This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Could you help here [1] I think I figured out how to but I am not sure so it would also be helpful to me to learn too. She/he is a pretty new user and found this article to learn things here. I am not helpful too much. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(bing!) I was entranced the first time I saw the {{tl| wikitext, it fills the cockles of my heart with joy and is much more fun to use than the no wiki tags (which are accessed via a button on the tool bar - the W with the red circle and like through it next to the sig button). WLU ( talk) 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yo man. I took a shot at editing an article pursuant to Wikipedia's policies and as per our conversation. Please take a look and let me know if I screwed anything up. By the way, I live in Manhattan if you need vacation advice... Hammerfist ( talk) 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Would a copy of the paper (by e-mail) be sufficient to allow the edit? Dan Watts ( talk) 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would argue that a training split is a major part of strength training and that it deserves its own section that could and should be more than a stub. A one paragraph mention on the strength training page is insufficient, in my opinion. I will work on expanding the entry on split training and resubmit it when it's a bit longer, and perhaps this way I can demonstrate that this topic should be more than a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmogul ( talk • contribs)
http://pr-gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10435&Itemid=9 This refutes at least half the stuff in the Sara Rosenthal article. The journal itself has been contacted by attorneys to retract the article for its bias, inaccuracies and deception. More to come. Neil Raden ( talk) 02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. If you can cast your mind back to this edit, I would like to ask whether you were aware a third opinion had been sought prior to it, and whether you were solicited to comment there. Thanks, and I hope no offense is taken to my curiosity. 86.44.27.243 ( talk) 07:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you still want that personal tourism page deleted? If so try db-u1, or let me know. I hope you took some pictures for Wikipedia, to justify all the disk space we sacrificed! EdJohnston ( talk) 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at. I *know* linguistics is not a minority field or a fringe position. So? I'm sorry, but what kind of expansions are you referring to in terms of the texts and citations, etc? The problem with the article is that it brings out only one position, one school of thought through its content. I don't know whether you are familiar with the subject or not; I am not sure whether you know the background under which the linguistics edit war actually happened. See the talk page. However, what you see under the linguistics article is just one philosophy and all the research done solely under that school of thought - the structuralist position, the Chomskyan one and I am fine with that being there, as long as the other positions and schools of thought aren't ignored. Which is being ignored. There is a post-structuralist position, there is the philosophical approach to language, there is a literary approach, a contextual approach; these approaches aim to look at language beyond its surface structure. The former one only looks at the structure of language; not at its social value, not at its role in society. There is sufficient work being done under post-structuralism and linguistic philosophy, but the people who are currently monopolising the linguistics page are not allowing that to be written about. I hope you've got what I'm trying to say. Let me know how you can help me to improve those articles on language and linguistics. And your tips / advice has been noted; thanks -- Supriya 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(bing)Consider writing a draft on a sub-page and showing it to the contributors on Talk:Linguistics rather than me (who doesn't really care about that page). I can not help with content and will not read up on it either as I'm just not interested. I can give you opinions on reliability of sources, template use, wording and formatting though. I doubt the topics are being censored, but your rather high-handed approach may have irritated the other contributors sufficiently that they're reverting rather than integrating. This is a community project, so long posts detailing the failings of your fellow contributors is not looked well upon. And please review the policies that have been dropped on your talk page, or start off with the simplified rule set. Also consider that linguistics is a very high level article and should not necessarily discuss all topics - perhaps they are better dealt with on sub-pages. I would also highly, highly recommend you approach the other contributors on the linguistics page with your ideas and ask them what they think, how it could be integrated, what could be done rather than assuming they're censoring. Consider that one of the people you are disagreeing with, User:Dbachmann, has nearly one hundred thousand edits and is the 17th most prolific contributor to wikipedia as well as being an admin. You don't get to that level of contribution by not knowning what you're doing. Garik has 10 times your edit count and Angr has fifty-five thousand as well as also being an admin. These are the core of wikipedia's user and management bases, not yahoos with an axe to grind. If you can't get along with them I don't know how well you'll do here. But feel free to ignore me if you'd like, it's up to you. These are fantastic people to learn from and collaborate with, not people to pick fights with. Please take their advice or you will end up one of the many frustrated former editors complaining that wikipedia is a failed project and they will continue editing as they always have. I was a fan of long talk page postings (still am obviously) but eventually you have to learn and play by the rules, leave or get blocked. Which one it is, is entirely up to you. WLU ( talk) 18:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you're talking about this edit, I reverted not because of the lists, but because of the "this section should be" which is WP:NPOV, out of WP:TONE and important for the talk page perhaps, not the main page. Also, I've never heard of Star News, and would never refer to them in an article. Which is why we have to be careful about what is placed on a high-level page like that. Lists can list every single tv and newspaper that has a wikipedia page, but journalism should not. It should link to the lists maybe. I'd be more inclined to link to newspaper and news station, then have the list of links in those pages. WLU ( talk) 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your position on this matter. I would suggest, however, that the links I put up are of higher quality than the www.exrx.com links that many of the exercise pages contain. Also, although Wikipedia is not supposed to be a how-to, for fundamentally practical information such as artices on specific exercise movements I feel that illustrated examples will help to explain the content.
