User talk:WLU/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Alleged Conflict of interest

This is what you said to me "If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Bench press, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Note that your site would not be considered a reliable source suitable for verifying information. WLU (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)"

RESPONSE: What are you talking about? I have no associations with the people who own the websites referenced in my edit. What close connections do you allege? There is no conflict of interest. In the future you should not make unfounded comments and let the facts speak for themselves. Facts like those listed in the Guinness Book of World Records and documented with the International Powerlifting Federation. My questions to you are:

1. What is your background in bench press history?
2. What are your qualifications for editing bench press records?

I just saw on your page that you brag about your number of edits. How weird. It's not a real number of edits if you are making incorrect assumptions and erasing honest changes that others worked so hard on. Please don't let me catch you doing this again. I will have to report you.

Abuse truth

Given that s/he was editing mainly articles about the issue of abuse within LDS, that username, however much they followed policy otherwise, implies an agenda and would make it difficult to work with other editors. Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Combined with all the other things, it merited continuing the block. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Child Abuse Prevention Organizations

Regarding your revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_abuse&oldid=165220345, "removing the non-major ones and those with dubious wording"- what's your criteria for defining a "major" child abuse prevention organization? Prevent Child Abuse America is a 35-year old national organization with 43 state affiliates (the original text can be seen in the original entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_abuse&oldid=165220027). Unlike some of the other organizations in the list, it has always focused *exclusively* on prevention (not treatment, etc). But maybe I misunderstand the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeseventy (talk • contribs) 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Natalizumab's clinical results

From the History page, it would appear that you, at least once and possibly twice (after initially being restored by WBaldwin), deleted the "Brief Summary of Natalizumab's clinical results in Multiple Sclerosis" and "Brief Summary of Natalizumab's clinical results in Crohn's Disease" from the Natalizumab Wiki page[1] - is this correct ? I want to know who did it - put a lot of time into editting formatting that page. Thank You. io-io (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page and talk:N WLU (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply on the Talk page of the Wiki in question.io-io (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Somers

If you can't find the time to edit the articles, at least correct the comments about Somers being a spokesperson in both Wiley_Protocol and T.S. Wiley. And I have to say I'm stunned by your response to the light and cancer research. Neil Raden (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've not the time right now, find someone else. And please remember that I do this as a favour to you, not a requirement. WLU (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that holds for all editors here. Anyway, it was you I struck the agreement with to not edit these two pages with the presumption that you would make some effort to move it forward. I wrote a revision weeks ago and I've been very patient. I (more or less) trust your judgement on these pages and I would rather not start with someone new. Changing the Somers thing would only take a second and everyone agrees about that. Neil Raden (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

radishes

hi there i replied to your comment on the radish talk page. thanks for the welcomeTruetom (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look. WLU (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Please feel free to say no about this. I am talking about you opinions on [2] [3]

Please feel free to say no about this. I am talking about you opinions on Here are some links to show you where the problem is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch#External_links, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quackwatch#consensus_or_no_consensus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quackwatch#Linkfarm.3F, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quackwatch#Wilipedia_Policy_for_templates.3F I trust your judgment and you are an outside on this article. This article is always heated with the pro and con situations. I have made comments but I am being ignored. Right now the editors against have taken over, and not too politely I am sorry to say.

Anyways, if you are interested in getting into this mess, I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks in advance no matter what you decide to do, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

More helpful to me that raw links to the pages and sections, are diffs to specific entries. From a quick scan, they're arguing over where to place the template. By my opinion, see also is a dumb spot, templates usually go at the bottom. Quackwatch is one of many contentious pages, so edit with care and expect to get bit. --WLU (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Davidsonfilms

Hi, Just letting you know that I think that the link User_talk:Davidsonfilms has been adding is a good one, and should be kept, or at least not deleted without consideration, despite the apparent conflict of interest. I don't think the COI policy prohibits inclusion of material if it is in the interest of improving the overall quality of available sources, and this film is definitely good. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

While Davidsom films sells the video to which they're linking a preview (on lots of pages, I'm seeing) -- I think it would be nice for an encyclopedic viewer to check out the video for its access to Skinner...I wonder if your objection is the COI of Davidson Films, (ie - if I put the link up, will it stay?) or is there another reason to remove it? I agree that Davidson Films is marketing by linking -- however, I think the short teaser is a good rep of Skinner...lemme know your thoughts Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective of quality of links, DF shouldn't be spamming his/her own webpage. However, if there's merit to the links, others can add it. Eubulides doesn't think there's merit, and I'm a huge fan of him/her; from my recall it wasn't a link to any specific films, just a link to the frontpage, which didn't provide any information or actual films. DF now seems to be linking to google videos, which still spam their website, but at least this time there's actual content. I still think it's spamming, but there's now a case to be made to link to them, rather than the previous blatant, value-less spam. The links I removed were to the DF mainpage, I don't think I removed any of the google videos. I'd bring it up with Eubulides and see what they think. I'm on the fence about keeping them because of the objectionable amount of advertising, but I trust you both and if you both think there's value then they should be discussed. If DF keeps dropping the links on the page, I will report for COI, but if someone else thinks it's worth linking, there's no COI and they'll probably choose the most useful ones.

I think I've seen the films before, possibly in my undergrad. WLU (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

almost back...

Hey...I've been waiting with bated breath! Are you back two days early? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one I thought, but I'm sick so I don't know how much real editing I'll be up for. WLU (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

oh ok -- get better soon (you're right, today is the 2nd, I lost a day!)Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you have something specific you were looking for a comment on? Commenting is easier than editing so I can probably manage that as long as it's not too complicated. WLU (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just been reworking some prose and such, and am wondering if I'm making it any better...or if I need more help...Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Josh, stuff like this you have to do yourself and see what comes of it. You are an intelligent, thoughtful editor with a good grasp of referencing and some familiarity with policies, but most importantly you are well intentioned. Make changes that look good to you. If they're good, they'll stand. If they're ok, but need improvement, someone else will eventually tweak them. And if they piss off COI editors, you'll start a dialog which ends with them becoming more familiar with the mores of the project, or a block. No matter what, you're helping just by virtue of trying to do something that's good for wikipedia, rather than a classroom grade. So be bold! and defend the wiki. I have no doubt that your changes will be far superior to anything cobbled together by these editors. WLU (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When you're back ...

Will you drop me a line? There is such a wreck being introduced across all of the child development and behavioral analysis articles that I'm wondering if there's a college class experiment being conducted on Wiki. I no longer have the time nor the inclination to view or watchlist those articles; the cleanup needs are massive, and no matter how much I type on the talk pages, the same editors keep introducing the same issues across multiple articles. If you're game for cleaning them up, please let me know when I should take another look, but please don't ask me to look again until they are cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean these up too -- but am unsure if the bit I'm doing is correct...my edits are[4], [5], and [6]). Does that look right? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest wikifying the references if you can, and reviewing MOS:CAPS as it looks like there's some excessive capital letters to my eye. It's the rare page that would get Radical Behaviorism rather than radical behaviorism I think. Even if radical behaviorists capitalize, this is wikipedia, not JABA, so I'd say too many caps. Too sick to analyze prose, but it doesn't look like it'd be hard to improve the prose that is being dumped. You might want to bring this up on WP:ANI, particularly given this troubling comment. There are acceptable ways of improving wikipedia as a way of teaching, this isn't it. WLU (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok -- will do. I'll let you know when I've done that and ask for your feedback. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WLU, I think there are two, possibly three different things going on. Look here. That user (who appears to have a COI) is adding links to those journals, but doesn't seem to care if the text is intelligible. Adding links could be linkspam, to increase google rank or visibility. Separately is the other issue of the classroom project, also messing up those articles, also appearing that those adding the content aren't concerned with the quality of their additions. And a third issue is that they may all be new users who just don't know Wiki guidelines. I can not keep up with it and am not interested, and don't want to see any of it on my watchlist or on my talk page anymore; I just don't have time to deal with it when it's at this level of complication, and none of them seem to care. I'll continue watching the basic ABA article, as that has some hope and is tied to the autism articles, but I hope someone can figure out if those journals being added by Jcautilli2003 are reputable or if that is just a lot of linkspam. I have no interest in cleaning up these articles when it doesn't even appear that the people working on them are reading them, and something seems to be off. And I'm not sure taking it to AN/I makes sense; if it's linkspam, it needs to go to the COI noticeboard. I am SO sick of Conflict of Interest editing/editors on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When you say 'wikifying' the references -- do you mean putting them into that template? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir Sandy, preaching to the choir.

Wikifying can mean the use of templates, but for me it's more basically about making the references accessible. "JABA, 24, 1-15" can work as a reference, IF the reader knows what JABA is, what a volume is, and that the last digits are page numbers. However, it's nowhere near as useful as an author, year, full journal name and title. I like the templates because they are easy to fill out, generate a standard reference, there are at least two very useful tools that help, and if filled out properly, make it very easy to find the actual article (if not including a weblink or pubmed ID, making it foolproof and giving at least an abstract). Tracking down authors, titles, volumes, issues, page numbers and years is drudge work, but INCREDIBLY useful to readers. I think filling out templates makes it that much more so, but they aren't essential for a good reference. Imagine a reader not familiar with the field, what are they going to do with an acronym and a handful of letters? WLU (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

References

I have been removing multiple references when one is wp:verifiable is that what I should do? I've looked through the MoS and don't find anything that addresses that (unless I'm just missing it -- which is a possibility). Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if one reference is good, several is also good, but I would stop short of better. An excessive number of references is something you usually only see when it's a very controversial subject. If there are three, but only one is a RS, take out the bad ones and keep the good. I don't recall anything from the MOS, but WP:UCS applies. As always, it depends. There's no real need to justify every statement with multiple references as we are not ourselves a scientific journal or university-level thesis. There's no real need to remove them, but there's also no real need to have them. If it looks like the editor is spamming, like Sandy suggests is a possibility above, then removing excessive links is a good thing in my mind, but it's hard to spam journal articles because usually they are such good sources. WLU (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you guys getting along. Josh I told you WLU is a good editor. If you need any help come visit me and I will advise you. Igor Berger (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Josh knows what he's doing and we've always got along. You're thinking about User:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson, who Josh has been helping out as well. WLU (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh you right! Igor Berger (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

More Fun?

This is posted on Sandy's too: "Ok -- I'm dealing with the advertisement for Cooperative Learning Institute and have put a speedy delete tag that was taken by someone who evidently didn't look at the website...I've posted something on its talk page...am I going about this the proper way?" Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article appears to have been speedy deleted, so apparently so. Perhaps bring the ongoing problems to the attention of the deleting admin. WLU (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yay -- how do I find a deleting admin? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rudget speedy deleted the article today in response to Josh's G11 tag. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In most cases the clicking on the red link to the page will give a list of any previous deletions; basically any action that brings up the 'create this page' edit pane. There may be some cases where the previous incarnations and deletions do not appear. I'm not positive, so either a) I'm mis-remembering, or b) there's levels to deletion and expunging that I am not aware of. WLU (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Help wanted

First, get well. Then, please tell me this: I'm about to receive a couple of photos which will be published under the GFDL tag on WP. However, I'm not the photographer, I'm just the guy who adds them to WP with the photographer's permission. There doesn't seem to be a tag for that, since the GFDL tag says "I, the copyright holder, hereby grant permission (etc)". I am not the copyright holder, the photographer is, so strictly speaking that tag would be incorrect. But which tag should I add to these photos? I looked at the WP Help pages but can't find an answer. Thanks. Rien Post (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[hits forehead really hard] Sorry to bother you. I've found I can just use the standard GFDL tag. Rien Post (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis Edit

I must object to your arbitrary removal of a link to my web site. (www.RiverApes.com) You say "the problem with riverapes is reliability and lack of demonstrated expertise, not what it supports" - I have a masters degree in human Evolution from UCL and I'm currently doing a PhD at UWA. Jim Moore has no such qualifications and yet you do not apply the same criteria to his web site. Are you biased against this idea, or something?AlgisKuliukas (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Qualifications should be demonstrated through citation of the appropriate works when expanding the page, and knowledge of the topic at hand, not through adding websites in the external links section. If you have expertise, demonstrate this by adding information to the page with inline citations and references. If you have published expertise or your Masters or PhD thesis in a peer-reviewed journal, cite them when adding information to the page. I am not biased against the idea, I am applying a rigorously high standard on a page that should be easy enough to expand. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm so merely adding links to the page is not in keeping with the goals of the project nor is it expanding the information on the page proper. Ideally your page as a long section of text discussing the AAH should be redundant to a proper, full-length article stuffed with citations. WLU (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Natalizumab

You may want to refactor the profanity on Talk:Natalizumab, although I agree the discussion is not going well. I have left some advice for Io io editor (talk · contribs) on my talkpage, and hope this resolves matters. JFW | T@lk 15:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm sick (literally, bronchial and sinus infection) and I keep getting dumps from editors who seem to think they have to convince me to edit. Whatever, if you don't mind I'll be forwarding future complaints from IO to you 'cause I'm sick of defending myself when I don't have to. WLU (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me sort out the io situation. You need a cup of tea and an early night :-). JFW | T@lk 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No argument there. Thanks very much Wolff, I appreciate it and I think you're handling it better than I could. WLU (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This feels like a zero-sum game. As I've gotten more relaxed you've gotten more churlish. I hope you feel better. Someone else took care of the Suzanne Somers issues and SandyGeorgia made smoe helpful comments on the articles. Neil Raden (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see and hear it, it's not a good thing that I'm the only editor. I'd pass along an explicit (in the non-potty-mouth sense) thanks to the editor were I you (if you haven't already). Everyone likes a thank you and it's a good habit to be in. WLU (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I hope you don't mind if I return "neurologic illness" and "another immune-suppressing drug", as most folks won't know what PML and interferon are, and many will be unwilling to follow the links :) I also believe there was a case of PML in someone taking natalizumab but not interferon beta-1a, but I have to check. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I often create "easter egg" links, unfortunately. Have a look at the current version of the lead and see how you feel about it (I've used commas instead of parentheses) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. Nice work on integrating that section into the article, by the way. Don't let the minor squabbles of wiki work get to you; we all do good work/screw up every now and then. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User page

Congrats on the recent change to your user page. You must be getting mellow in your old age :-). EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? The previous version didn't strike me as particularly contentious. Unless you're talking about my wikibreak box, which I'll grant was a bit testy. Illness + funeral = angry WLU, and for some reason I'm just getting peppered with accusations of bad faith. Perhaps my deletionism is getting worse as I age. Thanks for your measured comments on Talk:Natalizumab and work on Wiley Protocol. I think both pages are improving but at the expense of my patience. May I have a candid opinion on my edits on natalizumab? Am I out of line? Do you think I have failed to address important points? Feel free to use e-mail if you would prefer a more discrete venue. WLU (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied by mail. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will read shortly. WLU (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Durand, Wisconsin and Durand (town), Wisconsin are not duplicates -- one place is a city and the other place is a town. older ≠ wiser 14:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hum. You might want to put a hatnote at the top of each page, given their geographic proximity it's pretty easy to assume they're the same place. WLU (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are prominently mentioned in the intro of the other. older ≠ wiser 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but a hatnote serves a different purpose and is still a good idea in my mind. WLU (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Divination

I couldn't think of a better title, because of the point you brought up that it is more than a static divination, it is more fluid and connects to Ascendants. Also under the 'new title' that we haven't thought up, we should add the dolls that Quick Ben and Bottle makes. Krmarshall (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting it under Magic would be best, but I like the introduction i put there stating that both are not known by one person except for Bottle. Also with the Ascendants, I think that the template we have for High House Shadow is good and for all other Ascendants, like Caladan Brood and Envy and Spite, they need a Unaligned Ascendants page. Krmarshall (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dream

Oops, sorry about that. Thank for catching it. --Cubbi (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

MBF template

Hey,

It looks good, except I think there should be no line between Novels and Short stories, and the colours seperating different rows should be white and a slightly darker shade so the rows are more easily seen. These few things could help make it more organized-looking, but other than that it seems to be much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffsul (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Try it out and see what both look like. Also, have a gander at Talk:Moranth munition, I think that page could easily be merged into Malazan Empire as a sub-heading of battle tactics. I'm not 100% sure how to darken the rows, but I'll see if there's a help page somewhere. Feel free to play with it yourself, it's on one of my sub-pages so it can't hurt any mainspace until it's moved over. WLU (talk)

Ya good idea. I never liked that page, as a separate one. Krmarshall (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence

Could you please give the rationale(s) in your selection process for the particular items you deleted from Further Reading? Did you try to leave the most important ones? How did you select the ones to delete? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you won't respond here or on my talk page, please respond to my questions for the broader Wikipedia community on the Intelligence Talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? My last action before going to bed last night was to respond to your question. WLU (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Prima

Thank you for the explanation! As I said, I'm sure your edit was in good faith, as it clearly was, it just seemed a substantial bit of material to be removed by a non-administrator without more than a one-word explanation. I'm aware the foreign words should be removed, as should most of the others you took out, but on the subject of companies without articles I differ a bit. Oftentimes, seeing red wikilinks will spur contributors to authoring articles for those subjects that lack them, so I probably wouldn't exclude article-less companies simply because they lack pages. Again, though, thank you for the explanation! - Sestet (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RED's guideline for disambiguation pages is more of a suggestion than a strict guideline; note the phrasing "encouraged to write the article first." Something like a multi-state company is fairly likely to have its own article at some point, and I would argue for including the red link because, as the guidelines for red links state, it may help spur users to contribute further because of the glaring reminder that Wikipedia is far from finished. I guess this is more of a nuance and difference of opinion than either one of us being wrong or right though. Still, most of those items should definitely have been removed, in particular the foreign words; I just get a bit suspicious when big chunks of things are removed with single-word explanations. I thought you might have been "trimming" to your own standards of aesthetic decency. Seems, however, I was wrong! Thanks again for the explanation. - Sestet (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

MBF Template

Yes, I personally like the first template better - the colours are easier to read, and it seems less cluttered and more organized to build up from than the other one. We can definitely add or edit groups for it, but I think that is the best template because of the colours and current layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffsul (talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Gothos

Isn't Gothos a full Jaghut as stated is a previous sentence. So, "though Gothos is actually quite content in his situation since he, like most Jhags, enjoys solitude" should be changed to Jaghut. Located at: Jhag. Krmarshall (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I wasn't reading and assumed it was referring to Karsa. Sorry! WLU (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind checking this link at the IBS article?

[7] I trust your judgements and to me this doesn't belong in the article but I would like others opinions and lucky you I am asking you if you would. Of course please take your time. I hope you are felling better. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, feeling better, thanks. I'd say WP:SOAP, remove, but do a check of WP:EL and see if it fits as something to be kept. What do you think? WLU (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to check all of WP:EL but I removed this one once before because I really believe it is against advertising and WP:Spam. Also the last I looked the editor hadn't even posted to the talk page about why this should be allowed in the article. Sorry I am really tired right now and can't remember the wiki link for advertising. I will try tomorrow to check out the external links there but I really believe that this link doesn't follow policy as stated by you and me. Thanks for checking it out for me and I'm glad you are feeling better. --CrohnieGal^Talk 01:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC) PS: Exhausted with moving and emptying endless supplies of boxes and working today, though I got laid off today, hopefully not for long but things are slow. :(

I actually reverted after you did, removing this link from IBS and placing a {{subst:uw-spam2}} on the 'addee's page.

