your input on the talk page. Another editor and I seem to be going round in circles.Tomintoul (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (This discussion, regarding plot holes, is documented at Talk:About Time (2013 film). With respect, I decline to touch this apparently hot-button issue.) --Qwerty Binary (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Puzzled
You left a message for me about Waldorf education. I'm not sure what you are talking about -- diffs would be helpful -- as I haven't added any content to this article for at least 3 months. My most recent edit just moved existing text to a section directly relating to it, and the citations were in the text that immediately followed what I moved. HGilbert (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies. The user that required warning was Greenwichpatient. I have stricken out my comment above.


 * Again, sorry for any trouble caused. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not waste my time with templates.
I received a warning from you regarding my reversion of unexplained content removal on Dan Doyle (basketball coach). I am well aware of Wikipedia's edit warring guidelines and do not need a template warning. Please refer to WP:DTR. My edits were reasonable, and I was not the only editor engaged in reverting that edit. {{{sub|C}}  A S U''' K I T E  T} 18:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

no lectures
''In the future, please take a little more time to type out a full reference. Thanks. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''


 * Look we spend what time we have here. It is absurd to ask me to spend more time. Other people or bots can expand references. It is not something I am good at or even know how to do. We all have our special things we are good at. Also I have no idea why you would remove a working link in a reference. The whole point of an online encyclopedia is the hyperlinks. Bhny (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Genetic Code
Would you consider putting the Genetic Code article back in one piece? I think redundancy is far more important than Origin. I think Origin is what needs to move out - if anything. Frank Layden (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=586145722 your edit] to Victor Chang may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * * http://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/chang-victor-peter-14816 Margaret Harris, "Chang, Victor Peter (1936–

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590238327 your edit] to Kinga Burza may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Australia]] before moving to London in 2005 and signing with respected film production company Partizan of Michel Gondry fame in 2006.

Reference Errors on 17 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the John Lithgow page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=591122637 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%0A%0A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Fdiff%3D591122637%20John Lithgow%5D Ask for help])

Help required
Would you please look at List of Riverview Old Ignatians. This article has been tagged since 2007 as requiring references so I removed unreferenced names and those without wiki articles and explained my actions on the talk page. There are many non-notable names as well, especially in debating. All of these have been reinserted and with no references. I don't wish to enter an edit war and I would appreciate your advice. Castlemate (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Hot Chicken sandwich
An article that you have been involved in editing, Hot Chicken sandwich, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)