Also, did you see I put the Training Split article into the Strength Training article under the recovery heading? Rmogul ( talk) 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
First off, although it is my website and I have made no attempt to hide that fact, there really is no way to tell with certainty that I was putting the links up. With the increased popularity of the site it could very well have been someone else. I have read the conflict of interest page, and I have to say that I do not believe that adding a link violates conflict of interest if the link is informative and relevant.
I am a graduate student at this time, and although I admit that Physiology is not my concentration I have read many textbooks on the issue of exercise and fitness and I have to say that they are often contradictory and inaccurate. I could run through all of the posts in the entire exercise and fitness sections of this site and find something in some textbook somewhere that contradicts it, but that does not help the readers at all.
The idea that animations are more "encyclopedic" than still images is an odd claim to make, and frankly I do not see the basis of it. I do not like ExRx because the information is very limited and the animations are very small. I feel that readers will be enriched more by larger images than small animated gifs. In fact, one of the reasons I even took the time to make a site dedicated to exercise is that I felt ExRx was severly lacking.
When it comes to multiple external links, I feel that when it comes to something as practical as how to execute a given exercise readers will benefit from multiple examples that show the move from multiple angles. I know that when I was a novice strength trainer I purchased multiple books on the same subject in order to see different angles and explinations for the movements.
Finally, when it comes to the www.uwlax.edu page I would say that I agree in general that university sites are better than private sites, but if you look at the authors they all seem to have BS or MA degrees, not Ph.Ds. I could host my site on UCLAs servers, but the content would not change. Being on a unversity host does not guarantee accuracy.
Also, let me point out that when you went through and reverted all of my edits, you eliminated content that I added to the articles. You should have been more careful as opposed to simply running through and reverting everything I did. I could play the same game, going through and simply undoing everything that you did, but that is immature.
Basically, I hold that the links are beneficial to the end user and should thus remain on the pages. Wikipedia, in my opinion, exists only to assist the end user in accessing information, and I feel the links help to accomplish that goal.
Thanks
Rmogul ( talk) 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I never tried to hide it... Anyway, I'm tired of this anyhow. Even before I put up links the content I put up here was just deleted by someone anyhow. Don't need to worry about me adding to this site anymore. I didn't really mean to do anything wrong, sorry if I did. Rmogul ( talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"First off, although it is my website and I have made no attempt to hide that fact, there really is no way to tell with certainty that I was putting the links up. With the increased popularity of the site it could very well have been someone else."
"I have read the conflict of interest page, and I have to say that I do not believe that adding a link violates conflict of interest if the link is informative and relevant."
"...I have read many textbooks on the issue of exercise and fitness and I have to say that they are often contradictory and inaccurate. I could run through all of the posts in the entire exercise and fitness sections of this site and find something in some textbook somewhere that contradicts it, but that does not help the readers at all."
"The idea that animations are more "encyclopedic" than still images is an odd claim to make, and frankly I do not see the basis of it."
"When it comes to multiple external links, I feel that when it comes to something as practical as how to execute a given exercise readers will benefit from multiple examples that show the move from multiple angles. I know that when I was a novice strength trainer I purchased multiple books on the same subject in order to see different angles and explinations for the movements."
"Finally, when it comes to the www.uwlax.edu page I would say that I agree in general that university sites are better than private sites, but if you look at the authors they all seem to have BS or MA degrees, not Ph.Ds. I could host my site on UCLAs servers, but the content would not change. Being on a unversity host does not guarantee accuracy."
"Also, let me point out that when you went through and reverted all of my edits, you eliminated content that I added to the articles."
"You should have been more careful as opposed to simply running through and reverting everything I did. I could play the same game, going through and simply undoing everything that you did, but that is immature."