You've got real-life stuff going on! To my everlasting disappointment, wikipedia survives without me. It will without you as well, so take time to do important stuff. We'll still be here when you get back and it gives you an excuse to review the article in detail. Unless you find wiki relaxing, in which case, you could use the break. I'm watching the page and aware of the link, so feel free to leave it in my hands.

Also note that WP:SOAP is not about external links, but I'd say that it does apply (wikipedia isn't here for promotion, it's an encyclopedia. Support pages aren't encyclopedic or informative, and my only exception is that of the international association of X). But your best bet is to always review the guidelines. The actual 'what to add, what to think about, what to remove' is pretty concise, so it's worth a quick review to see if the link meets any of the criteria for any of the three sections. Also remember that my interpretation of policy and guidelines is very strict, so others might disagree (and you should make up your mind anyway).

But mostly, relax, if wikipedia isn't fun, you shouldn't be doing it! And if you're having fun, then have at the edit button! WLU (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, this might clear up your confusion - the second time you reverted, I had reverted as well, but when two people undo the same edit, it only shows up once as the first person's reversion. So that's why I'm claiming I removed it already but it doesn't show up. WLU (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

psych amn citation

Thanks for finding the full citation and adding it. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than generating the citation manually or whatever method you use, consider using the Google scholar autocitation or [www.pubmed.org pubmed] in combination with Diberry's template generator. You will have to add any full text or urls yourself. WLU (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Because you know these types of things

What doe the positive or negative number mean? And where can you find you total?

Ex: (diff) (hist) . . Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen‎; 05:58 . . (+4,061) . . Krmarshall (Talk | contribs) (Human Races)

Krmarshall (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Krmarshall (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

One-sided

I see that you have reported me as a violator of the 3RR. Would you not agree that the others involved in the revert war within the Origin of Language article are also violators of the 3RR? Reporting me alone seems a bit one-sided, so I hope you intended to report them as well. Besides, according to the actual rules, I was actually inserting, while they were the ones reverting without attempting to come to a compromise within the discussion pages. And, no, saying "We don't like what you have to say, so we're removing your entry!" is not a compromise. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not liking your edits, I firmly believe your edits to the origin of language page are POV bullshit, bordering on vandalism. Where is your reliable source that discusses the weaknesses or failures of evolutionary theory? Will it be Phillip E. Johnson? Or Kent Hovind? Henry M. Morris? Maybe go a bit more sophisticated and source it to the shoehorning, wedge-driving, criticism and evidence-ignoring Michael Behe. Perhaps pull out the laughably inadequate argument from authority at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Take your pick, all are shitty, invalid sources. There is no need for a disclaimer of evolution, anymore than there is a need for a disclaimer on physics, the bacterial theory of disease, quantum theory, or any of the other areas of modern science which have not been proven but are still robust. I think that people who support creationism are either liars, deluded, uneducated or morons, and only deserve a place on wikipedia in the 'social phenomenon' section, not as sources. Please don't talk to me again on this matter. WLU (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Malazan Humans Page

I added a new section to the Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen page- Humans. Since there are so many different types of humans I thought they and viewers deserve an at least partial list of major Human races. Add whatever you can. It was late last night so I did little of a few of them, however I think I got the main ones except Lethers (which we make a lot of reference to without a description of who they are).

Also the Jheck should be added- its on my list and maybe a Malazan Demons page describing the demon's own war on their planet and the shadow demons. Any ideas/corrections/additions would be helpful. As always, thanks. Krmarshall (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I could add the Demons to the Races page because technically they are a race. I don't know. But all of information is at least helpful to us and we don't even get to see how many people enter this site. If it helps on Other website use the information we put down (mirrors of wikipedia).

I could almost swear that your were suppose to capitalize the first and last word in a title. Is it different on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krmarshall (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Page edit

Done, I also created a redirect from Austin's disease to a new stub on Multiple sulfatase deficiency. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the ArbCom case, and since this appears (from a brief skim) just a user dispute, rather than a content issue, I would be happy to deal with any issues you notice in the Lupus article in the future. Since you seem well-intentioned on this, I trust you not to abuse this offer and restart any past disputes. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I try to spread out my arb-related reverts among other contribs, but I think Wolff is getting sick of it :) It was indeed a user dispute, and a stupid one. Most of my revert requests are for blatant vandalism, I don't bother asking if someone tries to put in or remove Seal or Michael Jackson from the article. Even were I an active editor on the page, I probably wouldn't bother with the 'famous sufferers' information. Waste of my time. WLU (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with user

cheers for your advise, should I replay my hand made warnings with those tags then, or start applying them from his next incident. Ive warned him twice myself already so I could apply the first 2? Realist2 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd leave off. If they keep doing douchebag things without listening, eventually you'll hit that magic fourth-level warning and off to AIV. Could you give me a specific diff of what he's doing that's out of line? I quickly checked his contribs and didn't see anything terrible, but if there's enough there it's easy to miss. It'll be easier to give a comment if I can see what the issue is a bit more clearly. Note that section headings should be neutral (WP:TALK I think) so I've adjusted, and you risk running into WP:CIVIL yourself. If they're actually a moron or unrepentant vandal, there's no need to call them names as they'll be blocked in short order. Otherwise you're setting youself up for problems... WLU (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for adoption

Hi. I'm wondering whether you might be able to adopt me. I'm not new to wikipedia, although my periods of activity have been relatively brief. I do understand a good deal about certain aspects of the project, but recently, as the target of very serious charges made by a large number of editors in a request for arbitrationwhether you might be able to adopt me. I'm not new to wikipedia, although my periods of activity have been relatively brief, I have found myself out of my depth. Eventually I lost it, decided to throw in the towel, and left a parting rant on the arbitration evidence page in which I said a lot of things about a lot of people. Obviously I changed my mind, mainly because I don't want to leave my friends in the lurch, and now I'm trying to repair the damage. I've gone beyond caring whether I personally end up permabanned. The truth is that it felt much better writing that rant and knowing that I was going to be free of all this than it does trying to deal with all this stuff. One of my biggest issues is that the dispute in question is taking up more of my time than I can reasonably give it and other areas of my life are being neglected. Another big issue is that I don't know what to expect in the arbitration process or what might be going on in the minds of the arbitrators. Even if I do only stick around long enough to see this arbitration through, I still would very much appreciate any help you could give me to make my remaining time here productive and valuable. ireneshusband (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hum. At minimum, I'd have to see the arbitration hearing in question before I gave advice or opinions on your arb hearing. As far as stuff like MOS issues, wiki formatting, citation templates, AFD questions, policy and guidelines in general, I'd be happy to do my best to help. My first piece of advice would be, stuff like this, the rant stuff anyway, might be a good thing to reserve for e-mail... Rants that don't help with reconciliation are often better via e-mail. Everyone needs to vent but if you're determined not to let it affect you on-wiki, sometimes it's better to not post it there.

That being said, I would happily help with basic tasks of wikipedia, and will tentatively offer what help I feel comfortable with regards arbitration.

If you were involved in arbitration, but sincerely want to return to wiki, I recommend:

1. Checking out the results of arbitration
2. Agreeing to be bound by it's outcome
3. Informing them of my potential involvement

Depending on what's occurred in the past they may have something to say. However, since you're not currently blocked I'm guessing it's either not done, or not that bad.

And as a fresh start, what (uncontroversial) pages are you working on now? Any problems you're having? Can't figure out a template? Don't have popups installed? Any fun AFD debates? WLU (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whew, 9/11 conspiracy. Go hard or go home I guess. Based on your edit count and edit pattern alone, I can probably help with basic stuff. Regards the 9/11 arb hearing, um... I've reviewed little evidence and don't have much to say. Civility is definitely hard to maintain at times, and I could see it so on that page in particular. I've not reviewed the diffs on the arb page or 9/11 talk pages but I'm guessing what I might say would be along the lines of 'try some other pages'. There's what, 3 million now? It's hard to edit outside of your interest area, and hard to give up something you've invested a lot in, but sometimes it's the best solution. Have you looked into WP:AFD? They're a good place to find pages to expand, familiarize yourself with policy, and practice civil disagreements. Just a suggestion, you don't have to follow it. WLU (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence article

I responded to the article RfC, but the attitude of Ward3001 has been very off-putting. If you need to pursue further dispute resolution could you keep me informed, so I can comment further. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, I've just looked at the talk page and it seems to be quite a doozy. I'll wait for things to settle then see what's left. We've had an external RFC that came down on the side of 'no blog', so the next step is a discussion, possibly followed by a noticeboard posting. I'll give it a bit longer to see if anyone else ventures an opinion, then we'll have to see. I'm guessing mediation won't do much - it's a fundamental disagreement, I don't think it's useful, he does. Ultimately he's outweighed by other editors but I'd rather the consensus be unanimous than one dissenting opinion. Thanks for the note. WLU (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen User:TimVickers comment at Talk:intelligence, I propose we wait a bit longer, perhaps a week, in case someone else wishes to provide a comment then attempt to resolve the issue. WLU (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving the RfC up. If by "outweighed" you mean majority vote, that is contrary to Wikipedia procedures. Consensus is not always determined by majority vote. One more point: the fact that Tim Vickers is an administrator carries no weight. On this issue, he is a participant in the debate, not an administrator. He is entitled to his opinion, but no more. His opinions are just as biased (more so in my opinion because of his lack of knowledge on the subject matter) as anyone else's. If a clear consensus emerges, I'll accept it. But we are not at a point of consensus. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that his status as an administrator has any weight in this matter, but he is an external commentator who we solicited through an official dispute resolution process. So far, three people disagree that there is merit to the blog. You are the sole person who sees merit to it. There have been arguments and counter-arguments, and no-one seems to be convinced by yours. So far, this looks like clear consensus to me, but I'm quite willing to wait a bit longer if that will convince you. WLU (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Check again. Legalleft (talk · contribs) supports keeping the blog. Even without that, I would argue that 3 to 1 is hardly a consensus. There's a concept called sample size. A sample size of four is grossly inadequate. If it was 18 to 6, that would be more reasonable. But 3:2 (or even 3:1) is not consensus; it's simply a majority vote. Wikipedia does not always consider majority vote to equal consensus. We need more input, even if the RfD has to stay up for months. Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>And now there are two more people saying it is not suitable. And anyway, 'leaving it up for months if we have to' sounds like gaming the system or WP:PARENT. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. People aren't simply voting by the way, they're giving opinions. That some opinions are similar indicates that they have come to the same conclusion based on the same information. Because you do not like the results of the RFC does not mean that it does not apply. What will be required to satisfy you that the blog should not be on the page? Would it help if I spoke to Jimbo? WLU (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No gaming or WP:PARENT. Anyone with an elementary understanding of statistics will tell you that a sample of four or five cannot generalize to a larger population. Waiting for enough people to respond is simply giving the Wikipedia community an adequate opportunity to notice the issue and respond. If the tables were turned and the current tally was the other way around, you wouldn't be so eager to end the RfC (although you'll deny that of course). I suspect the consensus will eventually be for deletion because Tim Vickers has implemented a superb strategy (albeit legal) of pulling in votes from editors who likely have little knowledge of intelligence and cognitive abilities, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. But until we actually get a real consensus, not just a few votes, I don't plan to concede. By the way, none of my comments are intended as a bad reflection on you, WLU. Despite our disagreements, I think you've operated fairly and honorably. Ward3001 (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is based on arguments, not statistics (which would be voting), and your arguments have apparently been unconvincing to other editors (and since the sole 'support' has so few edits, less than 200), I'd say that the RFC has garnered the outside input required. We're not trying to generalize to the rest of wikipedia, we're never going to get their input. But we do have numerous, respected and long-term contributors and admins giving their opinion. How many more opinions do you think we'll get? Most RFC get one.

If the tables were turned and the RFC came down against my opinion, I'd respect it thank you very much, even if I disagreed with it. And I resent your implication to the contrary. I've used RFC several times, and have great respect for its outcomes. Where else would you like to bring this up for greater comment? There's still WP:ANI and WP:EL, feel free if you'd like. I'm certain editors on those pages will agree with my, TimV, EdJ, Jayen, Nesbit and Pgr94's opinion - the blog just isn't acceptable, and it seems very obvious to me and five other editors. How is it strategy if he posted something on a noticeboard, not talk pages, and the high edit count contributors all come down on a single conclusion? Perhaps the blog just isn't appropriate, and perhaps the strategy is an attempt to demonstrate to you that numerous other editors don't think the blog is a good link. Your dogged arguing and failure to concede the points of others was of great concern to me for the future of the page, because I got the impression that no matter what the RFC said you would continue to re-insert the blog no matter what. I see TimV's actions as an attempt to get sufficient input to demonstrate to you that there is no reason to keep the blog. I'm treating you with kid gloves in anticipation of an explosion at the end, and am attempting to head off a WP:3RR, block or WP:ANI posting; I'm hoping that the ongoing input from other editors will be sufficiently convincing.

By the way, you may see your comments as simply being honest, blunt or telling it like it is. But you appear to have gotten Tim's back up (and he's notorious for civility and AGF-ing) and it's been a determined effort to keep my tone civil. I've deleted several profanity-laden comments in this reply alone. You may want to consider how you word your posts. Your posts about your opinion of me is appreciated, but still done in a way that grates. No offense. WLU (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete the blog. I will not revert it, although I do not acknowledge that a consensus has been reached. I would appreciate it if you do not suggest that what you consider consensus is unanimous or near-unanimous, because it is not. Call it what it is: a 4 to 2 vote (or whatever the numbers are). And I have my opinion of Tim Vickers which henceforth I'll keep to myself, unless other issues arise. As for my tone, I was once an enthusiastic editor. But that was slowly stomped down by the prevalent anti-elitist, anti-expert mindset on Wikipedia, which is why much of this will be moot point in a few years as Wikipedia slowly falls apart (unless there are pervasive changes) as it is replaced by Knol or another website where there is some expert editorial control. I don't consider myself vindictive because of that, just incredibly frustrated and disappointed. I'm just trying to improve Wikipedia in whatever way I can before that happens, because mcuh of it will exist on other websites even after its demise. But I only try to edit in areas in which I have some knowledge, contrary to the usual operating procedure on Wikipedia. For example, I would never edit a biology-related article unless I happened to have developed some expertise in that areas. Finally, please tell me specifically which were the "profanity-laden comments" of mine that you deleted. I can't let that unfounded dig go unaddressed. And despite that, I still think you've been fair and honest. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.

I'm not suggesting consensus is unanimous, nor that it needs to be. I didn't refer to consensus in my edit summary.

I don't see wikipedia as anti-expert; experts should be better equipped to access, summarize and reference the journals and other scientific sources that exist than any other editor. Lots of people think wikipedia is failing for a variety of reasons. I'm sorry you feel that way, sincerely, as wiki needs experienced editors. If Knol ends up being wiki 2.0, I'll probably see you there.

I edit any page I think requires editing. Rarely am I an expert, or even knowledgeable anymore, in most of the areas I edit. But since we're all bound by NPOV, RS, V and OR, I don't see it as mattering - sources matter, sources should be fairly represented. It's possible I'm still naive or lucky, but it has never really been a problem (observe my 100% naive work on nucleotide - not a sausage of biochemistry in my background, totally based on what I could cobble together from other wikipedia pages).

I did not mean I deleted comments you had written, I meant that I was having a hard time not resorting to profanity. More accurately, I used some potty-mouth in my first draft replies, then deleted them afterwards. Sorry I was unclear on that, it wasn't a dig, just trying to let you know I was having a hard time maintaining my civility.

Your tone on this posting is much easier to deal with this time, I appreciate any effort you may have made to adjust it (assuming the change is not in my perception), thank you. My biggest objection was that your replies tended to make me feel like you thought I was too stupid to understand your point, whereas I always saw it as a fundamental disagreement. Just a failure to agree on the merits of the blog.

Off to dinner, if you wish to discuss further, you are most welcome on my talk page. I'll try to expand intelligence in the near future. Thanks for the dialog. WLU (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"I don't see wikipedia as anti-expert": Look around. Read talk pages. Read commentary about Wikipedia outside the Wikipedia community, especially outside the administrator community. More and more outsiders are laughing at Wikipedia. Look at the quality of articles. Especially look at overall quality now compared to a couple of years ago. And even more especially look at science-related articles. Wikipedia at one time was noted for good science articles. But there has been a brain-drain in Wikipedia that is increasing dramatically. Those who really understand the subject matter are throwing up their hands. Even Jimbo is anti-expert, though his euphemism is "anti-credential". And a synergistic effect is occurring. As more experts leave, more non-experts take over, driving even more experts away. Many people think the biggest threat to Wikipedia is the endless supply of immature vandals. That's a very manageable problem, although it could be managed better if administrators didn't place tolerance of vandals on a higher priority than developing a quality encyclopedia. The real threat to Wikipedia is the insidious growth of the mindset that "I know a lot about topic A, and since we don't know whether editor John Doe really is a leading expert on Topic B, I'll assume I know more than he does about Topic B. And if I'm an administrator I especially shouldn't be challenged by so-called 'expert' John Doe if he happens to not be well-versed on rule 629.37(c) because I can quote all the rules and regs verbatim. And if John Doe mounts a defense, I'll email my fellow administrators to get them on board. And if necessary we'll get Jimbo involved." If any other encylopedia operated that way, it would be bankrupt in a matter a months.

"experts should be better equipped to access, summarize and reference the journals and other scientific sources that exist than any other editor": They should be, but they're not allowed to use those skills. Remember, this is all volunteer work. We all have a limited amount of time. And if the experts are so busy putting out fires created by the non-experts, they have less time to access the quality resources. After an expert is slapped down over some useless disagreement 10 or 15 times, most of them move on to other avenues to offer their skills.

"your replies tended to make me feel like you thought I was too stupid": I rarely feel that an editor is stupid. There's a big difference between stupidity and ignorance. I'm quite ignorant of many areas of knowledge, but I'm not stupid. I never thought that you were stupid; quite the opposite. Your writing style and understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures easily removed that possibility in my thinking. I did question your knowledge of the subject matter of the article, fairly or unfairly. But I could have been wrong. If there had been a dozen or two real experts on intelligence and cognitive abilities participating in the RfC, the entire discussion would have taken a much different turn. There still might have been disputes about the appropriateness of blogs, how much advertising is too much advertising, whether cartoons detracted too much, etc. But there would have been an overwhelming support for the fact that the blog was loaded with valuable information. Descriptions of certain journals as "low impact" and the status of McGrew as a mediocre scholar would have been swiftly and effectively dismissed. That's not to say the final decision would have gone differently, but the discussion would have had a dramatically different tone. But when you have a lone expert (assuming I was the only expert on intelligence) dealing with that kind of discussion, it's easy to feel that the facts have been thrown out the window, regardless of how well-intentioned the throwers might be. I am convinced this same scenario has been repeated dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times in other articles.