I moved my comment because you asked, and will happily do so again. However, its really more of a preference than a "convention". I'm not saying its better, or that it doesn't lead to confusion at times, but its pretty normal when someone feels they have been directly addressed and a third editor jumps into the thread to make the response clear. Its not a big deal, either way and I'm happy to oblige but just remember this is your preference, and some of us have other preferences. Also, please note that responding to "your argument" is not focusing on a contributer in the least, it is a way of identifying an "argument". "Your" is a an adjective and not a noun, and hence cannot be the object (or subject) of any sentence. I'll try to remember your advice in general. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
that you put in the economics project- I do not know if you have had it sufficiently answered - If you have I would like to see the answer, please respond - it would be nice if you would put a message over in my talk page.-- Kiyarrlls ton 18:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
[4] I didn't know this kind of secrecy happened here. Apparently no one knew what was happening that involved themselves until the closing and sanctioning, kind of scary to me. Anyways, I thought maybe you would be interested since I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of talk about this for some time to come. If not interested, of course ignore and delete. ;) -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you removed the {{ tooshort}} template, either accidentally or deliberately, from talk:intelligence. The lead remains too short and I have restored the template. If you did it on purpose, please stop - it's annoying. Richard001 ( talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The controversy has re-started. Please have a look at the talk page. There's not a single thing that has been unsourced or uncited. Yet, they want to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supriyya ( talk • contribs)
My computer took on a mind of it's own this morning and hubby fixed it. A button got stuck on my scanner and took control! :) -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Hi I got them, 2 of them. I did respond to just let you know I received them. If you would, would you copy the headers and email them to me? I want my husband to see it to see what is going on. If you can't do it directly, I gave you my email address and also you should be able to copy/paste it as a response to my email that would be helpful to me so I can figure out what the heck my computer is up to now. It's like it has a mind of it's own lately. I will respond soon. Did you get the email I sent back to you? I hope so, this is driving me crazy to be honest! Since you are having a time, like me, with real-life issues and concentration I will send something to you to hopefully give you a smile! -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I'd give the editor a final warning (all warnings had been deleted from their page) so I would have ARVd them pretty soon anyway. I found it amusing that they were trying to accuse me of unconstructive editing - but I've seen it all before. Also, I believe I'd already placed a refactoring (or similar) template on their page - the revision history shows how messy it got over the last couple of hours. Anyway - thanks for helping out - it's 02:10 am so I'm gonna get some sleep! Booglamay ( talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
[8] I have reverted once and don't like to do a second revert on my for obvious reasons. Would you look in at this and tell me, or the article, if all those links follow WP:EL? I mean like the first one looks like it is not WP:RS and looks more like a blog to me but of course I could be wrong. But basically the links just added is nonsense to me. I don't want to try to sway your opinions one way or the other so would you mind taking the time to go through the links too? I would appreciate the help and your opinions on this matter, thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU, I've just stumbled over your sub-page in my wiki-wanderings. It is excellent, I think I might add it to my standard welcome repertoire as "optional reading", so please make sure it stays around!
I have some comments, with regards to the section on "Suffer not the Vandals", as regards warning templates. I have warned some small dozens of vandals, nothing serious, but here is my experience:
Perhaps you could incorporate some of this into your essay, the informal approach almost always works for me, in my limited experience. That's not to take away from the templating approach, I've just found that a more personal approach often works wonders, and sometimes turns up someone who is genuinely confused and welcomes the opportunity to make personal contact - then you get the chance to drug 'em up with the Wikipedia addiction :) Sorry for the long post, thanks for the essay! Franamax ( talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Getting cleverer and cleverer... by making one SPA for each edit, who knows how many pages were done this way. 67.162.108.96 ( talk) 04:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your dedication in cleaning up after this idiot over the past few months - I noticed you quite a few times in the various article histories. Great essay btw ;)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Awarded with gratitude for your assistance in bringing the Barefoot Bandit and his 87 Socks to justice, and helping keep Wikipedia respectably shod. Many thanks, EyeSerene talk 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
That one looks like it is verifiable. Are those sources OK? Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I'm not ignoring you - but I have been really busy. Perhaps next week I'll follow-up on things. Heliocybe ( talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The idea is that the sections are there, even if empty, to indicate that the sections should be filled as they are necessary. As to the other issue, do what you feel best. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 01:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Felix Felix Basinger ( talk) 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Weeds is not automatically paired with 'widow's' - see Ye Sacred Muses and, doubtlesss, other examples of that era. Have reverted. Linuxlad ( talk) 07:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, did I use the correct ICD codes in the infobox? Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent copyedit in Alex Constantine. I've just added my comment in talk page. — Cesar Tort 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, well, well. At least there's something in which we agree, Biao: skepticism of CIA's SRA experiments. WLU: I see that you've got Ross' book. Let me state that he can be very skeptic and very credulous. When I visited him & his therapy group sessions in 1997 I confronted him in private that he seemed to take at face value his patients' claims of extra-sensory perception powers. I believe he is a supberb clinician, but he falls in all the traps of clinicians: believing more than what is needed. It's a huge subject and I don't want to overwhelm this page with it. Just advising to approach Ross with due caution (of course, you know how to do that). BTW, most of the edits in Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, which I started, are mine. — Cesar Tort 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
WLU, good luck with the mess I generated by way of that list ... sorry about that :(. I have to stick to my guns this time and really stay away from this place--SRA is frustrating but the other situation that brought me back, and now looks to be turning into another disruptive and nonsensical fiasco just drains me of everything positive. I'll be on email, but I have to leave you all hanging at the SRA entry. Hey at least maybe some of those sources prove useful. Sincerest apologies and good luck. PelleSmith ( talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU, please put down the gun, and let's talk. I'm not spamming. Sure, I need to get used to Wikipedia's nuances, and I'll change the links so that there is no mention of ejunto. I've seen a number of links to free audio from LibriVox and this is the same idea. Anyway, I'm more than happy to reformat, or relocate the links, but this content is highly relevant for Wikipedia users...just like all the other external links. I can totally understand why you thought this was just about promotion. I've reviewed the external links guidelines and think the content of the link conforms. If not, please advise why. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaster77 ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I severely doubt that Wikipedia will be able to successfully deal with the situation as long as letting anyone off the street (including people who can register multiple accounts or pop on through various IPs) can edit freely just as well as people with proven knowledge and objective writing skills. It's the tragedy of the commons, basically, as the good guys are always going to get screwed.
I think I saw on Jack-A-Roe's page that you recommended him for admin. I can't think of too many people who would be worse. Look at his edit history and it's obvious that the person is here with a very specific agenda to promote. It wouldn't surprise me if it's someone who got into trouble for POV-pushing in the past and came back under a new name. I see that the person also had been accused of sockpuppeting in the past and had his user page totally wiped twice. That's not someone I would trust. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
{undent} I agree with DreamGuy about JAR. Yes: he's smarter than another pusher and as civil as him/her. But he's a pusher who, to date (I may be wrong), I haven't seen "writing for an enemy". His extreme pov is obvious in pretty controversial talk pages such as pederasty. It'd be a very bad idea to promote him as an admin. — Cesar Tort 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well... that was relatively easy because User:Slrubenstein is not a pusher (though our belief systems are diametrically opposed). What concerns me of a "JAR admin" scenario is that AT/RE would take it as an endorsement for his pushing. After all, JAR has defended him even on the boards when the admins consensus was to block the pusher. I agree with Dreamguy that people with conflict of interest (COI) should avoid these articles. I am not saying that JAR or AT/RE were sexually abused. But Dreamguy is right when he says that these guys have developed an obsession with the subject of child sex abuse. I for one quit from editing psychiatry-related articles because of my own COI (my mother used to pour psychiatric drugs in my orange juice when I was a teen even though I was perfectly sane!). It's very painful to edit the psychiatry articles in the wiki because the psychiatric drugging of sane children is not a subject that I can back up with RS or WP:UNDUE (because of finantial interests with BigPharma, most of the peer-reviewed journals agree with Ritalin and other dugs). I learnt it the hard way when I was dragged to a nasty ArbCom process a month after I arrived to Wikiland. I simply quit from editing those articles. No one ever blocked or restricted me. Although I am not saying with my example that the pushers in the false memory debate were also abused, the rational way for them is not to edit articles in which they clearly show an obsession. More detached editors are ideal to deal with such articles. — Cesar Tort 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
WLU, I know you respect scholarship even when the views differ from yours, so when I read these papers, I thought you'd be interested in checking them out.
KS Pope (Harvard/Yale degrees, over 100 peer-reviewed articles, APA Award for Distinguished Contributions to Public Service)
Although this author has the same last name as Harrison Pope of the FMSF, this Pope has a different approach. I have no idea if they're related or if it's just a coincidence. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 21:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader,
geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at
geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.
Thank You, Sam4bc ( talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Since Biao recently responded to one month posts (and you responded him as well), maybe those exchanges ought to remain for a little while. But before the page is unprotected perhaps we could archive al least 250 Kb of dicussions in the "empty" folder (the page is now more than 300 Kb)? — Cesar Tort 17:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the section on arterial venous switching from Stroke, i'm currently in an ongoing discussion with the author of the information trying to persuade them it is not the right time or place to add this information. Somehow they found patents are valid under WP:MEDRS. Anyway, thanks— CycloneNimrod T@lk? 15:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You have removed the contents of Cultural references section. I understand you want to clean up the article, but I think you should rather move this information to Dissociative identity disorder in fiction article, which you are referencing, instead of just deleting it. Otherwise you waste somebody's else work. Tigrisek ( talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think your recent post critical of AT/RE is so important that it merits spelling correction. Also, in your sentence "So to directly reply, removing the criticism of Victor is not [violating] NPOV, it's a removal of a quote-mined selection which mis-interprets Fraser's analysis of Victor quite badly", doesn't the word in brackets is missing? And in "then proclaiming the page is NPOV would be laughable were it not so frustrating" I guess you meant "pov" instead of "npov" since s/he pov-tagged the article. — Cesar Tort 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Not really, only the ones with the "Nazi" edit summary here. Are there many more that you are aware of? Cheers TigerShark ( talk) 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I am a board certified physician from the US with five boards in medicine and subspecialties. I have noticed your interference with publishing the concept of Arterial Venous Switching as an experimental treatment for stroke, even though it was mentioned clearly that it is first copy righted and second is experimental. Now what is your definition of treatment? Because I always studied treatment in any topic that includes old established as well as new and experimental. In case of the latter, the experimental phase may be mentioned (e.g. phase one or two, animal research etc.) So if your administrator function is to make sure that the information is accurate, then there is no justification to delete the “experimental” mention of the concept, without being biased to any form of therapy versus the other. Let medical research determine if the arterial venous switching is a valid approach or not. You have no right to determine it is not, from what I understand, unless you have done a similar research (that you should reference also) which proves it to be a non viable approach. Until then, the public has the right to know what is current therapy for stroke and what future therapy might look like.