"Sorry I was unclear on that, it wasn't a dig": No apology needed. I misunderstood your statements.

Thanks for your discussion. Happy editing, while it lasts :) Ward3001 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I've seen the arguments about anit-expert, it seems like the old 'feet of clay' argument - things were always better in the past. A couple years ago, wikipedia had fewer articles, a lower profile, fewer editors, fewer everything. Can you compare old with new? I don't know. I understand anti-credentialism - it's easy to claim credentials. I, for instance, am a double PhD in Symbology and Women's studies. It's only slightly harder to go to my textbooks on Symbology and Women's studies, to dig up the references to justify nearly any mainstream statement about Symbology and Women's studies I want to include. The problem may be that experts want to be taken at their word. But this doesn't happen when they supply articles to journals, I think it's tenuous to assume that wikipedia should be of a lower standard. It's harder to fake expertise.

Any administrator that puts adherence to rules over improving wiki isn't a good admin. Generally it's a pain in the ass to integrate non-wikified info into the article, but not that bad (and something I enjoy, I hate finding the info but I like re-writing it). I still think that if I'm a subject matter expert, it should be easy to deal with most opposition through reference to RS, NPOV, OR, PROVEIT and V - a reliable source CAN NOT be dismissed, the discussion then becomes HOW to integrate, how to reflect the source fairly, how to reflect the state of affairs fairly, how to balance. You can argue that wikis policies are/can be arcane and complicated, but these people fill out grant applications and journal article submission guidelines! Far more confusing in my mind. It always takes time to get accustomed to the mores of any new community, and wiki is no exception.

Maybe it's a good thing we're not editing a lot of pages in common, I get the feeling we'd talk each other in circles : ) WLU (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Overall I think you make some good points. And I would never accept that experts shouldn't have to follow the same rules, especially WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. And I think the rules are essential, especially since there isn't much editorial control. But I may disagree if you feel that the main reason experts are leaving is because they don't want to do that. I think they're leaving because one or two experts, even those who follow the rules, feel overpowered when other editors make false assumptions (e.g., "low impact journal") and there are enough similar thinkers to dominate what goes on. I'm sure it happens in some academic areas more than others. But it's happening more and more.

I don't think most administrators are bad apples, at least not bad to the core. The really bad ones are usually booted out. But there is a groupthink that allows less egregious administrators who sometimes overstep their bounds to go unchallenged. And enough of that can stink things up a lot in terms of overall quality.

Actually I really hope I'm wrong about Wikipedia's possible demise. It's based on a wonderful concept, and with a couple of modifications to its fundamental operating procedures, I think it could be first-rate. I guess only time will tell. Ward3001 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Even low impact journals should be cited and if it's a minority position, it should still be reflected in a smaller portion of text being attributed to the idea/article. Generally if it's published in a truly low-impact journal, I'd be curious why it's cited on wiki 'cause we're here to discuss the uncontroversial, generally cited in higher-impact journals. For me, if it's a source, even one saying something I disagree with, there's no arguing about its presence, it's arguing about the interpretation. I suppose the really messy problem comes when it's a touchy or controversial subject within academia (dissociative identity disorder and false memory syndrome spring to mind, two pages biting me in the ass these days) and partisanship causes journal articles to overstate evidence and conclusions. You're right about groupthink happening in certain cases. Fortunately (for me) most of the times I've seen it, it's more a matter of speeding up the inevitable (i.e. chances are if your user name is GodTrumpsEvolution, you're not here to be NPOV).

Sick curiousity - what's your 'couple of modifications'? I'm expecting to disagree. Feel free to use e-mail if you'd prefer. WLU (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, maybe more than a couple. As you might guess, one is that there needs to be some sort of editorial "management" (my euphemism for "control") by experts. Obviously there are a few cans of worms opened in deciding who is an expert and how much control the expert has, but I'd rather struggle with that issue than what I struggle with right now. And I don't mean absolute veto power by experts. There needs to be some checks and balances on the experts. Another modification I favor is requiring registration to edit. I know that would discourage some good editors who wish to edit anonymously, but I think that is more than offset by improvement in quality and less need for countervandalism. And I know I'm very unpopular with this suggested modification: Although I think we should admire and thank Jimbo for what he created (co-created?), and his opinion will always carry a lot of weight informally, I think he should step aside and edit under another user name. I think an analogy might be when a corporation changes CEOs. It can be difficult, but it can bring about some needed changes. I don't think it should be a hostile change because I don't think he deserves any hostility. But I think a changing of the guard, although risky, ultimately could be in the best interest of Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever seen WP:PEREN? Your comments remind me of that page to an extent and it might be of interest. From what I've seen of Jimbo's contribs, it's mostly talk pages, I don't recall many mainspace. Though my interest has been quite cursory. Also, his involvement in the encyclopedia part of the project is really two parts - some minimal editing to mainspace, and his role as the last gasp after arbcom. I've never had a statement from Jimbo directly affect my editing except perhaps WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE. Most of the policies are established and modified by the community and they're pretty basic anyway. But what the hell do I know, I keep my head down and pretty much stay out of big discussions. WLU (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes I've seen WP:PEREN. Most of those proposals I can take or leave, but I think WP:PEREN#Prohibit anonymous users from editing has a lot of merit. One of the most telling statistics is that 97% of vandalism is from anons. Can you imagine how much time and mental resources would be freed up if that didn't exist?
I understand that officially most day-to-day policies are established by the community. But Jimbo's influence extends far beyond his roles as editor and final arbitrator. The issues of anon editors and role of experts discussed above are examples. And whether he edits as User:Jimbo Wales or not, he'll have a lot of influence. But I think if he stepped away for a while and made himself more anonymous, it would allow some "fresh blood" to be infused into the system. I'm not knocking the guy. I just think a project as large as Wikipedia needs that sort of change from time to time. That doesn't mean he steps away permanently. Things might not change very much. But we'll never know that unless he allows us. Ward3001 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight

NCurse _work 16:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This MCOTW is on the list because of the note you left at the project's open tasks. It would be helpful if you could leave a note on the talk page about what you'd like to be addressed in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw crap, I thought I just pointed you guys at the page and you did the rest :( I'll review and make some suggestions but mostly it just needs the basics - sourcing. WLU (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. As far as I'm concerned you can copy the note that you left for the project. Of course, the more specific you are, the more likely it is to get done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already left a message on the P&N talk page, but I'll try to add some more detail and suggestions. Unfortunately much of the problem is just a lot of unreferenced information that looks legit, and I just lack the knowledge and textbooks to expand myself. Sorry, based on your comment and reviewing the page, P&N might not have been the best target for the page. I'm just totally unequipped to expand or reference myself - very very far out of my comfort and experience area! WLU (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles that lack references can be shortened or stubbified until references are found. The article seems quite long and diffuse, particular in the parts that lack references! The reference list doesn't appear to include any general review articles about pain, but they must exist. I bet the section 'Causes of pain by region' could be omitted without great loss, since it appears to be a laundry list. Like listing all the parts of a car and saying, 'Here are the parts that could break.' EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WLU, I just saw the list you left at P&N, and I think it's great. Thanks for doing that.

Ed, I think the point of the laundry list is exactly that: to say "Quit reading about pain in general, and go read about shoulder pain in particular, if that's what's bothering you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In which case the MCOTW might be a futile one, consisting mostly of gutting the page! That laundry list could be converted to a table perhaps, or even better, a template for all pain pages akin to {{fractures}}! I could totally do that, it doesn't require much knowledge, just a tolerance for tedium. But there must be an enormous amount of information that could be added and expanded on the page, it's just so...bad. WLU (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's futile. Some people will be looking for the laundry list; some people (medical students, for example) will be looking for everything except the laundry list. There's no reason why we can't provide both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

<Undent>I'd prefer the template as the list, and think it's a good candidate for fulfilling both roles. But I'm open for arguing. WLU (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gardens of the Moon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gardens of the Moon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you have a "script" that do have to keep the bots off your back? And side question, I'm concluding that your are from somewhere in Europe from your spelling of a few wording and analysis of the US cover, is that correct? I was just curious. Krmarshall (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No script, sorry. Basically any fair use image can only be used on one page - the page for the specific book, comic or CD that it's an image of. As soon as the image is removed from that page, you get a message - because it can only be used in one place, wikipedia has to delete it if it's not used on that page. I've basically uploaded enough images that I've figured out a combination of adjustments and rationales that keeps the bots off my back, and blindly use it everywhere I find a book cover.

Actually from Canada, so I get to use the weird mix of US and Brit spellings depending on the ENGVAR of the page I'm editing. And I just think the 'tits and scalemail' of the US covers are just fucking awful, just an abortion of a book cover that must push serious readers away. Were I Erikson, I'd go on strike until they changed them.

They should use that cover artist for Tairy Goodkind's books. WLU (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you can use a non-free image more than once, but that you have to write an entirely separate rationale for each and every article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe WhatamIdoing knows what he's doing far more than I do. Ideal solution - just use the image on one page : ) Simplest way to work the rational. But a good thing to know, and I didn't, thanks a lot! WLU (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I read Terry Goodkind too. I wonder if his will continue the series. Krmarshall (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw, now we can't be friends. I was a regular contributor over at westeros.org (same user name), finally giving up mocking Goodkind when Confessor apparently outdid the worst aspersions we cast at the book pre-publication. E-mail me if you want to keep talking about Goodkind 'cause it'll only cause trouble if I keep talking about it on-wiki. WLU (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Steve edit

The problem with the recent edit of the Project Steve page is that AIG isn't the compiler of the "Scientific Dissent from Darwin" list. That's the Discovery Institute's list. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I'm very far from a specialist; mostly I put it in because I noticed an absence and thought a reference to SDFD would be propos. Feel free to revert, of course my preference is integrating it in a way that is meaningful. WLU (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Colors

I noticed your comment at Template talk:Pain -- would you like to collaborate on generating guidelines for the use of colors on medical articles? --Arcadian (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically interesting, and I'd welcome a chance to work with you. What sort of idea did you have? Templates only? Title blocks coloured per medical divisions (illness/injury/infections are one colour, treatment another, anatomy a third)? Given Taxobox has a specific set of guidelines, I don't see why templates shouldn't. WLU (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We're on the same page -- ideally, we could put together a table like this, run it past Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine for feedback, and then see if anybody objected to putting it on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). On my talk page, a user recently expressed concern for the color-blind, so it may be useful soliciting feedback from User:Wikid77 after we get a draft together. A question -- do you think that tumors/chemotherapy should have a color? I think so, but it introduces issues of priority -- with nervous tissue tumors, should we use a "tumor" color, or a nervous system color (traditionally yellow)? Currently, we tend to use the "titlestyle" field to indicate the type of entity, and "groupstyle" for the system. But there are other ways it could be organized. Thoughts? --Arcadian (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the discussion has already started, so I'll post comments over there I think. WLU (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

minor thrips talk-page edit

Hello there - I have no problem with your revision on the talk page as I agree that it is important to preserve the record of historical discussion. I suppose the only reason I edited that particular section was because it was my response and I had never signed it properly (did not know how at the time) - and I wanted to be perfectly clear in it. I suppose that someone should also edit back in (if you have not already done so) the question about the species name of the thrips in a photograph - I figured that since it had been answered for some time considerable that it would be acceptable to remove a dead matter. You have my apologies for the poor awareness of proper protocol! How does one archive old talk in order to leave more relevant and new questions on the talk page? Aderksen (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I can see that you've already cleaned up the error and provided links to the proper protocol for wikipedia. Thanks! Aderksen (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rhythmic Living ELs

The issue arose a while back over whether the site rhythmicliving.org warranted an EL on T.S. Wiley and Wiley Protocol.

At the time tensions were high among the various participants, and for various reasons. And the question was never resolved. SandyGeorgia was the most directly involved and would be the obvious person to return to, but she has expressed an interest not to be involved any further in these articles. So naturally I'm asking for your judgment.

SandyGeorgia wrote, "By the way, isn't Formby the person she has co-authored 3 journal articles with? Are you saying he now disagrees with her? Then yes, that warrants inclusion in both articles, if that's the case." I responded by quoting Dr. Formby's interview on RL, in which I think it's quite clear that he disagrees with T.S. Wiley.

Given SandyGeorgia's assessment, it seems to me that Rhythmic Living warrants an EL on both pages.

Now we have the Rosenthal article which cites Rhythmic Living. To be clear, in this case it's referencing the testimonials of women who've tried the Wiley Protocol, not Dr. Formby's interview. And while this doesn't make RL a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, it demonstrates that the site has been approved for citation in a reliable source and after peer-review. It contains respected information that is relevant to the subjects of these articles. According to WP:EL, what should be linked includes "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

Your thoughts? Debv (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the ultimate arbitrator here, and am rather uncomfortable being put in the position to decide on this when I have such a long history with yourself, the page and Neil. I think the best thing might be to put in a request for comment on the use of RL as an external link, and allow a neutral third party to give their opinion. I would place a message to alert Neil, Sandy and perhaps the EdJohnston, who has contributed a couple comments to related pages, of the RFC. I would lean personally to not including it as it is a very partisan source, and am not interested in processing the RFC myself. The instructions are a bit confusing but fairly simple to do. Just be very careful about being neutral. If you are looking for a sample RFC, I was involved with one on Talk:Intelligence. Not the best example, but you can see how the pro/con works out. WLU (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Have fun with debv, I'm outta here. Since I am a relaible source on certain subjects, I will devote some time to writing about my experience here, which has been largely negative. Thanks for your efforts, though. Even though we battled from time to time, I appreciated the time you gave to this.. Neil Raden (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Your departure won't change anything about my conduct on wiki, though we do lose a knowledgeable editor. You're not alone, there's lots of people who proclaim that wiki is failing, already a failure and a joke, but I still like it. If you do turn up more sources, feel free to drop them on the talk page. WLU (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Suffering

Damn I hate those editing conflicts ! I looked at adding a top banner to the article just before you did , got lost in the guidelines but decided it fell outside of recommended usage, so whilst you were adding it, I was rejigging the sections. Please have a quick read - the section Confusion with the word pain i think covers it and don't think we need the top not... I'll leave it to you to decide LeeVJ (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically I think suffering should focus solely on the 'emotional pain' that is unaffected by nociception and nociceptors (i.e. has nothing to do with physical damage). I also think the first two footnotes in the article are a terrible mis-use of referencing - though there may be references in the footnotes, there's also a whole lot of analysis which should be in the article body if it's anywhere. I've not had a chance to look into it more, but I think my efforts might be more useful after everything has settled and the divisions between the articles are clearer. WLU (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The emotional effects of physical pain? Makes sense ... my attempt at delineating seems a bit crude, but was just a 'quick fix' along the way.. here's to the dust settling :) LeeVJ (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. No-one seems to be agreeing with me on the pain talk page, so I'm going to stick to correcting the 700 redirects (not kidding!) and wait for everyone else to finish up, then dig into some of the other issues WLU (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've reverted a few of the edits you made to the external links on Microfluidics and Lab on a chip. I believe that we should wait for a bit of a consensus before making a major change like that, and that WP:EL isn't really as useful for that type of article. I've started a thread on the discussion pages for both pages to that effect.--Cubic Hour (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied to both pages on Talk:Microfluidics--Cubic Hour (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection?

Maybe we should semi protect List of wikis. I must have removed over 100 red and external links from it! I wish I would have never tried to help the asiawikitravel people, then I would have not found this article page! It is all your fault..:) Igor Berger (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they'd go for it. Semi-protection is for vandalism. The people adding redlinks and external links aren't vandals, they're just making a mistake. It's inconvenient to remove a couple of links per month, but really there's no way any admin would semi-protect the page. Sorry man! You could always unwatch it. WLU (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we add a warning notice, of what links are acceptable in the article? I understand the contributers are not vandals, so if we add a notice, most editors would follow it. Igor Berger (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists of links

Strange you should pop up in my watchlist and find myself agreeing with you despite our recent epilepsy bump. I'm very disappointed in dmoz both in terms of what it does and does not list. I know epilepsy had attracted some EL-cruft but I was trying to compromise and include select high-quality resources per-EL. A few "lists of organisations" ELs was an attempt at such a compromise. Ultimately, I don't feel passionately enough (that this is WP's business) to care if ELs go. Perhaps a few will return if/when I rewrite that article. Colin°^Talk 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing my edit to epilepsy's EL section, it's one of the few pages where I thought I was overzealous. DMOZ isn't a panacea, it's basically my favourite substitute for all the web fora and org-cruft that pops up in to many articles. I'm putting some back, so have a gander. WLU (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful when using DMOZ. There is a lot of crap there. So as much as we are recommending, we protecting the users. And a few recommended resources are much better than DMOZ or Google. Anyone can make a Website look good, but only editors can figure out if it is a real resource. At times even editors have problems with this. Igor Berger (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot of crap out there on DMOZ, but better there than here. The nice thing about DMOZ is it often has a large number of organizational links, which are something many people like. And ultimately it's up to the readers, on wiki or off, to pick and choose what information to believe (after all, every wikipedia page has a disclaimer at the bottom - even the edit panes). I'm not opposed to all ELs and replacing them with a DMOZ, just a strict standard. Wikiasiantravel for instance, would be perfect on a page about the website itself : ) WLU (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's play it by ear. Some externals are good and at times DMOZ is also okay. As far as Wikiasiantravel, I have to be in an article writing mode and I want to make sure it does not go AfD, otherwise I am wasting my time. I am more productive for the project adding snipets on information in articles that strike my fancy. To do an article from scratch you need WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. I tried a few and had a really hard time with them. Even got WP:COI levied at me, which I definitly do not have. So better not waste time, unless 100% sure. Igor Berger (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You could always build gradually on a sub-page, which is not at risk of deletion (but you can't link to it either). Ultimately you have to find mention of the wiki in at least one really notable website or news source, then notability is established. WP:N only governs article creation, article content is a separate issue. You can put whatever you want into an article and sources are not required, but per WP:PROVEIT, if someone challenges then the onus is on the person who wishes to add the information to demonstrate that what they say is true. WLU (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the owner of the wiki built something already in her sandbox. But I just Googled for wikiasiantravel and did not find any verifiyable resources besides a page on Aboutus and some other wiki, which are not notable per secondary sources. Looks like it is still a no go. Igor Berger (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>If it makes you feel any better, you're in the same boat with many, many other wikis and websites. If WAT keeps building, eventually it'll get press recognition and you can draft it then. WLU (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it is not my wiki, so I cannot do anything for them. I was just trying to help because I am a traveler for 20 years now. So just out of respect for the community! I think the wiki owners need to promote it on some industry blogs and get an industry write-up. But I guess they do not know how to do marketing and brand building. I am too busy editing here, contributing to my blog, and staying abrest of the web industry via informative blogs and social media sites. My schedule is full..:) Igor Berger (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing you can do is keep an eye out - if it pops up, then you've got something to work with. At least now you're prepared and know what is needed to prevent the article from being deleted. If it's really useful then it's just a matter of time. And in the mean time, you've got a wiki-addiction to feed... WLU (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Io io editor (talk · contribs)

I noticed some frustration you've had with him. I'm sick and tired of him. His personal attacks are ridiculous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes but what to do? He's apparently decided that all who disagree with him are idiots and the only way to get his way is argue on talk pages endlessly (reminds me of myself, probably why we get along so well :P). It's a huge pity because he really is knowledgeable in certain areas. Keep me posted of anything official and I'll probably comment - be sure to use diffs 'cause they're always more convincing. I'm guessing you're going to run into a lot of 'it's a content dispute' comments based on what I've seen so far. Incidentally, regards this diff, it's not self-evident. Diarrhea can be fatal in young children, but treating the disease is often unnecessary - hydration and electrolyte replacement is what kills, not the bug that causes the diarrhea. A single example of symptom treatment being arguably more important than disease modification. Io would be a tremendous asset to wikipedia if he could get along with others, but as is he creates more problems than he solves. Unfortunately he's just being a little dick, not a giant dick, the reason that essay was written. For some reason he's not editing natalizumab directly, just the talk page, so my actual conflicts with him have been less frustrating than yours. WLU (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to be called an idiot. His edits are sloppy and I've cleaned them up. Am I perfect with spelling and grammar? Not really, but more so than he is. I never attacked him, then suddenly he gets pissed at me because I tried to clean up his writing. So he posts on Wikiproject Medicine nearly every spelling error I've had on Alzheimer's disease. Out of 300 or so edits, which probably involved 10,000 or so words, I guess I make a spelling error or two. He just pisses me off. He is a little dick, and he knows some stuff, but not everyone knows everything. I'm just pissy about stuff lately. I just vented to you because I laughed at a reply you had for him in a drug article. It was hysterical. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please e-mail me the diff - I do love laughing at my own jokes.