Your peers who are part of this effort are respectable and reputable physicians including Dr. Elazer Edelman, The Director of Harvard/MIT Biotechnology lab. Please refer to Reviveflow.com and look up the medical advisory board if you want a peer opinion to satisfy your conditions off publishing information. The Wikipedia is made to be by the public to the public and not be controlled by any biased opinion to prevent freedom of information availability.
Obviously people like you who "control" information and interpret what they want to their own liking is the reason why any project start great then ends somehow biased with double or triple standards. So, even though I expalined to previous readers who wanted to delete the section of the Arterial Venous Switch because it dd not suit their purposes, you still followed this uneducated approach and also deleted it. I don't see any inaccuracy when I am explaining a term of a new technology that was validated and successful in animal model, to the public. It was described under "future Therapies" not "Treatment". Your opinion is simply a "block" on a scientific fact.
So, if someone googles the term and find a definition for the term arterial Venous Switch and find it, would not you think it should have been found in an online referrence like wikipedia? obviously your answer will match your superficial understanding of the topic when you categorized it as advertisement. If you or a family member of yours will get stroked, trust me, you will be looking for any hope for future therapy. i am sorry i wasted time and energy on a silly subject like Wikipedia, that became a monopoly to biased opinionated semi-educated public —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soomeh ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I left messages in responce to the "rude" deletion of my edit by other editors who try to explain to me something, they lack enough knowledge on. The concept of "Retrograde Cerebral Perfusion" is a very valid medical treatment to brain ischemia and is currently used in many fields including "cardiac surgery/CPB". Before an editor assumes the position of the "teacher" ans start spreading "incorrect information" they can ask experts for help or get some self education to be on the level of discussion, leave alone editing. So, I advise you and other editors who "concluded that the concept of "Venous or retrograde perfusion" is a "conflict of interest" or "commercial", to read more on the subject, before editing me. I have spent enough time and effort on "Stroke" and I know what I am talking about, regardless of being a physician or not and regardless of being "Board Certified" or not. I hope you can do the same and READ MORE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soomeh ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That's it. I've had enough of your shenanigans. Good day to you. — Cyclonenim T@lk? 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
[9] Hi. According to external link policy, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The site I linked to on Atherosclerosis has several patient interviews that couldn't be included in Wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valejo ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Real world has had me busy so I just wanted to pop in and say howdy! I hope you are well and doing what you do. Take care, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In September 2007 I added a chapter about the Netherlands in the English page on satanic ritual abuse. Due to harassments, insults and false accusations from several contributors, especially from biaothanatoi, I decided to make a separate page about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Again due to biaothanatoi, this page was redirected to the English page on satanic ritual abuse several times. Then I made another page on satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands in December 2007. Since then a couple of contributors have tried to redirect this page to the English page on satanic ritual abuse, but I discovered that mostly within a couple of days and reversed those redirections.
Before redirecting again, you should consider that this page contains information from mainly Dutch sources that are not accessable to you because you do not speak Dutch, the information from these sources (scientific books and articles, newspaper articles, television news magazines et cetera) is relevant because it shows that the discussion in the Netherlands took a totally different course than in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries where satanic ritual abuse was an issue, and that the fact that you cannot read the original Dutch sources does not mean that those sources are not reliable or that the author of the page is a layman.
Therefore I would like to ask you not to redirect this page again to the English page on satanic ritual abuse. Give the readers in the world the opportunity to read what has happened in the Netherlands regarding satanic ritual abuse, and why the discussion took such a different course in this country.
Since my English is not perfect, please correct the grammatical errors, but leave the content of the page unimpaired.