Unfortunately Io seems to be an editor that we must just bear - he plays to the letter of the policies and civility, even while being incredibly aggravating. It's hard not to get caught up in disliking the edits because he is the one making them. Were a posting made on AN/I (incidentally, there already was one and it came down pretty much against Io, but it was related to article content and my horrible, nefarious, nonexistent agenda) I'm guessing it would come to naught and be more than a little embarassing (though I've not done a comprehensive review of edits so there could be more there than I think). If he does get blocked, it'll probably be for WP:TE on Talk:Natalizumab as that's where he seems to be pushing the hardest. I've tried being nice(r) and offering suggestions, but he seems to think I've an agenda and my previous 20K worth of edits were all just an elaborate beard leading up to this edit, mwhahahahahah! I should be a James Bond villain.

I'm really torn, because knowledgeable editors are a huge asset, but little dicks are not. I'm predicting a couple more months of aggravation then Io leaves wiki in disgust, proclaiming it a colossal failure because of some frequently cited excuse (the system is broken! experts are ignored! whatever!) with long odds on becoming a productive editor who recants his previous incivility. WLU (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to email the diff, Mr. Io editor was publicly complaining about it. I guess you're no one's bitch. What a classic response. I'm sorry, but spit up my Diet Pepsi when I read it. Took me an hour to dry off my laptop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my finest hour... I did redact it with a nudge from User:Jdfwolff, so technically that means it never happened. I cite WP:DNFTT a lot, but never manage to follow my own advice. WLU (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The TRUTH about wikipedia

Actual useful stuff minus SPA/POV/socks Polemic discussion and debates = The real actual useful stuff <= 1%..:) Igor Berger (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, I have no idea what this is inreference to. The new picture on my user page? WLU (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Just making a wicked joke - wikijoke. Sorry for my humor, but as a blogger, it tends to be around me. Igor Berger (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're also missing that the picture discusses mainspace - the totality of wikipedia (talk pages, user pages, project pages, policy pages, dispute resolution and so forth) renders the actual useful stuff to be far less than 1%. I'd give it .000001%. At best. Take away stubs and you've got a couple more leading zeros. WLU (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice one! So we are actually the world's biggest Spammers..:) Igor Berger (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Congress Poland c/e

I will see what can I do, but if you could announce your request at a review at WP:PWNB, I am sure more editors will help.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideas that make me smile

What do you think? A simple DNFTT, or a new paragraph for every irritating or condescending remark? It might be fun to see whether I can make the talk page and the article page grow at the same rate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a bad, bad man. I just wish I could get the content without the needless drama. It's not even fun to out-argue anymore, it's just tedious and aggravating. On a totally unrelated note, I noticed one problematic editor getting blocked, then unblocked with a restriction of only being able to make one post per talk page per day. Worth thinking about. WLU (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrably false: I'm a woman. But I'm glad that you were amused by my wicked thought. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my default assumption is always man. I'm a sexist jerk. I'm thinking that there might be value in your approach, but hope springs eternal, perhaps we'll be disappointed. It's getting to the point that I think we should userfy any further posts without discussion. WLU (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all offended, although I'm tempted to add a {{fact}} tag after your assertion of sexist jerkism. Now I wonder whether I'll be able to keep a vow of silence? I don't think it will be easy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

Hi, there's no real problem here. User:Nitramrekcap (Martin often edits without logging in to his user account, I recollect that he has some difficulty logging in to his account from his work computer) does try to edit in good faith, but often gets a bee in his bonnet about specific issues related to the discovery of the structure of DNA. I've dealt with him a lot on the Franklin page, he's quite a difficult person to work with and I have in the past been very angry with him for pov-pushing, but I've come to realise that it's just his way. He's not really interested in Franklin, but rather the discovery of the structure of DNA and I've had to remind him on numerous occasions that Franklin's article is not about the 1953 discovery and that it is not about Crick or Watson. I suspect that if he had his own way the Franklin article would hardly actually mention Franklin at all, it would only discuss the events of 1950-1953. He can be a very difficult man to work with and he refuses to read and understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines even though I have repeatedly asked him to do so. User:Badgerpatrol has had very similar problems with Martin. Martin really does want to contribute, but often his contributions/research is sloppy and he doesn't really understand about neutrality and verifiability, he'll happily give his own opinion in articles and not understand why he shouldn't do this. For example he would not understand what is wrong with this edit of his, or this All the same he has made some good contributions to the articles about Crick, Watson and Franklin even if he can be very biased and difficult. I would engage him on the talk page, but from my past experiences it would amount to talking to a wall. Alun (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right that we should mention Luzzati, actually it would be good to have more information about her personal life generally. I haven't been actively involved with editing this article for some time, besides keeping an eye on it for vandalism and creeping bias (in both the "pro" and "anti" Franklin sense). I did a major overhaul of the article about two years ago, where I tried to include more information about her work in Birkbeck. The article has been quite stable since then. One of the reasons the article is so peppered with citations was because of the ongoing difficulty of working with Martin, which effectively meant citing every sentence. I was thinking at the time that I wanted to include the work she did that was not on DNA, she was effectively a world expert in three different fields but the article had been written as if she had only ever made one significant contribution to science. I find it hard to know how much detail we need, obviously most people who come to the article are interested in her contributions to DNA research, but it is important to include her other major contributions to human knowledge. On the other hand I'd be at a loss to know how much detail is required when discussing her personal life. If you are interested in having a go at writing a section about her personal life then I'd fully support it and would be happy to help. It's some time since I read anything about Franklin so I'm quite rusty. Maybe we should discuss the best way to include information about people like Luzzati, in a section about her personal life, or simply as a colleague she became friends with? Alun (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your post on my page... :)

Hey that was interesting, I try to learn the different ways things are said in other place then the U.S. I used to be on a website that had a lot of people from Wales and the surrounding areas. I was shocked once when someone posted they had killed their fags. I don't shock easily but I was totally speechless and had to ask if they were serious or not. Then they told me that they meant cigarettes. I laughed so much at this and so did the others esp. the ones that knew what it meant in the first place and realizing that those of us in the States wouldn't probably have a clue! Thanks for explaining difference in the spelling, it makes sense. I will be going back to the N site and give my opinion on whether liver damage should be in the article. I did a lot of research about it today, and I am of the opinion that it along with the severe allergic reactions should be put into the article. Also, I looked at Io's listings in archive one, and if the other medicine articles do not list all the severe possible side effects then they need to be changed to allow any readers to see the good and the bad of a medication and make an educated decision. You can see what I was up to at [[8]]. I have subsections in this to show where I found information to make my decision. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reference for the severe allergic reactions, that would be hugely useful - right now I think it's an unsourced sentence and a source will be very useful. User:WhatamIdoing is pretty good at taking talk page postings with sources and integrating them on the page, but I suggest you do it yourself - you'll learn a lot that way. I'll have a quick glance at your archive if you don't mind. WLU (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Liposuction changes

Yes the latter is a book (isbn: 0-8151-5205-1).

The prior also has a link to this webpage ([9]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeklein (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Come give us a hand

Need help of established editor anti-Americanism Igor Berger (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ich, looks like a messy article. My only recommendation would be cull any sources that are unreliable and re-build from the reliable ones. I don't really have time to look at this now, I'll add it to my watchlist and see what comes up. Most of my editing consists of something at the top of my list catching my eye anyway, if it's a high-traffic article then I'll probably get around to doing something with it. WLU (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pain

Hi! There might be another "spit" in the article Pain! Sorry for the inconvenience, we should have known it before... Please have a look on my last contribution at Talk:Pain#.22This_article_is_about_pain_as_a_sensation..22 --Robert Daoust (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus what a mess! But I guess it's a good collaboration if this much needed to be done. Unfortunately I don't have much time these days but I'll try to get around to reading the talk page. WLU (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Spam Malware domain

WLU, can you take a lok at this edit here The link that the new user name added to the page is spam it is bidvitiser site and a malware redirect domain. But he has marked it as a fan site in edit summary. I do not want to revet his edit because he has commented in a mediation cabal case that I am involved in. I do not want to come out like I am out to get him. I also recommend checking his other edits. Thank you for your help, Igor Berger (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Loks like the first spam link ClueBot removed but the editor inserted a new one here site also a malware redirect domain. I like to assume good faith but a new editor inserting malware domains in wikipedia articles is problometic. As I first stated I am involved in a mediation case that he commented at, so I would prefer if you can address this problem. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• caution do not open the external url in your ie browser unless you know how to do alt control delete to kill the ie running application, because it keeps spawning new windows. I also fear there is a some sort of scanner motion of the hard drive...it is probaly of the Zlob Trojan malware associated sites. Cheers, Igor Berger (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk about a page needing protection. Holy vandalism.

I would guess it's an honest mistake rather than deliberate spamming - anyone clicking on the link will realize in short order that it's a spamlink. I would guess that he mis-typed the domain name (or you did, missing the '.br' at the end), and you might want to also. If you're in dispute with someone, its hard to look charitably on their contributions and I am just as guilty of assuming incompetence or ill-will of someone I don't like. But sometimes it's just an honest mistake. All the links on the page go to actual sites, though one is to Brazil (foreign languages sources are ok, I don't know about external links). So someone else took care of the problem. Unless you've noticed a pattern across multiple pages, I'd say it's just an error (and its hard to check with that sort of site because they've now cropping up whenever you go to a link that isn't actually occupied).

Regards your most recent post on my page, mcflyaddiction.com is indeed malware, but mcflyaddiction.com.br, the site actually added by Mattbuck in the second edit, is legit.

Dude, I've looked into it a bit more. The link you originally linked to was in 2006. Even if he deliberately added it 2 years ago, right now he's not. Most likely it was a working site 2 years ago, but it's crapped out over the intervening time.

Also, I'm running FireFox on a Mac, so I didn't have any problem. Normally I hate the damned thing, but it didn't let me down on this one. WLU (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay my bad. You might be right, when the link was first added it was a good domain, but now malware. Also it was added in 2006 so old news. I am delting this section not to have uncessary drama! Thanxs for your help, friend. 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete it as it is on my talk page (it'll be archived in a week anyway). If Mattbuck ever comes across or mentions it, you owe him an apology. In the mean time, no harm, no foul. WLU (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry just did not want to attrack unecessary attention to the issue. But if you wish to leave it, please do. My apology to you for being incusiderable of what you may want. Thank you for your help, Igor Berger (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

{ud}If it does attract attention, it does you credit that you see you were mistaken and admit it. I understand the impulse, but I prefer to leave my talk page intact. Others might have been OK with it, you've no way of knowing. WLU (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Leaving it out in the open is educatuanal for the community. But at the same time, one must be careful when reading comments out of total content of why one maybe even a need to examine another editor's edit history. Could it be that the editor looked at said something at the median cabal case that have motivated for an editor to examine the editor's history? Wikipedia is a circular editing style, so all editor can, do, and should check other editor's edits. When we check them, for what ever reason, of course one must have a valid reason before doing it, and you must assume good faith at all time. That is why I came to WLU and asked for help instead reverting the edit in the article to remove the Spam link. Eventhough the editor who I found a conser to check, gave me a valid reason, I did not want to presuppose bad faith. We all make mistakes, as I have done now. I am sure the editor commenting at mediation cabal made a mistake also, same as I did now. But the most important thing is to stay cool and ask the help of your peers when dealing with sensetive situations not go head on! WLU, since the first day I met you you have been very helpful to me, I apreciate your given assistence today, and will come for your help if needed again. Thank you very much, Igor Berger (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, an outside opinion when you're not exactly neutral is always helpful. I'm hardly one to criticise others for losing their cool. Wikipedia often brings out my normally quite mild temper. WLU (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of extant sources

1 is a brochure produced by VB; not independent, can not establish notability

2-7 are irrelevant as this section is about basic income in the Netherlands, not VB itself; there's one sentece linking VB to a possibly notable group it replaced, but it is unsourced.

8's mention of VB is only as two members being part of the five-man group responsible for organzing a conference. You can't tell anything about VB or the two members based on this document. Minutes might help if they demonstrate VB was extremely active in some official capacity, but they're not attached.

9-12 is research produced by VB members, which doesn't make the organization notable unless they publish as part of or in the official capacity as representatives of VB. But based on the sentence "The association does not have the funds to carry out a research programme" I don't think this can establish notability.

13-14 is again about a topic that VB is interested in, but not a topic that VB has contributed to, which means it can not be notable based on these sources. I am very interested in the creation-evolution controversy and the Discovery Institute, but neither page has my name on it, nor do I get a page because I'm interested in them.

15, your own work GDB, is sourcing an idea, not VB itself. And irrespective, I don't think it would be considered an independent source.

As for the remaining four external links, they appear again to source the idea of a basic income, but do they mention Vereniging Basisinkomen itself? The first seems to once in the acknowledgement, does it appear again in the book's contents? The second again once, in the body text which is slightly better, but it's in German and I can't read German. The third I can read, but again VB is a throwaway reference saying they've got information on basic income. The fourth mentions VB in the index, but the actual page is missing. Though judging by the page that immediately precedes it, I'm guessing it's a mention that there is a Dutch organization that has a website devoted towards basic income.

My analysis is that there is enough evidence of mention of VB to discuss during an AFD (i.e. there is no unquestionable evidence that the entry is notable, and there's enough evidence to suggest that it may be notable) rather than speedy delete it. My personal opinion is that there's not really enough here to justify the article page. Even if the page does survive, the COATRACKing should be removed. I'll be commenting on the AFD shortly. WLU (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

I responded to your comments to me at Natalizumab side effects on my talk page and on the articles talk page. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen notabiliy

Re-reading the discussion above, you may have already seen these, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case it was overlooked. The four books mention Vereniging Basisinkomen. SunCreator (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I saw them (why it's 19 rather than 15 sources). My initial reply to your first comment "All four books mention Vereniging Basisinkomen." was:

Indeed, once each. Basic Income on the Agenda does so in the acknowledgement section, Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Hoffnung: Reformfähigkeit und die Möglichkeit also once, but I can't read German. Face au déclin gives it one sentence, and End Poverty mentions it in its index; based on the content of page 104, it's a title, country, single sentence and website (the section is called "Websites devoted primarily to Basic Income". WP:CORP contains the sentence "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability"; I consider this coverage trivial and in my opinion not sufficient for notability (since they couldn't really be used as sources to justify any content beyond 'this agency exists', I consider it trivial). I've always run into this issue in many AFD discussions - for me mere mention is not enough to establish notability, it's got to be a story or discussion of the topic to be notable. But that's my opinion and I know that many people disagree : )

Thanks for the comment, it'll be useful for anyone looking into my analysis of the sources (I'm contemplating putting your original comment and my reply back in the section). I realize my approach to notability is rather draconean and if not unpopular, then at least uncommon, but that's why it's an AFD discussion - if no-one agrees with me despite my best efforts, either I'm unconvincing or my opinion is out of line with the community-at-large's opinion. Again, thanks for the comment. WLU (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand why you are doubtfully about this article. The evidence for notability is not much. In my case I tend to use the intension of the various wiki guidelines and policies. It is good that someone like yourself can but forward clear reasoning for your own perspective. I admire that. Regards. SunCreator (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

...but I'm sure you're glad we don't edit the same stubs :) WLU (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you go edit Dies non juridicum :) (joke) SunCreator (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your problem; I hate pages like that 'cause I don't own a latin dictionary. Have you seen this? I'd AFD it in a second if I came upon it in random wandering but failing that, merge to List of Latin phrases (A–E). WLU (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You may like to recheck that page. SunCreator (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaced the tag, posted on JL's talk page. WLU (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. SunCreator (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, WP:BRD, block mention for motivation and WP:DE for why it's a bad thing. There's no real reason to remove the tags without discussion and the removal of the source tag is pretty inexplicable, inexcusable and egregious. I'm going to give it a couple more days then probably boldly merge. I can't see an obscure, hardly used English law term expanding to a full article, and besides the list page is precedent and if it somehow expands to a larger page it can be spun out again. WLU (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen

Hi WLU, I'd like to see you comment at Vereniging Basisinkomen. Since I have a COI, there is not much more that I can do there, and I would hate to see a good article go because a user dislikes me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're running into the same problem with ME/CVS Vereniging - the sources are tenuous, they don't seem to discuss the organization itself, and you're arousing the hostility of other editors. Notability requires reliable sources discussing the organization, that are produced independent of it, that are in-depth and indicate some sort of interest. What would normally be at the fringe of notability and thus subject of debate were it a neutral discussion, gets polarized because you're not really answering the questions posed by people on the talk page, and the interpretation of sources is a lot less charitable than it might have been.

Given the sources, I see the problem. There's only one real weblink that anyone can verify, and all it says is that two members of Vereniging Basisinkomen attended a conference. There's no discussion of the actual organization. There's no discussion of how the members were supporting a mandate, what the mandate is, what impact Vereniging Basisinkomen has had on social policy in the Netherlands.

WP:CORP should be your first stopping point - at one point Aecis asks you "Could you provide any reference of reliable sources that are independent of the subject covering the Vereniging Basisinkomen?" and your reply is "a simple Google act seems to suffice and show notability" - well it's not. That merely shows that 974 pages use the words vereniging basisinkomen together. That just means that the words "basic income organization" occurs 974 times somewhere in Dutch on the internet. There's no guarantee that a) it's actually talking about the Dutch organization b) that it's not more than a single line mention c) that it's not the organization's own website and d) it's not advertising paid for by Vereniging Basisinkomen. The page can be saved by showing it clearly meets WP:CORP - coverage in a Dutch newspaper or other news source is probably the easiest. Frankly, if it was deleted from Dutch wiki, where the language and sources are easier to evaluate, I don't see it standing much of a chance on english wikipedia.

As is, I agree that it looks like a coatrack in several sections - Vereniging_Basisinkomen#Basic_income_in_The_Netherlands, Vereniging_Basisinkomen#Proposals is also questionable.

Members producing research that is not under the rubric of the organization itself doesn't really do much for the actual organization. Stephen Jay Gould's baseball pool doesn't get a page because Stephen Jay Gould is famous and mentioned on their homepage.

Thanks for your analysis, WLU. Just one comment: the references that I put in the article were not aimed to establish notability, so should not be looked upon as a (failed?) attempt to do so. There is a huge amount of coverage in the media, but I considered mentioning these in the article as not very interesting to the reader. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability comes before anything else because notability determines if the page exists. If the page is not notable, then it should be deleted and not recreated until there is evidence the entry is notable. If there is a huge amount of media coverage of the organization, then the page should have included this first to demonstrate the page's subject is indeed notable. Once notability is established, the content can be expanded through reliable sources (i.e. notability does not limit content, that's determined by WP:RS, BLP, NPOV, OR, FRINGE, and various other policies, guidelines and essays). My only comment on the content of the page is that it looks like a coatrack for basic income. The rest of my comments on the sources are about their ability to establish notability, and my conclusion is that they do not. If you are serious about the page remaining, find the most prominent mention of VB you can in the media, ideally an online English source (though Dutch would also work) and add that to the page. Even a crappy one-line would work. Then expand the page based on your reliable sources and remove the coatrack sections. The place where I added the {{fact}} tag, if it could be sourced to a newspaper, would probably establish notability. Two lengthy articles to two separte news pieces, ideally in two separate sources, would probably mean the page sailed past WP:CORP. If you are consistently uninterested in the notability of pages, I would suggest not creating new pages. Notability is primary. See WP:ATA, in particular Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Personal_point_of_view - you appear to be editing and/or creating as if your own personal interest determines notability. It does not. Though once notability is established, editing per your own interest is natural, normal and expected.

Again, if you're interested in the page remaining on wikipedia, ignore what you think the reader may or may not be interested in (that's irrelevant anyway - you have no idea why people are reading the article and are projecting your own interest on others) and edit to establish notability per the guidelines. Take a portion of that "huge amount of coverage in the media" and add it to the page to avoid getting deleted, and don't think about what is or is not of interest to the reader. That's for them to decide, not us. Trying to create and edit an article according to what you think a reader may be interested in would also probably end up with a strongly POV article. WLU (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping that more people are interested in keeping the page, and are willing to put in some effort. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in the page being kept, you should put in the effort. If you have a mention which truly establishes notability, add it to both the AFD discussion, explaining why it establishes notability, as well as the talk page. Then, use the {{request edit}} template to request a non-COI editor add it to the page. If you actually have a source that establishes notability, but you're not using it or making it available, that's frankly rather dumb. All it takes is "Please add this to the VB page, I can't because of my COI and here is the link" to any editor who can read the language of the source and write in English. Since you don't even have to add the information yourself, you've really no grounds for complaint if the page gets deleted. I'm not sure what you want from me - the notabilty guidelines are there, either it passes or not, and if it is truly notable, it should be easy to prove. I'm not even an admin, even if the AFD were clearly delete I couldn't delete the page. WLU (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I invited you because I knew you would give us a thorough analysis. It's just the consequences of the analysis for the verdict where we disagree. :) Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but if you don't know by now, my analysis will always be for the strictest interpretation of policies and guidelines. Really, if you're trying to defend a page against deletion (or create a new one) you should review the notability guidelines. That really goes for any editing - arguing from personal opinion or experience is almost always useless while arguing from policies and guidelines is fruitful. It shouldn't be the consequences where we disagree, it should be the analysis - I don't think the sources are in keeping with WP:CORP, consequently I think the page should be deleted. Anyone else who agrees with my analysis must come to the same conclusion and consequence. I'm guessing your analysis is different. The third option is that you agree with my analysis but think the page should be kept anyway; if this is the case, wikipedia really isn't going to be fun as policies and guidelines trump all. You get to be an admin by demonstrating understanding of policies and guidelines, and admins are the ones who delete and block, ultimately determining who contributes and what. Admins with wildly idiosyncratic interpretations of policy or who simply ignore policy will almost certainly have their extra tools removed. WLU (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability

WP:CORP relates to the topic, not to the article. If the article does not prove notability, it does not automatically follow that the topic is not notable and should therefore be deleted. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? WP:CORP applies to articles. How is an article different from a topic? We write articles about topics, if an article does not demonstrate the notability of the topic, it should be expanded (if notability exists but it is not demonstrated), merged (if an appropriate parent page exists) or deleted (if there's simply no reason to have the content). If an article can not prove notability, it very much follows that the topic should be deleted. It's up to any editor who wants the page kept to prove that the topic is notable; in some cases this is impossible because no-one cares about it except a few people (such as your garage band). In other cases it is possible, just not done yet (apparently such as your VB organization as you've said media coverage exists but you don't feel like adding it). There's no magic to notability, just a threshold. We can't summon the Dark Gods of Before Time to tell us if something actually is notable or not, so we use sources as a practical measure. Which is why sources are so crucial. WLU (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article."

Articles do not have a notability attribute. Only topics do. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is - what do you think we write articles on if not topics? How could a topic be non-notable and still have an article? What do you think the whole AFD discussion is about? If an article does not meet the criteria under WP:CORP, it should get deleted, expanded or merged. WLU (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the other way around. A topic can be notable yet have no article, or a bad article.

The AFD is there to check the notability of the topic. WP:CORP does not provide any criteria for articles. If the conlusion is that the topic is notable, the case may be that the article does not reflect that, but that is not a reason for concern. Articles have their own guidelines. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, articles have to assert notability of the subject :-) Just thought I'd make that clear for you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you base that idea on? Certainly not on WP:N.

"These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles."

"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia." Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This reveals to me that you don't understand the difference between notability guidelines and content. Articles must be notable to exist but information must be reliable. WP:CORP has nothing to say about content, only if it can exist. WLU (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from discussing the user.

Apart form the fact that articles cannot (generally) be notable (must there be a publication discussing the Wikipedia article? I think not), that is in fact what I am saying. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Natalizumab

Just fixed... Sorry for the mess. I forgot to press preview. Tell me what you think. (In half an hour I have to leave). I would also eliminate the sentence on "comparable rate". --Garrondo (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the change in the user page... I think I knew but I forgot to change it. I sistematically use diberris tool, but not the other two. Can you tell me where to find them? This almost seems a chat room... :-) Regarding natalizumab its true that first few words sound a bit strange (problem of being spanish), but I'm not sure how to change them. Nevertheless content is similar to former one but a lot of space has been gained, which is always an improvement per summary style, and in this special case it might help to alliviate ioio concerns. --Garrondo (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I like to think that I have good level of English, but if it is not your mother tongue is easy to make minor mistakes like that one, than are later difficult to notice. The paragraph sounds very good. Thanks also for the two tools, although I hardly write any references outside pubmed in the articles I edit.--Garrondo (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I do a lot of work wikifying references (turning bare refs into citation templates) and the ISBN finder is invaluable. If you do work on any psychology, anthropology or social science articles, the georefs tool is also incredibly invaluable, and good if someone has used an author/year citation without a title. They're good to have, you might be surprised! But if you edit just medical/pharmacology articles, pubmed would be your first choice. WLU (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a neuropsychologist, so most I know is the human brain, so most times my edits are on pubmed, but as you say you never know when something will become handy. :-) --Garrondo (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's also quite useful when someone else puts in a reference and you have trouble finding it on pubmed. Sometimes pubmed seems to be selective or iffy when you search. I've put in the exact title and come up with nada. WLU (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Divbox

Does my divbox (blue thing at the top) look funny to anyone else? Template:Divbox WLU (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope it looks fine from here! What are you seeing? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed now, but it was a series of uneditable sections and colour boxes. I reverted the template and after a bit of a delay it seemed to work. One should not play with templates anymore than one should mess with Texas. The divbox seems unusually vividly difficult. WLU (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT

I get you. Takes away editing-time anyway :)--AkselGerner (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The only problem for wikipedia is an effort to edit those opinions into the article, and BS has not tried to do so since his initial, fruitless and hopelessly POV sally at Origin of language. Which I believe got him blocked. Much like I am free to proclaim my utter, utter disdain for any moron willing to attempt to base their life on what they believe a two-thousand year old book contains (and are often wrong or extremely selective in these beliefs), other editors can state within reason their willingness to swallow the bullshit contained in whatever book happens to be old enough to have some bizarre credibility in the eyes of the credulous. I should put that on my talk page. WLU (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you just did :). I was conducting my own form of social research, that is I was prodding at him trying to find out if he actually has any respect for his own stated religious beliefs or if they're just a political tool. I got my answer alright. --AkselGerner (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective, I'd say its a waste of time. He's not going to change his mind and you're wasting your time, just like I did. As long as he keeps his POV on a leash then I don't give a rats ass. WLU (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Were I you however, I'd be nervous of being called on my civility. Comments on talk pages can be momentarily satisfying and ultimately bite you on the ass. Been there, got the tooth-shaped scars. WLU (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to implement that. Thanks again--AkselGerner (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you

I see your point. I reverted it because the last editor marked it as vandalism. Fireice (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people would see puting Dick Cheney on that page as vandalism, and if they're familiar with the page's history, they might see it as WP:TE (the pic was up previously, then taken down because of BLP concerns). And who knows, maybe their finger slipped or the autofill tag was on. Irrespective, my opinion is Nixon is funny and appropriate, and won't get the page locked. WLU (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pain links

Hi WLU, I notice you are correcting links to pain, but are you sure it is the appropriate thing to do at this time? Presently we have the article Pain which is about pain in general, and Physical pain. There is also my proposal of a Pain (general) article. The matter is far from being settled yet, it seems... --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd committed to it when the pain article was being revamped, and there are nearly 1000 of them. I've shamefully not been following the pain talk page so I'm not abreast of what's happened; when I started correcting links, pain was physical pain (and now I'm hoping physical pain will be redirected to pain to save me more work). I have been watching to see what the old P&N was referring to - 90% of the time it's physical pain (which is quite telling), 9% is nociception and 1% is misc stuff - usually a specific type of pain such as chronic, back, abdominal, chest, etc. Having not reviewed the pain talk page, I think pain should be just about physical pain and emotional pain redirect to suffering or somesuch. I'll hold off on more changes given your comments. WLU (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument of some people on pain talk page is that the article Pain should be about all kinds of pain, or pain in general, and then, on my insistence, we should have the article Physical pain about physical pain. I object to have an article that is about pain in general AND physical pain: that would be regressing to the same problem as with pain AND nociception, and anyway physical pain is way too much important, it must have its own EXCLUSIVE article. My argument is that Pain should be about physical pain and we should have the article Pain (general) about general pain. At this time, everybody seems to be hesitating, and the situation, or the Pain article, is not clear at all... Your input into the discussion on the talk page would be welcome.--Robert Daoust (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to make time - it's a long talk page to review now. Sometimes if there's hesitation it's better to be bold and pick up the pieces afterwards. Unless you know that'll piss people off, in which case it's better to be timid. I'm a fountain of useful advice.  : )WLU (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Latin

Yes, I do speak a good amount of Latin. "Juridicum" (written by the Romans themselves as iuridicum, as they had no "i"), meant "one who administers justice" during the Republic period and during the first half of the Imperial period, however, towards the end of the empire it more often meant "judiciary", and that is the meaning that Charles would have intended. Erik the Red 2 (Ave Caesar) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say day without a judiciary for literalness' sake, but it could go either way. Erik the Red 2 (Ave Caesar) 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Natalizumab picture

Sorry, but no deal. To create an image of a natalizumab molecule, I'd need access to its crystal structure—that's how I made the images now at alemtuzumab and HER2/neu—and I've been unable to find it anywhere, despite looking for quite a while (since well before I got involved in the article). I'd suggest trying to get our hands on a photo of a Tysabri vial or something of the sort. As for a whole new level of cool, I have been making pictures of molecules for about two years now, but no dead or obscure languages (although I can read Greek and some Cyrillic—do alphabets count? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if somebody ever publishes the structure of natalizumab, I'll be all over it. I believe it is available north of the border, and I'm really not keen on moving PML into Interactions. From what I've read, I don't think the possibility of PML having been due to natalizumab itself has been completely ruled out—do I need to catch up on some reading? :) Actually, has PML been characterized as the effect of a drug interaction in the literature? The only source in which I remember seeing it as such is the Tysabri PI. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably a stupid question but adking anyways~ ;)

I was going to install Twinkle but it can't be used with OE, so do you know of another that will allow reverting vandalism all at once? You can see in my contributions a revert on Crohn's Disease but the vandal was having his/her fun and I'm not sure if I got it all. I know Twinkle allows to revert all of it from multiple postings. Any suggestions would always be welcomed. I hope I am making sense, one cup of coffee doesn't have my brain in normal gear, if that is what you can call my brain at anytime! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Io io editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Moved to /RFC in my archives. WLU (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome messages

FYI, it might help to sign your welcome messages, like the one you left on User talk:Kamayav. Over the years, I've found that it's easier for new editors when they see a name behind the message. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the welcome and warning at the same time and usually in cases like that I only sign the one. That extra four tildes! They kill me. It's a good point, thanks for the prompt. WLU (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I didn't see it, you can imagine that a new user probably wouldn't. BTW, some welcome templates have the four tildes already in the template, for example {{WelcomeMenu}}. I've thought about being bold and adding it the welcome template, but I'm sure someone would protest. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Every time I try to learn a new template, an old one falls out. But if it's got the sig in it already, maybe it can push out the old welcome. Thanks for the suggestion, will try to remember it! WLU (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's true. There's also a problem with templates that share closely related spelling. I was trying to add {{reflist}} to a reference section, and I typed {{relist}} by accident; the results surprised me. :-) Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad it worked out and that you like it. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback feature

Ask for it, it is so much easier to clean up vandalism! I just had my first try with it. I'm sure you would get it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll start pestering :) WLU (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll have to pester too much, you are a much better editor than I am, you should get it way before me! ;) Especially with your 'time served' to the projects with good hard work. Take a peek at my talk page when you get a chance please, photos "here" --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Don't go around edit-warring with it ;) And if you must abbreviate, FV is fine. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be sorry, thanks for helping us out! --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find revert with popups a bit slower because it adds the edit window step. It can, however, be more "powerful" if you have to revert several vandalism edits from more than one user. Rollback is much faster and easier if you want (have) to, say, revert a bunch of edits by a single user or IP straight from their contributions list; Twinkle rollback (easy to abuse :) allows an optional edit summary and opens the reverted user's Talk page for easy warning... I view them as a set of tools, actually, each complementing the other. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am so very sorry!

I really mean it too, I usually put a warning up for people so they know that they are going to see graphic material. I'm so very sorry I forgot to put that up on my message to you about the P.G. I guess since getting Crohn's, I am not sensitive to this kind of thing anymore, my own body shows me way too much at times!;) I will edit my page and put the warning on it so others do not make the same mistake and get ill from looking at it. Please except my apology. I will respond here when it's important for you to see it or we aren't having an active conversation on my talk. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic income

Please do not turn an article into a redirect just like that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was being WP:BOLD. The page is a content fork. Consider using a sub page rather than creating a content fork. WLU (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

SRA sources

• ISBN = 9041116788
• ISBN = 0691113505
• ISBN = 0684196980
• ISBN = 0812691911
• [10]
• [11]
• PMID 7936968
• [12] oh lovely.
• [13]

WLU (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder

Hello, I've started an RfC/U in which a discussion you were involved in is used as evidence. Fram (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm...time consuming, but I think there's merit. I'd say that your final point isn't necessarily a good one BTW, [14] the userfied page doesn't link to anything in mainspace. But I'm not familiar with WP:UFY. I do note however, that UFY says "an earnest attempt to cover an unencylopedic topic - can be userfied, as such material would generally be permitted in user space". I'd say it applies. I'll have a bit closer look at the rest of your comments and points. I do agree that GDB is very difficult to work with, wikilawyers with enormous consistency and either deliberately ignores or misrepresents policy, or simply doesn't understand it. I wish he'd just be a giant dick instead of a little one. WLU (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

...and now he has reverted you as well (I've given him a 3RR warning, as this was already his fourth revert in 24 hours). The userspace article is just an extra indication that he'll do almost everything to preserve his articles and links. Normally, users are allowed to have a deleted article in their userspace for a short while, while they make improvements on it (sourcing and son). To let it sit there for five months without any real edits is at least against the spirit of the deletion policy. But it is the least of his problems, I agree. Fram (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's definitely something he's itching to shove back into mainspace as soon as he gets the chance, and it's arguably defensible (and wikilawyering is a certainty). But as long as it's not linked to mainspace I don't think it's the biggest deal, though I do consider it evidence of further willingness to push his own agenda at the expense of the spirit of wikipedia. Whether the reviewers at the RFC agree with me is another question. WLU (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. It are examples of what I consider typical behaviour, no one has to agree with all of it (or any of it). If the result is that all his behaviour is perfectly acceptable, fine by me. If the result is that some thingsaren't acceptable but the userfied page is alright, again no problem. Fram (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. My guess is you'll get flack over that point, but let's see what happens. You might also want to drop a line over at User:Jfdwolff's talk page - he's Dutch and has run into GDB in the past, might be interested. Though his user page says he's got real-life stresses hammering at him, so you might want to be delicate. WLU (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to only notify people who have been involved in the current (past month) COI discussions, not going after everyone who might disagree with Guido (although obviously they are welcome to contribute). I have also contacted people who have more or less supported Guido at one time or another, and have excluded those Dutch users who were mostly here to continue the debate over at nl.wikipedia. I do not intend to contact any more people at the moment. By the way, since the RfC has now been certified by a second person, I guess it will at least continue and not be shelved in 48 hours :-) Fram (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Wolff is an admin, one that I like to work with because he's always played close to the policies and guidelines - something I appreciate. Depending on what happens, I may drop him a line 'cause I was involved in GDB's previous problematic interactions at the same time as Wolff. I appreciate your fairness in not wanting to pile on and be fair to the current dispute, but GDB's problematic behaviour is not limited to this single instance and accordingly others who have found his actions similarly troublesome have a justifiable (in my mind) right to make a statement about it. Your reasoning on Dutch users makes sense, I agree that notifying them will add little to the discussion. I'll try to comment today or tomorrow. WLU (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Aortic aneurysm operation script from wikisurgery

Thanks for pointing out that open wikis are not acceptable as External Links for wikipedia.

Can you advise me of an acceptable way of connecting wikipedia users to the operation scripts that are on wikisurgery where I am an editor?