Yours sincerely
Criminologist1963 ( talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Your edits have been simply reverting data at the SRA page without an attempt at consensus. Your edits will not allow a neutral or pro position to be on the page, though there are many sources backing both positions. Please stop reverting without consensus. ResearchEditor ( talk) 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
shouldn't the stroken word be removed in the ANI board or am I misreading it? Cesar Tort 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
{undent} Although Biao has about the same pov of RE, I'd much prefer dealing with him, Biao, in spite of the fact that he is writing his PhD on SRA. At least Biao has a grasp of WP policy and nowadays doesn't push his pov as he did last year (when he found weak resistance in talk page). Now the admins have a bit of the flavour in their own board of RE's behavior in talk pages. — Cesar Tort 21:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been trying to find a form of words that might cover the same ground as that pseudoscience box and be acceptable to everybody involved. I think most of the editors on the page would agree that OM isn't as unreal as homeopathy or therapeutic touch, but is obviously seen as not mainstream science. Could you live with "This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific." diff? Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
see here —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchEditor ( talk • contribs)
I just want to drop you a note that I responded back to you on my talk page. I find sometimes I forget and miss to see on my watchlist when people respond to me. Have a good one, I hope your day is better than what's going on here! -- CrohnieGal Talk 10:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey WLU, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! — Cyclonenim T@lk? 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
About the addition of sources, I'm working on it. Within a little while, I'll make sure there are more to the page. Supriya 18:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey. Yes, I had considered doing that myself. In any case, I am keeping a copy of the article (with the wiki formatting and all) as a backup on my hard disk, so that should not be a problem. I did think of the same thing myself, but thanks for the detailed steps - I'll keep those in mind. I do feel that there have been two or three opinions on the deletion page that are "pro poststructural linguistics", so there should be a chance to. Anyway, if the deletion happens, then I'm sure that there will be something fresh that can be done later. Thanks again - and about the WP:WAX page you sent me, I did scan through it. I'll get back to you more on it later. Supriya 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WLU,
My revisions to the John Sarno entry, calling TMS by its new name ("myoneural") is based directly on Dr. Sarno's renaming of TMS. I learned of this change during my meetings with him on July 2008. His new TMS document calls it ("myoneural"), and it's how re refers to TMS in his lectures. Is this not a good enough source or reason to make this revision??
-- Akalati ( talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. I haven't desired adminship; it doesn't sound like fun, to be honest. And I didn't know I was in the top 3000! Maybe I should cut back.... Eubulides ( talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am back again to inform Wikipedia users of the truth about WLU and FisherQueen and BigDunc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMajorGeneral ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
...what did you mean by this? Gb T/ c 07:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Maxschmelling has added [11] or edited thusly: User:Diligent Terrier is not currently accepting new adoptees [12] [13]. I am presently under Terrier's adoption and Terrier had been very very diligent in my tutorial. Now, this time, Terrier removed his template Wikibreak and stated on his user page:This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. What is the point of Max editing Administrator Terrier's adopter's page. What is the basis? It behooves, that out of respect to my parent, Max should have first posted his edit suggestion on Terrier's talk page. Worst, Max wrote: "but I don't think you should take on any new adoptees at this time." Without respectfully waiting for reply, Max went ahead. [14] May I please ask you to share your comment on this? Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters Cheers.-- Florentino floro ( talk) 10:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually you should start a discussion before REMOVING the section in it's entirety. In fact it may have been discussed many times already. NeoApsara ( talk) 18:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Greetings! I see your concerns about forum-shopping; if it makes you feel better, start the post at AN/I with "I posted this report to AIV, but an administrator suggested this was the better forum for it."
Part of the reason I think it's more a case for AN/I is that a longer-perspective look is needed at the actions. AIV is very in the moment: discussions go away as soon as an individual is blocked or when the report is manually removed (stale, not vandalism, etc.). AN/I threads are longer-lived; it's only after several days without further discussion that they get archived.
I also don't think it's a cut-and-dried situation with him. Is he editing disruptively? Somewhat. Is he editing in good faith? Yes, since he thinks he's improving Wikipedia. Would he be better advised to discuss the situation on a talk page rather than edit war? Absolutely.