The aortic aneurysm script is 175 pages long. Have a look at [15] to get an idea of the unique detail that is not available anywhere else.

I should welcome your advice. Please excuse my ignorance about how to use wikipedia correctly. Michael 16:04, 30 April 2008

Wikis are not reliable sources, and basically should not be linked to wikipedia at all. They are certainly not medically reliable sources. The only way to use content from the wiki would be to mine the page for scientific journal sources to be put up on wikipedia. My only other suggestion would be bringing the link up on individual talk pages, but I very much doubt you'll get a response. 700 pages isn't much and I'm guessing there's not much review. Wikisurgery shouldn't be an external link or a source. WLU (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to pain

Hi, it seems that, in any event, the article Pain will probably be for ever the place where links to physical pain shall refer to in general. So, if this is your guess too, I guess there is no longer any risk in fixing all the redirects appropriately. --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well huzzah for that, I was looking for an excuse to up my edit count to the 5K/month area. I'll get around to it in the coming week(s). WLU (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Simulacra and Simulation .jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Simulacra and Simulation .jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox replaced, not an issue anymore. WLU (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

congrats!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your eloquent arguments in Satanic ritual abuse and your heroic efforts for NPOVing such kind of articles. Quite a few people in the Wikipedia community wish that new measures be taken to deal with the civil pov-pushers in the near future! —Cesar Tort 23:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks CT. I was aware of Raul's proposal and it gave me an erection. I became sexually aroused by an essay on wikipedia. I need a new hobby :( WLU (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi WLU, I have to admit I almost choked on my drink when reading your response. After spending the A.M. with doctor vampires, I have to say this made my day so far! You always seem to be able to make me feel good with your edits. Thank you very much for the laugh! --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Much as I'd love to take credit for the funnest talk page, that easily goes to FisherQueen. WLU (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Types of unemployment. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Types of unemployment. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

---

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Types of unemployment. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
OK above is the standard tag warning and you risked being ensared in its application to yourself :-) In itself, GDB's adding material that is disputed is a content dispute in so far that GDB was not merely removing obvious vandalism which of course is exempt from 3RR. So your removing it repeatedly x3 risked being swept up in the net of an unfamiliar admin coming in and cutting the Gordian knot of an edit war. That GDB's inserted material repeatedly of a self-reference disregarding entirely the whole COI disussion was additional reason for his block, and mitigation for your x3 removals which were in keeping with consensus of the COI/N & RFC... but nevertheless this was unwise behaviour and you should have stepped away for a while and asked for opinion of other editors rather than undertake all 3 reverts yourself :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries David, if I'm in a revert war, if I'm at the 3RR border, the warning is warranted and fair. WLU (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

• Kooiman, P, Kloek, T. (1985), "An empirical two market disequilibrium model for Dutch manufacturing", European Economic Review, Vol.29, pp 323-54 uses a similar approach across submarkets
• I can't access at the other one at the moment, but an earlier glance seemed to demonstrate relevance: Kooiman, P., "Smoothing the Aggregate Fix-Price Model and the Use of Business Survey Data", the Economic Journal, Vol. 94, No. 376 (Dec., 1984), pp. 899-913

Remember that in econ., many journal articles omit the nitty-gritty of the math, which is relegated to the working paper or, in this case, the dissertation. I don't think its a terrible idea to cite both the dissertation and the earlier working paper, its standard practice in econ.

Note also that in this particular subfield the theoretical advances only really took place in the 1980s. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This article and some related publications and papers can be found at [16]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Adoption

Why thank you! i only posted it a couple of days ago; its nice to have a quick reply. Basically i am looking for somebody to give me hints on what to start editing, where i'm going wrong and where i can improve; if you have any advice or tips i'd be grateful for your help. Ironholds (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I didnt know about diberri, no. Do you know where i can find it? the only link i could find was to User:Diberri. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Diberri's tool is at http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller and for direct completion use http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/?type=pubmed_id&id= with teh PMID number at the end of that. David Ruben ^Talk 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PubMed link to free content

Thanks for pointing out the obvious WLU, sometimes (and this was one of them) I need someone to do that. regards SmithBlue (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware you could get full text from pubmed, so I learned something too. I love win-win situations. WLU (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Economics question

Wow, you give me way too much credit. I have no idea if the information you quoted is accurate. Why don't you try asking User:Lawlorg. I believe he is a graduate student in economics. I am just a fan of the field. Remember (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Graptolites

Hey, no worries - any contribution is more than welcome, especially in geological articles, which are all to often over-brief! Hope you'll be able to find time to pop more edits in where you get the chance!

Best wishes,

Smith609 Talk 07:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't do yourself down - the expansion of Anomalocaris was a vast improvement! If there are any specific papers you'd like me to e-mail you, do just ask. Smith609 Talk 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for mending my User Page after obscure vandalism! PamD (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wish I spoke hebrew. De nada. WLU (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Would love your opinions here.....

"here" What's your thoughts about this, or is it nonsense to put into the article? I would really appreciate your opinion on this. I reverted an edit about one musician that has IBD but the reason I reverted was the way it was written and it said that the screaming (my word) doesn't help with his disease control. Also there was no citation of any sort so I reverted, but I would still apprciate your input on the talk page when you have time. No rush at all with this, I am still doing research. Thanks as always, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, opinion given. WLU (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

advocacy

Hi there...

I think your edit summary is correct regarding this. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Spamwarned, reverted insertion of links. We'll see if s/he follows-up or keeps spamming. WLU (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the quick action. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing if not absurdly critical when it comes to ELs :) WLU (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Master of Orion

Why did you remove from Master of Orion the bit about no wormholes and no chokepoints. It's one of the most important distinctions between groups of space-based 4X games? PS: I like your "someone's wrong on the Internet", but it's one funny I won't share with my wife. Philcha (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In general I see comparisons as original research when unreferenced, and the tone is off - using 'you' implies an instruction manual. It can be worked around using neutral language which implies that one can use star lanes to isolate star systems and heavily defend them (basically a work-around the how-to restrictions). But wikipedia is not a strategy guide. I'm guessing game pages are rife with similar problems, which is a reason I generally avoid them, but I'm playing MOO3 and I can't resist editing when I see a problem. Gotta run! WLU (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post replies on the game's Talk Page.

So Wikipedia officallly wants its article to sound like HM the Queen. Oh,well.

As I said, warp points / wormholes / whatever vs travel-anywhere-in-range is one of the fundamental divisions in space-based games.

Your most recent edit (races) deletes one item that's in the manual and is inaccurate on another point. Do you have a copy of the manual? I do. Philcha (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to avoid unsourced comparisons to other games with similar designs, and source to the manual any information that is relevant to the points you think need to be made. There's a lot of other changes I could have made, like removing the 'some guy's website' opinions that are included and trimming the external links section, but since it's a game page for a 15 year old computer game I realize there's limits to the sources available. Regards the races edit, I'm guessing you're talking about the silicoids superior computer skills allowing better spying? I think it' s trivial, but if it's in the manual it's referenceable so feel free to replace if you'd like. Wikipedia pages are supposed to be about informing on the topic, I would see that as an overly-specific discussion of the minutia of game details. But I'm not the boss of wikipedia and am not overly concerned about it being replaced. WLU (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia pages are supposed to be about informing on the topic" is exactly the reason why I included so much info. Different users will have different objectives in visiting the article, so will require different info, and the article should cater for as wide a range of requirements as is possible in a reasonable length. While I think a fairly informal tone is appropriate for a game article, there are several places where I chose the words carefully in order to avoid misleading implications that might reduce Wikipedia's credibility, and the inaccurate wording of your edit to "Races" creates that risk. The Silicoids do not "excel" at Computers research, they are rated "Good" at Computers research, a grade which is significantly below "Excellent" if you look at the numbers. To avoid going into the details of the research ratings system the article used "above average", which is literally correct and avoids misleading implications. I disagree that the minor advantage this gives the Silicoids in spying is trivial, especially in the early game when their freedon from pollution constraints gives them higher effective production than anyone except perhaps the Klackons. While writing at the level of detail of the last sentence would be WP:OR, any Wikipedia article involves a lot of summarization and therefore selection, and what the article said was based on the manual and gave readers an idea of what to expect from the Silicoids.

Re the 'some guy's website' opinions, one of the tough things about computer games articles is that some enthusiast web sites are more knowledgeable and accurate than the big name publications. For MoO Jon Sullivan and Sirian really are the best sources; for MoO II it's masteroforion2.blogspot.com; for Total Annihilation the site that gets the most respect in forums is the Gnugs.

I will restore the article to its previous state in a couple of days if I do not see any valid reasons not to on the article's Talk page. Philcha (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As you like, please keep the tone first-person professional though. Avoiding the second-person 'you' doesn't require that many grammar hoops. WLU (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked over the first part of your re-write. There are some things I like, but there also significant omissions and misleading items. Do you want to discuss this on the article's Talk page, or do we each keep doing unilateral edits until one of us gets really annoyed? Philcha (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've pretty much done what I can, feel free to edit further. Barring the issue's I've already raised with the tone and howto, I don't see there being many other changes I will make. My expertise on this page leans far more towards copyediting and wiki formatting, I make no claim to be especially knowledgeable about the game itself. I've never even played MOOI. Much of my expansion was based on what I could cobble together from the sources I read, if you've more information to add I would much prefer to comment after you've finished rather than try to sort out all issues on the talk page first. I've done the B in WP:BRD, so far no-one has R-ed, and until that time discussion may not be fruitful. I'm an edit first, talk page only if needed kinda guy so I have no problem with others doing the same. Please, go ahead and make any changes you feel appropriate! I'll comment or edit if I see the need. If you are just going to be adjusting the wording, I really don't see me having a problem with it. WLU (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hass avocado

Hi, thanks for the note, you raise a good point regarding what naming convention applies. My primary reason for reverting to Hass (avocado) was to restore the page history lost in the cut and paste move. I then thought about moving the page to Hass avocado per your intention, but then I had in mind articles such as Granny Smith (rather than Granny Smith apple) and other apple cultivar articles which only have (apple) where disambiguation is needed. However potato articles and banana articles don't follow this model, so there is certainly inconsistency out there. I've raised the problem at WP:Plants here Melburnian (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Chu

The text of Chu is available on the AJP website, as are several critical commentaries and a reply from Chu. Merchelbach does not discuss Chu with much specifity or at length, but his criticisms apply to much of the research on dissociation. August Piper's excellent, skeptical review of Dissociative Identity Disorder in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry also dedicates some space to the faults of Chu. Thanks for working on these articles. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Naming the studies is just a cheap way for me to avoid repetitivity with one study... --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bananas

Thanks for your welcome and info. And my first deletion! I [added the link] to Dan Koepell's site onto the Banana page after hearing him on a Scientific American podcast last night, and seeing the External link immediately above was to a NPR broadcast featuring him, I thought I'd add a link to his own, very informative, page. I should add that my only connection to banana industry or interests is through my own fruitbowl.

That said, I appreciate your taking the time - I haven't read all the links you point me to yet - but, clicking quickly, they look very useful. --Annielogue (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD of TVTropes

Well, I wasn't sure if I should comment here or on my talk page. But I'll guess you don't have a watch on my talkpage, as I've never done that. I did not use policy in discussing this, as, frankly, I hate it when people do that to me. In my mind, too many "policies" assume bad faith. I mean, take WP:ILIKEIT as an example. It seems to assume that I edited this page out of ignorance or just because I liked the topic. It very plainly asserts that my opinion is worthless. How can you do that without assuming bad faith/being uncivil? Especially since I specifically wrote "I really don't care if the article gets deleted"? It's like calling me a liar.

Now, that said, I get your point. Since you used policy to back up your claims, you want me to, as well. Fine, I can try, even if that means actually reading them again, as they've probably changed since I started editing. (WP:BIO came out since then. I'd say it's been a while.). I hate that we have to have them, but I guess it is a necessary evil. Let's see if I can find that essay specifically written to combat yours. (It's in your domain, so you have some claim of ownership on it.) I can't at the moment, and I've been looking a while. It kinda bothers me that WP:ATA doesn't link to it's opposition. The essay I'm looking for basically says that even ILIKEIT should be considered, as people generally like notable, well-written articles. The unfairness articleargument above is entirely my own creation, and I have no idea how to search and see if other people might have the same opinion.

(Sorry for being so verbose. The only policy I flat out WP:IAR around here is the one that limits me to a 100-word response. Not even Wikipedia's worth the hours it takes me to concatenate my own work.)

-- trlkly 14:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply here 'cause otherwise I might miss your talk page on my watchlist, but I'll drop you a line to let you know. I'll also refrain from my usual deluge of policy and guideline wikilinks, I love a lot of blue in my writing :) I'm also hardly one to criticize another editor for lengthy replies, so on this page at least please feel free to ignore the 100-word limit. Though 1000 words may be a bit much to read and reply to.

The reason why policies and guidelines exist is to limit the contents of wikipedia and try to make it adhere to a reasonable standard of verification that will make it a reliable source of information. Since everyone has an opinion, the guidelines exist to set standards that will ensure that the ability to verify takes precedence over the ability to opine - in general the standards for notability are pretty basic. There must be evidence that someone has paid attention to the article's topic, somewhere, that's not a blog or advertisement.

I've never seen a 'counter' to the ATA articles, though m:Inclusionism over at the Meta-wiki might have something to say. The only real 'counter' would probably be a reference to the WP:N that indicates the page has done something truly notable (i.e. arguably being the first website devoted solely to TV tropes would be notable, but you'd have to prove this through the us of sources; having sources to use indicates that the page has recieved attention in independent media; ergo, the page is notable because it passes guidelines for web content). Since notability and WEB are guidelines, not policy, they can be more easily ignored if a convincing (to other editors) case can be made that the notability is actually genuine. But again, this falls back on an issue of sourcing and verification, which is policy.

Ultimately the policies are the only touchstone editors have on a publically-editable wiki. For me a complete assumption of good faith in all cases without the policies and guidelines to say what is a reliable source and what is a reasonable standard would mean a battle between the vandals and the editors for who can edit-war the most persistantly to a version they like. I've always thought the policies and guidelines were quite good and really appreciate them (you can probably tell by my extensive use of shortcuts), but as a deletionist I'm dedicated heart and soul to brutally and cruelly culling content I don't think meets the bar (which is probably set unusually high compared to other editors). Anyway, the AFD as is was borderline, leaning to deletion in my mind, but a good source would tip it towards keep. That's why I suggest the use of a sub-page to preserve the content, and if a new source pops up, it's easy to add it to the page and re-create.

As you also might have guessed, I hate IAR and wish there were a policy about when rules can be ignored. Fortunately I'm not the boss of wikipedia, otherwise it would be a much smaller, doubtless much less fun place to read and edit. WLU (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't get from the AfD that all you needed was a good source. I may not be able to find it in time, however, as I am not feeling good and may have to go to the doctor. I personally like IAR, but only when someone can adequately explain why it is beneficial to the encyclopedia to ignore the rules in that instance, and also why it wouldn't just be better to just change the rules in the first place. I much respect you for not taking WP:AGF too strongly. I do the same thing, sometimes. Since you think TVTropes just needs a source (which I may be able to find later), I think I will take your advice and save it in my user space. I do care about the article now since it's so close. If I was the IP who created it, I'd probably care more, though. I usually don't care about articles until they are at least Good Article candidates.

Anyways, thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly. I appreciate it. -- trlkly 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In almost all cases the notability guidelines are variations on a theme - show a reliable, independent source that has paid attention to the topic, and you're pretty much good. That's only a notability guideline, the guidelines and policies for content of an article are totally different (RS, NPOV, OR, V for a bit of alphabet soup). Also note that it can't really be 'just a source', it must be independent of TV Tropes, and from a reliable source. The source must be vetted by someone independent of the person writing the information, or the person themselves must be a knowledgeable expert. Most of my nom is discussing the failings of the current sources to show as far as I'm concerned it doesn't pass notability, but the core problem is at the bottom. The part where I basically said all it needed is a source and discussion is at the bottom of my nomination, where I say "Per WP:WEB, there is a lack of non-trivial discussion in reliable sources to indicate the site has received extensive attention."

I realize it can seem tedious, but if you're going to spend a lot of time on wikipedia it's very worth reading at least the basic policies and guidelines - it'll make your wiki-life a lot easier and give common ground with other editors. It's a rocky and steep learning curve initially, for sure, but if you're going to be on-wiki for the long term, it's pretty much essential. Fortunately in most cases it's pretty basic:

1. don't make stuff up
2. show where you got your information
3. make sure it's somewhere you can trust
4. be fair to all views of the topic
5. external links should be rare, and highly valuable
6. make sure someone off-wiki thinks your topic is worth talking about
7. play nicely

Sounds like you got bit, which is pretty common and definitely a souring experience if it happens early. If you're really interested in wikipedia, you might consider adoption, which pairs you with an experienced user and can make your life a lot easier. The other option is asking other users for help/advice, admins are usually good choices. My favourite is User:FisherQueen 'cause she's also really funny, and User:SandyGeorgia is a non-admin who is incredibly knowledgeable. WLU (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That was very perceptive of you that I got bit in the past. As a former Intelligent Design proponent, I got bit when I claimed that certain parts of it weren't NPOV enough. (Someone actually deleted some of my comments on the talk page explaining my POV, which really miffed me. Oddly enough, my changes made it through anyways.) I then dedicated myself to be more of a WikiGnome than anything, so policy doesn't come up often in my edits. Usually what I know and can source about a subject has already been said. I'll sometimes add things I want sourced to talk pages and ask people to source them.

Anyways, I've been editing on TVTropes for a little while, when I discovered I had a lot to contribute and that conflicts were rare. Someone mentioned the fledgling article, so I went there to try and bring it up to standards. That's were my "work" came in. I thought I'd done a fairly good job for a stub, and left it for someone else to improve. Then I get an AfD notice. I honestly wondered what I could do not to lose my work. TVTropes has this thing called You Know That Thing Where where you can propose articles, so I thought WP might have something similar. Using my user space never donned on me, as that is against policy on TVTropes.

ADOPTION sounds kinda cool, but, as I edit so infrequently, I'm not sure it would be a good idea. I had no idea who was considered a good editor around here, so I hadn't ever really asked anyone for help. I'm also a big Do-It-Yourself-er. I'm also pretty big on the idea that policies should be simple enough not to have to read them that often. I understand that every eventuality has to attempt to be covered, but that the average editor shouldn't have to know them in detail. I know the rules, I just didn't know that my sources weren't good enough for notability.

Oh, and finally, I understand what you meant in your AfD about the sources not being reliable enough. I misspoke when I said "just needed a source". I meant a "good source", one good enough for use on Wikipedia. It can take a lot of effort to find sources when you don't know where to look, and, as I am just a casual editor, it might take me longer than the time the AfD has left. I thought we would need several, which I didn't figure would happen anytime soon, so that's why I said I didn't care if the article got deleted. I would just add information about how Wikipedia still doesn't find TVTropes notable to the NoSuchThingAsNotability page there. (They definitely aren't deletionists.) I am BigT over there. I don't know if you'd enjoy it, but you're obviously welcome to check out that wiki. I think it's amazing what you can do with so few rules. Before the Great Crash, our articles were often #1 on Google. We're fairly definitive in our field, as we're the only ones who have bothered naming most tropes consistently. If only I could find a (good, reliable) source to back that up...

-- trlkly 16:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the work of Hrafn. I actually have a lot of respect for Hrafn, s/he's got a massive amount of expertise and balls/ovaries the size of a Glyptodon (by the way, I'm a huge fan of Darwin and evolution). From a pro-evolution perspective, there's so many cranks raising spurious creationist comments on many of the pages that it's often quicker for all around to bite first and not care about the result (doesn't make it right, just efficient). I mean, there's only so many times you can deal with 'evolution is just a theory' or 'macroevolution has never been seen' before fangs are bared (and they're so delicious). The creationist perspective gets virtually no real positive attention because there are no real reliable sources, the points are spurious and it's a cultural topic that keeps trying to intrude in the scientific arena. I have lots of advice for editors who are creationists who wish to edit wikipedia, following it would result in a long and fruitful career here, but they generally don't like the fact that for the most part it's 'leave the science pages alone'. Most of them are crusaders for truth anyway and don't understand NPOV, sourcing or verifiability, and aren't interested in learning or switching topic areas. That you're still here suggests you've grasped the essence of the policies, and that you're changes ended up on a main page suggests that you actually raised some valid points, even if you were nibbled in the process. Anyway, rant is over. Glad you're still here and contributing. Wikignomes are essential parts in the biodiversity of the wikiforest, to overstretch a metaphor.

TVTropes isn't (and wasn't) terrible as far as formatting, spelling, grammar and sources, the problem is one of notability, which is fundamentally different from sourcing with totally different sets of policies and guidelines. People are talking about using TVTropes as a reference in the AFD discussion - that's totally irrelevant to whether the page should exist or not. I see the distinction as fundamental and obvious, but I've been here for nearly two years and have crammed in a lot of edits in that time. Even if the page is deleted, I highly suggestion you ask the deleting admin to userfy so if some extensive coverage in reliable sources does come up, you can easily re-create. You mention sources not being reliable in the AFD discussion, my issue is that the reliable sources are not discussing the page extensively (which I place a lot of emphasis on) while the sources that do discuss it are not reliable. I'd say this is an area where people fundamentally disagree because lots of peole have !voted to keep based on the mention in any source rather than focussing on the real key to notability - attention, discussion. It's enough to make a deletionist cry. Anyway, it looks like the page is heading for a verdict of no consensus, which is a default keep (also enough to make a deletionist cry). Keep expanding the page, eventually it'll be clearly notable if it gets enough attention (and wikipedia is part of that attention-getting process since we're usually at or near the top of the google hit list).

Anyway, if you have any more questions about wikipedia, please feel free to ask for my opinion. I make no guarantee that it's right, but often it is defensible and I'm quite pleased to show off my erudition as well as generally help.

Also, you may want to add Template:Infobox Website to the TVTropes page.WLU (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome ideas—both the info box and userfying to keep the history. Is there an Infobox Wiki? Anyways, I'm surprised that no consensus == keep, as I always considered WP to be a more deletionist resource. I will do my best to bring the page up to snuff. I've at least got a few more places to look for sources that actually discuss the wiki. Also, just so you know, I am a Creationist, even if I think ID is useless. I just don't let my creationism interfere when I edit biological science articles. (You'd be surprised how many don't discuss evolution anyways.) And I'm not sure God didn't use evolution to do His creating. I just think it doesn't matter in the long scheme of things.

Oh, and I'm copying this to my talk so people can see the entire conversation without clicking. I hope you don't mind. -- trlkly 17:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page then. WLU (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Ramachandran

Could you check and see if I'm right in thinking this page feels like an advertisement? I definitely don't think it passes WP:N as is, but I'll leave that to you, since you seem to know the appropriate policies like the back of your hand. Cheers. -- trlkly 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it - it does seem to be notable, particularly given the link I just put on the talk page that's coverage in a major newspaper (notice that it's an entire article about the artist in a national, hence independent secondary source, newspaper) which clearly passes WP:BIO. I think you're definitely right about it needing a clean-up, but it's clearly notable. WLU (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm still getting used to the specifics of WP:N, I thought you could do better, and you didn't disappoint. So it doesn't matter whether the article currently has a reliable source discussing the subject, just as long as one can be found. I'm happy I didn't tag it without asking you first. Thanks again! — trlkly 04:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally I/you/we'd find an external source and add it to the page simultaneously, but I'm not particularly interested in updating a page on an Indian artist when my time is pretty limited. (nice paintings though). The polite thing to do would be wikify, source and expand, the lazy thing to do on a stubby page like that is toss it into the EL section or talk page. Pages only get deleted when someone nominates them. If someone did nominate it, all you'd have to do is pop up that link on the nom page and the AFD would probably be over, but it's definitely nicer if you add info to. I didn't, and I'm a bastard for it. Chances are anyone investigating the tag would do the same google search and come up with the same result - I doubt most admins delete purely on the basis of what's on the page without searching for more info. WLU (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Econ COI

Hi there, just wanted to let you know that I responded to your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. Sorry it took so long, and I hope it helps at least a little. If you want a second opinion I can poke a couple of WP:ECON contributors. I know what you mean about WikiProjects occasionally being unresponsive and I feel your pain. Thanks :) -FrankTobia (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A comment from a contributor who is knowledgeable in the area of economic mathematical modeling would be great - they could say for sure that it was legit or not, and that there were no better or more recent sources. A small amount of poking would be nice; I'm reluctant to do so because of a) WP:PARENT and b) I just can't seem to find any active project members!

Thanks for the follow-up, it's much appreciated. Have a barn asterisk - * - it's for occasions where appreciation is due but the minor barnstar seems like overkill! WLU (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

You offered me adoption but i'm not to sure how to go about it! What exactly do i do? gr8lknow 17:35, 18 May 2008 (GMT)

Darujhistan

Just created this page if you want to look it over. Krmarshall (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Will gander. Location pages are like races pages - they're often better combined otherwise they may get deleted en-masse. See here and here. Darujhistan is a pretty notable location, so it might be OK, but if you're creating other pages, then you might want to keep these AFD pages in mind. WLU (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Only created it because people had it as a internal link. And I found plenty of information so it worked out. Wasn't planning on doing any other city, because there isn't enough information for them, nor have they been in as many books. The only one coming close would be Lether, but I still think not. Krmarshall (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Need your opinion on this edit

On the Origin of language page, an IP added this section [17] cited by what appears to be a personal webpage[18] though it looks to be sourced. As a newbie I don't have the experience to judge whether it is a good source or not, but I know you edit on the side of established science, and since you've edited that page before, I figured you were the one to ask. Thanks for your consideration. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looks like bupkus. I did a quick google scholar search and found nothing meaningful. If it's a legit theory and not WP:FRINGE, it should be sourced to books or articles that have been vetted by the scholarly community. Referenced theories only held by the author of the theory are the essence of Jimbo's final point at WP:UNDUE. I removed it. I also removed where s/he spammed it to four other pages. Good catch! WLU (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Chemobrain

18230787 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLU (talk • contribs) from a remote computer

I had the same problem! :)

I used rollback after the sinebot sig and all that rollbacked was the sig. not the trash. Weird, that's the second time rollback did that to me! I guess if it's two different users, bots too, we have to use 'undue' feature! No problem with taking out the trash though for ya! ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

WLU, I apologize, I did not intend to violate the external link policy. My intention is to help people with joint and muscle pain. What do you suggest I do? Hammerfist (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop posting links to floota dot com. Longer reply on your talk page in a moment. WLU (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Breastfeeding external links

I disagree with chopping all but one of the external links. Only one was a dead link. Some were links to references cited in the article - these should be incorporated into the footnotes section rather than simply deleted. Others appear rather informative. I think we should add a link to La Leche League, as they are an international organization and their website has a vast collection of articles relating to breastfeeding (this could replace the state-based links). The "How to Breastfeed" link seemed an excellent, brief how-to source (info WP doesn't provide, but that might be useful to someone coming to this article). The "Breastfeeding Practices" link from the CDC gives a good deal of information on rates of breastfeeding in the US. Lcwilsie (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that reference links should be incorporated, but since they were in the EL section rather than references, I didn't realize they were cited. If they are cited, then they should definitely be footnoted with citation templates, less preferred would be movement to the references section, but no matter what they should not be in the EL. Please feel free to do so - I was not aware and don't know where they are cited; if you've any problems then I more than pleased to help! If they're 'generic' references for the whole page, they should again be in the references section; the EL section is, per the external links guidelines, for links that can't be linked as references and offer something beyond mere information the article should contain anyway. If they're informative links, they should be used as footnotes to verify text.

Note that wikipedia is not a how-to manual, though WikiHow is and if there's an article, an interwiki should be added. Though wikipedia is not a howto manual, statements on ways that breastfeeding is most easily or efficiently undertaken or breastmilk produced can be integrated if medically reliable sources can be found. It's more a matter of wording than anything. The important thing to emphasize is how and why the particular actions work and what the results are; the words 'should' and 'you' must be avoided completely per WP:TONE and WP:NOT#HOWTO.

Note that links to country-specific information is not appropriate in the EL section unless it is an article about the country (i.e. in this case it would have to be Breastfeeding in the United States). Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and information should be as appropriate to someone in Nairobi as it is to someone in Des Moines. That being said, the information could be incorporated into the article as a discussion of country-specific practices, ideally with a description of what occurs in other countries.

Finally, a link that should be included, and I'm surprised I didn't think of it sooner, is the {{DMOZ}} template. It includes La Leche, as well as many other organizations. Simply paste * {{DMOZ|Home/Family/Babies/Breastfeeding/}} at the top of the EL section and it'll include a link to 96 other websites that are considered useful. WLU (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I would like to talk to you about an area going on that you are involved in but cannot do it here, may I email you? I trust you and would like to talk to you about some things that I cannot/will not talk about on any part of Wikipedia. If you prefer not, don't hesitate to tell me so. It's not real important but I just want to clarify some things with you. Sorry about this sounding so cloak and dagger (ish). I am just a little disturbed at the moment about a section going on and feel the need to talk to you about it. Please let me know or you can email me by going through the usual email the user on my page. Thanks WLU, remember I will not be upset if you prefer not to email with me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot WLU, ping, you've got mail! ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

I'd appreciate your input on this, since you are familiar with this user. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe my last interactions with TheNautilus was on Orthomolecular psychiatry, and that was a while ago. I'll my past interactions and go from there. WLU (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Sockpuppet_notification. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

origins of language

It would appear that you have applied different criteria to the assessment of the entry regarding the Hierarchical Systems theory of language than those regarding Gestural theory, Pidgins and Creoles, Universal grammar, and Idiogossia. Idioglossia has no citations at all. Universal grammar has two citation. One is an article in the New York Times (which, since I last heard, was not a peer reviewed journal). The second, which is also the sole citation in the section entitled Pidgins and Creoles, does not substantiate the title heading at all, so is largely irrelevant. The citation in the section entitle Gestural theory also does not lend any credence to the validity or origins of the theory. Hierarchical Systems theory, has been reviewed by David Chalmers and Bourget for inclusion in the archive online database on papers on consciousness. Could you explain why the section on Hierarchical systems has been deleted whilst these other sections have not? Furthermore, why should not Hierarchical Systems Theory be included on the grounds that those wishing to explore the evolution of language would be equally interested in the Hierarchical Systems theory as to Gestural, and Universal grammar theories? 82.4.179.128 (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't applied any assessment to the other categories because I did not notice them being added in. I've since removed some sections. Hierarchical systems is one of them - if it's a real theory, source it to a journal or something besides an author's website which indicates interest from secondary, rather than self-published sources. Gestural theory is sourced to two textbooks and the NYT, which is a reliable secondary source. Pigdins and creoles both have their own main articles, as does universal grammar. Per WP:PROVEIT I have removed idioglossia. Provide a citation indicating that Hierarchical systems theory has received attention beyond just the author, and ideally a discussion in a reliable source, and it can stay. If you can't, if it's just a self-published source, it is considered a fringe topic and should not be on the page. Those wishing to explore HST can google it. Those wishing to promote HST should do so in venues other than wikipedia and should not seek to take advantage of its high priority on search engines. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or self-promotion; we report the unconventionally established, not the bleeding edge of unpublished research. Please let me know if you have any other concerns and I will do my best to address them. WLU (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thankyou for responding. I still think that the citation for the remaining titles are inadequate. The section does not illustrate the inadequacies of universal language and gestural theory, and does not include enough decent alternative theories.82.4.179.128 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to improve the citations on the page, or if reliable sources can be found, replace the HST. Criticisms and main discussions both require citation, and if challenged, can be removed without anything beyond a mention of WP:PROVEIT. WLU (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot spammer?

Hey, wasn't it you who was looking out for this guy? User:SlickZ looks like a duck. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And, the guy reverted my note to you... 67.162.108.96 (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he was trying to get me into some kind of trouble to cover his tracks. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

More likely trying to cover his tracks. Dropped a 4im warning on his/her page and alerted User:FisherQueen, thanks. WLU (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Question from Hammerfist

Thank you very much for your thorough response. I will read every single one of the pages you linked for me. Stupid question for you: should I be responding to your messages on your talkpage or mine? Hammerfist (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed your section title so it doesn't look like I might be calling you a moron. Titles should be neutral anyways. There's no universal way of dealing with talk pages. If I'm corresponding real-time I'll usually bounce between talk pages - read on mine, post on the others'. If it's not realtime, I'll vary depending on the situation but if it's important I leave a message saying there's a reply on my talk page. It's not a stupid question, because there's no real answer. People with preferences usually leave that preference on the top of their talk page. Incidentally, if you're looking for a generic intro to wikipedia, try this essay; I wrote it for new editors as a broad overview of the policies, social norms and general stuff. WLU (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I will read that as well, thank you. Hammerfist (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review this section, bullet 8 - thread your posts! It makes for easier reading. Also, you just deleted your talk page. This is allowed, though archiving is generally seen as preferable. If you use MiszaBot or one of the other bots, it's automatic. WLU (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger that. I may take a stab at adding substantive, verified content to a page later. If I do so I will send you a message asking you to look it over to ensure compliance. Hammerfist (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The biggest thing is don't add spam. Adding the same website to multiple pages is looked upon badly nearly irrespective of the page's content. Even internal links can be spammed. But add content, ask me to review if you like (or ask an admin or someone on WP:WBE) or try reviewing the guidelines and figuring it out for yourself (unfortunately I find myself wrong far too often :( ). If you mess up the page or do something wrong, you'll be reverted or told if it's a popular page. Irrespective, not adding a single link to a page means you are far more likely to get good faith on your contributions, which means help, suggestions and no blocks. Anyway, I'm harping and if you're going to read the policies, you'll be way ahead of your peers (in terms of number of edits), so good luck and feel free to come to me with questions. WLU (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't add any spam. I need to dig up some biomedical books in the library and find some reputable online resources. I'll be in touch. Thanks for all your help.Hammerfist (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm getting at with all of my doom-and-glooming is that spam is to a certain degree subjective; now that you're aware of it you'll probably be more careful about it, but really the willingness to discuss with anyone and read the policies will go a long way towards helping you edit and engendering good faith from other editors. So you're on the right track. WLU (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for messing about, although I do think it was exceedingly harsh for you to label that comment "vandalism", it was only a joke and it wasn't as if I personally insulted you. Lighten up a little. It's not like I wrecked a page or anything. I suppose I'll now be blocked for daring to write this.--UDAcommander (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. BigDunc^Talk 16:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, felt good and upped my edit count. WLU (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As good a reason as any :) BigDunc^Talk 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm just a really good person. I also pet stray dogs and eat adopt kittens because their bones are really soft they are just so cute! Incidentally, my guess at the identity of the vandal is User:Creepy Crawler, who added barefoot to many pages (also a lot of work alphabetizing categories on biopages for comic book characters). Sound familiar? Any idea why they chose your page? WLU (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No have no idea get a lot of vandals on my pages and with that name it is probably to do with me doing a lot of edits on troubles related articles. Have not came across CreepyCrawler. BigDunc^Talk 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not missing much. They really liked bare feet, and thought everyone else should too. Oh, and they're a massive sockpuppetmaster. Yeah. Whoever vandalized your talk page (could have been UDACommander, DeadlySniper and/or WLU-is-gay) have now all been blocked, so in addition to a smug sense of satisfaction and an unjustified sense of superiority, I've now got a dramatic reduction in the anticipated level of crap appearing on my talk page. Huzzah! WLU (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Until they come back little shits always find a way. BigDunc^Talk 16:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why there's toilet paper and flush handles exist. Note that of course I love 'toilet paper' and consider it a noble thing, unsullied by its contact with feces. Well, except for how it gets sullied by feces. It's a metaphor-by-wikilink. WLU (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looney Tunes day! :)

Hi, I just popped into to notice that you have had a busy day today with really strange rangers!  :) Edit anything else today other than your talk page?!  :) Sorry couldn't help myself not to respond. I hope your day goes better and I at least gave you a little smile. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I got plenty of smiles comparing admins to toilet paper, in a loving way. Like toilet paper they serve a vital function, but also like toilet paper, they have a pretty shitty job to do (rimshot). I'm guessing it was one guy, three accounts/computers and now all are blocked. Huzzah! Makes me wonder if I somehow randomly got splashed or if it was some douchebag I've pissed off in the past. Either way, they're blocked and my edit count got bumped up, so I win, wikipedia wins, and they lose. A good day :) WLU (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Talking to someone with Crohn's and in a funny way about toilet paper and flushing I could probably fill you page up!  :) In other word, I enjoyed it too! --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't make me start on scat jokes, I've a 'shitty' sense of humour. Ha! WLU (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful!! It won't bother me a bit! Have fun in the big apple! Yea, I got curious! No suggestions though, I have only driven through it, and that was long, long ago! --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

One would think your suggestion would be 'don't drive through the Big Apple' - I've driven through as well and spent most of my time swearing at the damned parking lot-type situation I was stuck in. WLU (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin question

Why don't you think you'd be a good admin? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support an RFA for sure :). --Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If we just keep working on him, he'll say yes some day. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Shucks, y'all make me blush.

[19] is my first answer.

My second is, I've a very liable temperament - sometimes cool as a cucumber, sometimes extremely quick to anger. If I could keep on my best behaviour at all times, I think I'd be a great admin. But I won't - I'll miss sleep, I'll be hungry, I'll hit an edit conflict or I'll stub my toe and BOOM, someone gets blocked. I don't trust myself with any power that can be avoided, both in my personal life and on wiki. User:WLU-is-gay, User:DeadlySniper and User:UDAcommander would have all been blocked at this edit; sure in retrospect it would have been a good decision, but an itchy trigger finger is not a good quality in an admin.

Third, it'd just take soooooo much time away from editing. I don't have the time these days to do a good job of even basic editing, so giving me admin tools, which would split my limited time even further, just seems like an exercise in frustration.