I'm going to leave a message on his talk page inviting him to explain his edits. If he decides not to, but instead starts revert warring again, then it's a pretty clear-cut three-revert rule violation. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Check this out, in combination: the contribs of contributions, plus this article, plus the August 10th entry for this. Nandesuka ( talk) 22:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | ||
I, delldot talk, hereby award WLU this barnstar for your excellent and tireless article work and insistence on high-quality content. You also do a great job communicating with other editors and lending help to those who need it. delldot talk 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active! With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise ( talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The word 'treatment' is not a synonym for therapy; it has a broader meaning, and the other references are valid specifications of the general term. In particular, in my own experience, there are contexts where the word 'treatment', used without qualifiers, indicates a film treatment, as correctly disambiguated in the page as I left it. The word 'treatment', without embellishment, does not have an inevitably medical connotation at all, and the wider usages shown in the disambiguation page are entirely valid. AlexTiefling ( talk) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Deadhouse Gates.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
For pointing me to the use of citation templates. You were right! They've been easy once I got the hang of them, and use them all the time now. Many thanks Professor marginalia ( talk) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, thanks for editing CFS. I tried here explaining why CFS is still the term for using, but I don't think any one agreed. They say ME/CFS and when you show its really mostly CFS then they say well, ME and CFS are separate. It is an article I just gave up on because there's about five editors that really believe strongly about ME and for them CFS is like a existential insult. So I am "chicken out"!! RetroS1mone talk 13:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I responded to you, I did hit preview and everything looked ok then when I saved it a whole slew of stuff showed up. What did I do? Did you have this stuff hidden or something? I tried to undo my comment, which is way down at the bottom of all the other stuff, but I got a database syntax error of some sort which wouldn't allow me to delete myself. Sorry, I don't know how I made a mess of your page. Please help and explain so I don't do it again! Thanks and so very sorry, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reported your editing behaviour at AN/I here. Things cannot go on like this. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
In Sophia Mirza you have already violated WP:3RR. Make sure that you do not revert again. Use talk instead. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU, I would love your opinion here [15]. I hope my response doesn't sound snotty, I tried to be careful to Assume good faith and No personal attacks with this editor, but I also know his history about bacteria and his conspiracy theories about Crohn's disease and Inflammatory bowel disease in general which is that the government and pharmaceutical companies don't want people to know about bacteria control curing all IBD because of profits. I would appreciate two things if you have time, first, tell me if I need to refactor since you know I don't like to be rude. I think I may have come off a bit strong here but I also know that if User talk:Caesarjbsquitti isn't disputed he is going to add gobs of POV info about bacteria (this can be seen in his talk page history and the history of all of the IBD articles. My comments I think came more from my own POV and emotions from knowing his and I probably should delete my comments all together. I would also appreciate if you would see what he wrote there and make your own comments to what you feel about them. I would appreciate hearing your opinions on this when you have time, no rush. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC) PS: If you would just flag my page that you commented on the above I'd also appreciate that too! :)
Undent. You don't "use" a template, if you insert a template into the page (basically anything in squiggly brackets) then it'll transclude (or if a subst: template, pop in a bunch of text). Your ( {{=)}} ) is actually a template that replaces the text with a picture - don't believe me, type template:=) into the search box and see where it takes you! (it'll take you to template:=) by the way) You tried to generalize by using a different combination within the {{}}, but that gave you a totally different outcome. If you still want the different options for smiley faces, try some of the "arguments" the template page gives you (where arguments are basically piped tempaltes). {{=)|sad}} transcludes to , if you replace "sad" with wink, blush, surprise (or 3, 4, 6), you'll get a different smiley. Templates are handy, but not as intuitive as wikilinks can be. I doubt anyone would say you vandalised my page, and if they had I would defend you vigorously. The only way to fix would be to find and remove the template, and the only way to prevent it would be to preview (which you would use to remove the template before saving). WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There are no Wiley clinical trials therefor there can't be ethical problems with them, only opportunistic medical "ethicists" who got their job by marrying the head doc at the university. Why in the world did you insert that phrase??? Neil Raden ( talk) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | A glaring example of unregulated and unethical research in BHRT is The Wiley Protocol, which became more widely known to the public through Somers' promotion of it as legitimate research. The Wiley Protocol has involved over 1000 participants in the administration of 'a trademarked, patent-pending delivery system consisting of bioidentical estradiol and progesterone in a topical cream preparation dosed to mimic the natural hormones produced by [a 20-year old woman].' This protocol emphasizes a 'rhythmic' dosing schedule using potentially unsafe high dosages of hormones. Somers' book misrepresents TS Wiley, its lay investigator, as a respected and published scientist. Somers' book also serves as a recruitment tool for unwitting human subjects. This is a multicenter Phase II trial (with no record of Phase I testing) involving 129 study sites in 29 US states, and 2 study sites in British Columbia, Canada. Since data is being collected and presented on women enrolled in this trial, but has not been IRB approved (interviews: TS Wiley, and D Turner, 13 March 2007; J Taguchi, 15 March 2007), or monitored by an investigator with experience in scientific methodology or clinical research, it does not meet criteria for regulated or ethical research. There are no formal exclusion or inclusion criteria for patient enrollment (interview: J Taguchi, 15 March 2007), and the study population spans women aged 19 through 90, who may not understand that they are enrolled in unethical research.64 Serious safety concerns about this protocol have been raised. Co-investigators appear to be prescribers of this protocol who widely vary in training, ranging from physicians to massage therapists; and pharmacists who are contractually obligated to Wiley as a source of the compounded pharmaceuticals sold to participants of the protocol. The study is funded by participants, who are paying for the protocol with their prescriptions. Typically, study agents should not be sold. | ” |
I noticed this reference on your user page
So I poked around, and based on the fact that volume 53 is from 1997 (and there appears to be one volume per year) I think it's a pretty good guess that 51 is from 1995. If you want me to, I can look for the hard copy next time I'm at the library. Guettarda ( talk) 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with looking like Satan? It's not important, but I think the previous photo shows humanity and intensity. (Imaging if Bush looked into those eyes instead of Putin's.) Einstein and others get the same treatment, with late life photos replacing prime of productivity period stuff. EricDiesel ( talk)
No problem. I made the page because the website does have a lot of legimate content. Regards, -- Truetech ( talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You deleted the
Nightingale Research Foundation page, which is fine, but partway through the deletion discussion the page was moved to
Byron Hyde and re-worked. Byron Hyde had his own
deletion discussion a year ago, and the new debate wasn't directly addressing his work. I'm not sure if this is a simple
User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted#Incomplete multiple AFD closure case, so I'm asking. I'm OK with the page being deleted, or re-starting a new deletion discussion if required. Right now the page has a lingering AFD template at the top which should be dealt with in some way and it's sufficiently complicated that I'm throwing it at your mercy discretion.