Fourth, I never trust my understanding of policy to be sufficiently adequate. Every week I learn a new WP: shortcut and am further discouraged from ever understanding this place. I would spend my days making decisions and doubting myself.

I really, really appreciate this vote of confidence, I really do. I respect you both (hi Aunt Entropy, have we met? My apologies, I'm much better with faces than names :P I think I've seen your sig on evolution/creationism articles have I not? But if you think I'd be a good admin, I'm sure we'd get along :)) and am greatly heartened that you believe I'd be a good candidate for the tools (particularly since you've both communicated with me via e-mail where WP:CIVIL isn't a concern...). Ed might be right that one day I may say yes. But right now I fear the responsibility might turn me off wiki completely.

Plus, I still don't understand image use. How can I be an admin if I find image use confusing?

Though being able to read deleted pages sure is tempting... WLU (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you ever change your mind.... Tim Vickers (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd have my vote in a heart beat with all the help, fun, and conversations we've had. I know you would be an excellent administrator. Saying this though, I also know you don't want it so I will not push, have fun editing! --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Talking to blocked users

I appreciate what you are trying to do here and here, but it doesn't help, in my opinion, to say to a blocked user, "Continue, and based on my experience you will end up prevented from editing ever again." Imagine if you felt you were right and an injustice had been done and someone said that to you. What would your reaction be? You are essentially saying it doesn't matter who is right, just do things this way or not at all. Maybe you were trying to say something like 'Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. We all need to learn to work with others.' But then that applies to you and me, as well as Guido. Have you considered focusing on the content of Guido's edits, rather than his behaviour? I'm speaking here as someone who still finds the reaction to Guido's edits as heavy and overdone. In particular, I don't see enough warning being applied before the latest block, or attempts at actually talking to Guido rather than lecturing him. Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. I've tried saying the same thing to him before with no good end. I had hoped that with the reality of escalating blocks he might have started to realize that he was in a situation to end up being permablocked. I have tried talking to Guido, many times, and every single time my feeling was that of being spat on and called stupid despite having other editors agree with me. You don't need to be humble to edit wiki, but you do need to listen, and neither is a reality with Guido.

You may find the reactions to him heavy and overdone, but have you ever seen him actually concede a point? Have you seen his interpretation of policies, guidelines and consensus to be correct? Have you ever seen him not take even the slightest hint that he might not be blockable right now as anything but a complete vindication? To seem him concede, even once, that Mangojuice might not be wrong, would be a sign of growth. But instead his reaction is to edit war and push guidelines until they break (or the 3rr kicks in). I've said this to him before, I'd hoped the reality kicking in might have convinced him to change his mind, but apparently not.

Actually, thinking about it I have been in the position of being completely wrong and having it pointed out to me (recently). And my reaction was to leave it alone (and in this case see about changing the policy). But he has deleted my comment and I've now unwatched his talk page. So all the power to him, may he download the wikimedia software and become the next Jimbo. Perhaps I'll edit there even. WLU (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I agree with you that I haven't seen him concede points. That is something everyone needs to learn to do (and gracefully) to edit Wikipedia successfully and enjoyably. Anyway, other than raising my objection, I dislike discussing an editor who is blocked and unable to comment here, so I'll stop there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with you and appreciate the civility reminder. WLU (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

In case you miss it on your watchlist: [20]. Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All reasons why wikipedia not just shouldn't be used as a guidebook, but also why it's just a bad idea :P Got any names and addresses of restaurants? I'll be staying in the south end of the island, near the Wall Street subway station. Central park is a good idea, and that list of requested photographs is sure to get me in trouble with my girlfriend, who insists we will not be taking a wiki-vacation, though I will be taking a vacation from wikipedia :) WLU (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No addresses, sorry. Only been there once myself. Try a friendly native. Category:Wikipedians in New York City might help. But I'm sure that breaches part of WP:NOT as well. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Such is why I'm trying to reverse-spam my dedicated fans rather than random New Yorkers. I was cunning in my choice of a sub-page, when I get back I'm reverting to my pre-solicitation version of a to do list. WLU (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My userpage

Thanks for reverting it! There was a debate about wiki-problems and the vandalism counter came up. If someone increases the vandal-count by 1, its vandalism, meaning the count should be up by 1, meaning its not. and so on. Ironholds 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You have mail....

Incoming... :) BTW, thanks for your helpful links. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Biceps brachii muscle

While I do understand some of your removal and editing, overall the edit seems too agressive. You even removed one of the few scientific citations from the page concerning rehabilitation of the muscle in paralysis victims.

I have been collecting quite a lot of information to expand the article properly this summer. Would you be able and willing to collaborate when that happens? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, bad me. I had thought that the something as obscure sounding as "Tohoku J Exp Med." would be a non-pubmed-indexed pet article pushing spam. Much to my chagrin... PMID = 7817390

Reviewing the abstract though, I don't know if I would put it in biceps brachii, I'd be more inclined to try to integrate it into quadriplegia or FES (more likely the latter). What could you say about the BB based on this article? It's a single person case-study and I doubt it's results are restricted to, or unduly important in, the BB article.

However, since it does have a pubmed number, I've on real reason to object to its replacement. I wouldn't put it in supination though, I'd say its own section, particularly if you can dig up more articles on the subject. I don't think I could help much with an expansion beyond proofreading, but I'm more than pleased to do that. Though I'll be really curious to know what you're going to add since it is a relatively minor muscle. I am intrigued : ) WLU (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely a lot of work to be done on the article. As I say, I've been accumulating articles and sources, and should have time to work on this article later this month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think I can help, but if you need/want help with wikification, proofreading or outside eyes, I'd be happy to do so. Also, I don't really like looking for sources, but don't mind summarizing, so if you have a lot to try to integrate, feel free to drop a couple on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. If you want to let me know when you start, I'll monitor a bit more and see if there's anything I can do. WLU (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Source

If you read the The God Delusion carefully you would have recognized the source on page 20, which I cited. Those words are Dawkins' words not mine. Dawkins is above honest criticism because he is a living person? Since when? What is this true love? Kazuba (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Brainiac

Forget it. Obiviously Dawkins' The God Delusion (If you have read the book. Odd you don't remember things he writes) is too confusing for you and over your head. Read something easier next time. You haven't got a clue. Go catch a meme, put it in a jar and show it on CNN.Kazuba (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I understood the book just fine, but you deciding that he is being dishonest or whatever is original research and should not go on the page. And judging by the reverts, others agree with me. Thanks, WLU (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Kazuba's talk page

Hi WLU what's up! :) I can't help but notice your formatting makes it look like your recent comment on Kazuba's talkpage was directed at me...(it weren't me what added crap to the article, I swear! :P ;) ) Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much, most contributors will recognize the broken style of discussion as a back-and-forth between that editor and me. If you're really concerned, feel free to put in a section heading and adjust the threading. Were I in the same situation I wouldn't worry about it, but I'll revisit his/her page and see about a new heading. WLU (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Socks ahoy

I have filed a report here that you might like to view. If you know any other socks of this user could you add it thanks. BigDunc^Talk 08:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate sock postings, I find them confusing. The only thing I can think to add is that I believe User:DeadlySniper, UDACommander and User:WLU-is-gay are the same person. Should I add that to the page? WLU (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah if you dont mind UDAcommander is the only one I had dealings with and he is mentioned in the report. BigDunc^Talk 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! see you did already BigDunc^Talk 13:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Talk page

Hmm, I wonder why it suddenly needs archiving? More seriously, can you please tell me how to? Philcha (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Get Firefox - no risks of malware installed by Active X or HTAs, can import IE bookmarks and cookies, very stable in my experience. Then consider getting Thunderbird email - Outlook uses IE under the covers to display HTML emails (the ones that look like Web pages, have images, etc.), so your'e still at risk from malicious HTML emails containing Active X or HTAs; T-bird uses the Firefox HTML engine so is inherently more secure. Best check first if your anti-virus and other anti-malware programs support T-bird - give me a call if you're not sure. Last time I looked the 1 downside of switching to Thunderbird is it's hard to migrate back to Outlook - because Outlook does not understand the standard for mailbox files. I've been using T-bird for over 3 years and am happy with it.

Help w Miszabot would be much appreciated - Wikipedia is lousy at documenting tools. Philcha (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Just don't pad out my Talk page so it reaches 250K before yours Philcha (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well-deserved! Philcha (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

question & SRA again

I am having trouble with a guy that has removed a tag without good reason in psychohistory. I've never requested help for a third opinion in the WP official page. Is that the procedure you recommend me? Please keep in mind that I was the editor who inserted a whole section critical of psychohistory. But this guy is messing up the page and I don't want to edit war by placing the tag again. Which step would you recommend me for requesting formally a 3rd opinion? —Cesar Tort 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes: It's good to see that you have become quite a scholar in SRA, and that other rational editors have joined up in our efforts to edit the article. Please continue with it! (I on the other hand have unwatched some of my favorite articles because I'm fedup with endless discussions.) —Cesar Tort 05:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't seek a 3O for a couple reasons. First, the page is kinda a mess - what would your question be? If the page needs a POV tag? You can't even tell because the references are a mess, there's unattributed criticisms, dubious summaries and possibly unreliable sources. Delete unreliable sources, summarize the rest accurately (both positives and negatives) and attribute clearly without adjectives, and what you've got left is a verified summary of numerous people's criticisms and the rebuttals. Also, since I've put up an opinion and edited already, technically I'm a third involved party and you'd probably have to go to a request for comment.

Someone needs to re-read WP:V! It's not about rational or not, it's about verified or not! So long as a source is reliable it can be used. So long as it is accurately summarized, it is a benefit to the page. I may be skeptical of SRA, I may think it's total bunk, I may think other editors are POV-pushing nutjobs, but as long as they attribute and accurately source their nutjob (but reliable) sources, all my problems go away. I'm sure I'd have shouting matches were I to meet User talk:Jack-A-Roe in person and otherwise violently disagree, but despite having a very strong POV and editing towards that end, he's excellent at sourcing and summarizing, to the point that I don't bother reviewing his contributions.

Anyway, my recommendation would be to comb through the criticisms section, make sure the chunks that are together are all talking about the same thing (i.e. don't mix criticisms with deMause with criticisms of psychohistory, don't mix criticisms of deMausian psychohistory with Freudian psychohistory), get rid of the remaining quotes and include any counter-arguments. deMause is notable, so his count (even if I'm reluctant to use the JPh as a source, it's 100% legit for use in defending 'deMausian Ph'). Criticisms sections are legitemate but it's better if they can be mixed into other sections. My thought would also be that the page should be split between deMausian and 'regular' Ph - they're linked, but obviously deMause took it in a different direction and there's significant differences between his version and previous or other versions. Though I think I'm going back on an earlier opinion of splitting the page. WLU (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your intervention. I have added a dispute tag since the section misleads the reader. Sometimes I see you as a kind of one of the best lawyers in Wikiland. Conversely, I am so lazy to read the policies... Cesar Tort 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...better than re-adding the tag would be re-working the section so the tag isn't needed. Find reliable sources, summarize accurately, add and cite. Anyone with a long-term interest in the subject, you will have to work with. So long as you both operate on a common set of principles (more accurately the policies and guidelines), you shouldn't have problems. WLU (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags are more handy than doing heavy edits, and I no longer have a long-term interest in the PH (psychohistory) subject, at least not in the wiki. Before the Freud criticism was added the critical section was ok. I didn't mess up the section. On the contrary: I managed to "write for the enemy", since I added User:Slrubenstein's very critical sources. Only a truly devoted wikipedian could spend hours upon hours negotiating the smallest phrase. That's why I admire your Socratic performance in the SRA article. My liver would have exploded long ago! What an heroic job it's to "prove someone in internet wrong" as the cartoon linked in your user page states... Cesar Tort 16:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I hold grudges, what can I say. Adding content is difficult, time consuming and often takes you out of your area of expertise, but it's the reason why we're here. Lately I feel I've spent too much time on talk pages, so I try to work on the occassional content area as pennance and practice. WLU (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But now Ishmaelblues has removed my tag. Please take notice that the previous tag was a NPOV tag, added by Arthur Rubin (the tag I added today on the other hand was a DISPUTE tag). What can be done with this sort of behavior, I mean: removing a tag without proper discussion in talk page? I can't re-add my tag (not Rubin's) because that would be edit war. Are you sure I shouldn't ask for help in a WP page for conflict resolution processes? I only wish the tag remains until Freud criticism be attributed to Freud's ideas; not to deMause. I am not asking much actually... Cesar Tort 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And now this guy, when removing my tag, is saying in edit summary that you removed it ("nnaccurate tag which WLO removed and we talked about"). Again, what can be done with this bahavior? —Cesar Tort 18:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Were I you, I'd swallow the urge to go tit for tat - the page is now identical to your last edit - I'd guess that an error was made. I'm not sure what happened since the same ES was used and he essentially reversed himself. It's where you want it to be, so there's no real need to do anything else. If conflict continues, talk politely on the talk page, cite policies that back your position and listen (always the hardest part). With less than 1000 edits, the other guy isn't going to understand policies and guidelines very well or necessarily be a good editor - you'll probably save yourself a lot of grief if you cut him some slack. I know it's not easy (check my apology form a couple days ago on User talk:Philcha and WP:WQA) but the long term is better with compromise and a forgiving approach. Even if you're absolutely, completely right. But the best bet is really just edit the article until the tag is unneeded. Helps wikipedia, helps you, helps the page. Just really, really time consuming... WLU (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I hadn't noticed the self-revert with identical edit summary. Thanks for the advices. I'll try to follow them. —Cesar Tort 19:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, easier to give advice than take it :) WLU (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, not so good. Ishmaelblues has, again, reinserted the tag that he himself self-reverted. He stated in edit summary: "removed tag as discusses between cesar tort WLO and me" as if consensus was reached in talk page: a talk page where he, once more, misrepresents your posts. —Cesar Tort 20:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've commented and left IB a message on his talk page. I recommend you take the initiative start a discussion with him/her and cite (civilly and calmly) what you think is problematic, possibly suggest some suggestions. S/he's new so there's a whole lot of wiki to take in all at once; use the kid gloves. WLU (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Abduction phenomenon

If you have some time in the next few weeks, could you help me out with this article? I don't even know where to begin fixing the silliness below (it might be a case of no one bothering to refute it/no sources to balance this cherrypickage): -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Perception of the abduction phenomenon Others are intrigued by the entire phenomenon, but hesitate in making any definitive conclusions. Emergency room physician Dr. John G. Miller asks, "How can a person have any firmly held belief about this when it's so mysterious? The opinions of the true believers are hard to swallow; and the opinions of the die-hard skeptics are not based on reality either. There is some middle ground ... It's clear that this is some sort of powerful subjective experience. But I do not know what the objective reality is. It's as if the evidence leads us in both directions." (Bryan, 162) Similarly, the late Harvard psychiatrist John Mack concluded, "The furthest you can go at this point is to say there's an authentic mystery here. And that is, I think, as far as anyone ought to go." (emphasis as in original) (Bryan, 269)"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by PetraSchelm (talk • contribs)

I listened a conference of John Mack back in the 1994 CSICOP conference. A good antidote to abductions claims is Phil Klass' UFO Abductions: A Dangerous Game, which I bought and read it. —Cesar Tort 23:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a quote from it that could specifically neutralize quotes from Bryan, like "die hard skeptics are not based in reality either"?! -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I read it quite a few years ago but some of my books are unavaliable for the moment. I am pretty sure that you can find enough info in the site for the Skeptical Inquirer, which has many online articles published by Philip J. Klass and Robert Sheaffer: major skeptical scholars on UFOs. But I guess we have to take this discussion elsewhere so as not to clutter WLU's talk page. —Cesar Tort 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right, unless you have New York City travel tips, off my talk page!

Unfortunately I don't have the time to stretch myself to another page, and most of my reading is taken up by SRA stuff right now (sigh). You may be intrigued to know however, that some of the SRA books discuss UFO abduction, so if you remind me later on, I'll try digging through some indexes. My library has a PHENOMENAL renewal policy so I've got the books for like, a year.

You might also try PMID = 10840926 and PMID = 7960296, a search on Amazon focussing on scholarly books, and google scholar. Hypnagogia was also linked to abductions I think. The biggest mistake that I've made on SRA in particular is focussing on the existing literature on the page; a simple lit search on the usual sources ended up being very helpful. Most of the nutter/credulous crowd focusses on the pop stuff, which is very credulous and tends to propagate the panic. Scholarly tends to eviscerate it, and fortunately is also more reliable on wikipedia.

Incidentally, were I editing the article, I'd trim the external links, reorder per WP:MOS/WP:GTL, get rid of much of the further reading section, eliminate everything that's a redlink, per WP:PROVEIT take out anything lacking a reference, Bryan should be heavily footnoted and the book taken out of further reading, and eliminate the quotes (see WP:QUOTE - quotes are usually not necessary, if not outright bad. Death to quotes! And pop culture!

I'd also be curious about the possibility of juxtaposing several quotes in a way that might give the appearance of a coherent position (i.e. a synthesis). WLU (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Master of Orion

OK. I must admit I was surprised about how things were going down the drain, especially after a look at your Talk page showed that you're pretty reasonable. There's one thing that you will have to accept, namely that there will be times when I'll just say "It has to be like this" because I've already thought through how to summarise something and probably re-drafted it a few times because earlier drafts set off my alarms (yes, they treat my text the same as any one else's - and I try to re-visit articles I've edited about 2 weeks later, to see them with fresh eyes but before I forget too much of the background info). I would ask that you put drafts of changes on Talk:Master of Orion first, as Randomran and I have both done quite often at Talk:4X. This avoids the problem that one change often leads to another, which can cause trouble if there is not complete agreement about the first.

I'll make a list right now at Talk:Master of Orion of places where I think the article as it currently stands needs to change. Some of them will be sketchy. Question them if you want, but watch out - some of the answers might be rather detailed.

Some day if we both have time it might be fun to make a sub-page to debate the verifiability / truth issue. IMO that's probably the cause of a lot of instances where Wikipedians can't see the wood for the trees. Philcha (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Carry on editing - I've just been told dinner's ready. I'm currently working on planet types (about 25% done) - the notes may satify your hunger for details. Philcha (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Wikipedian has just emailed me a scanned version of Emrich's review of Master of Orion. At first glance it looks full of red, citable meat (drool, drool). If you'd like a copy: send me via "Email this user" a message giving in the body an email address you're happy for me to use; I'll then send you an email with the .ZIP file attached. Philcha (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you get my email with Emrich's review? Philcha (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, though I've not read it. Apologies about not replying, I think your original comment got lost in the traffic on my page (I'm guilty of generally skipping to the bottom and not thoroughly reviewing unless I've reason to suspect multiple postings). I've been busy trying to expand satanic ritual abuse with reliable sources and that's taking up considerable time, as well as real life issues (like MoO III, my Psilon empire is slowly grinding one of two Sakkra opponents into a gellied pulp, and I'm simultaneously at war with the Silicoids, one of the two Meklar races, a second Sakkra empire and the Harvesters. I've yet to even take a crack at one of the five guardians and the Antarans are pissed at me. Interesting times...). WLU (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)