WLU
(t)
(c)
(rules -
simple rules)
14:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey there WLU! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers! |
Hi WLU, I have an article I was working on just to put citations in since it was filled with
citation needed at
Ed Gein. Well during my search I found two different refs that I was using and the second one, about.com I found that there are paragraphs that are total copy and pastes of that site. I tried to change the wording though to me my wording now sounds a bit weasely unfortunately. I guess what I did is ok but how do I go about getting rid of the
copywrite problems, or I guess the better question is, am I doing ok with how I am trying to rid the article of the problems? I put notations in the edit summary a couple of times so that hopefully no one thinks I am the one who put the original information in. This is the first time I have run into a situation like this so I am going all out asking for input on how to deal with this in the proper manner. I would really, really love your input on this. I was having a pretty good time until I got to the second reference and saw the exact words in the article. Now I am feeling a bit overwhelmed and shy to edit more to be honest. A boost to be
WP:Bold and suggestions would be more than welcomed at this time! :) --
CrohnieGal
Talk
19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello WLU, thank you for your comments and intervention in the Belzebuub/Mark Pritchard biography. You are right that the sources being used for the article are very one-sided and self-serving, which is why I called attention to it in the first place. What I would like to ask you is whether a google cache [16] can constitute a legitimate source for the article. It is very fishy that the information on this guy's website, which references him as being the reincarnation of "Belzebuub," was taken out during the dispute on the article's talk page. If you look at the google cache you will see what I mean.
Personally, I think the article is too self-serving, as you have said so yourself. The guy who made the article, and who has been attacking people on the talk page, clearly has some POV issues. Also, either himself or another person is trying to recruit others from his school's webforums [17] in order to help his position in the article.
If you do decide to keep the article, I think it would be necessary to add the reference to the biography from a work by another occult author, by the name of Samael Aun Weor, who supposedly made a prophecy in the 1950's about the birth and whereabouts of "Belzebuub." The dispute on the talk page was about whether the book The Revolution of Beelzebub [18] has anything to do with this guy who calls himself "Belzebuub."
Some of the arguments about the relevance of this book is that in it, this person or being was to be born as a woman in France. Although the subject of the biography is a Welsh male from Australia, what it originally stated on the "Belzebuub" website was that Samael Aun Weor made mistakes in his earlier works, and had "messed up the prophecy," so to say. But this was taken out of that website since the argument on the talk page.
I will of course rely on your direction and judgment. I had also reported Matt reltub for his behavior, which you can see from the talk page is pretty unwarranted.
Thank you for your time and your help. Rabicante ( talk) 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There are many sources that show that SRA is real. Why are you telling me I can’t edit the satanic ritual abuse page? Extrabreeze ( talk) 14:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
you added to Wiley Protocol "ethical problems with the clinical trials that are being run to test it." You have got to remove it. THERE ARE NO CLINICAL TRIALS. I'm not going to get into an argument about Rosenthal's distorted "scholarship," but I can tell you categorically there are no clinical trials. If you insist on leaving that in, I must insist that you can PROVE there are trials. You won't be able to. Where is your reliable source? You can't use Rosenthal, she fabricated this idea so she could criticize it. You've always been pretty fair, and I've let things gto that just aren't true to avoid an argument, but I'm not going let this one go. The whole Rosenthal thing is about to explode. Let me know if you's like to see the letters some doctors have written to the journal disputing what she wrote. Unlike Erika Scwartz, none of them are married to the editor in chief of the New York Times, but we'll get them published somewhere.
Also there is a new observational study that just came out of Denmark that followed SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND women and basically confirmed all of the major claims of Wiley about HRT, and cast doubt on the current standard of care. Neil Raden ( talk) 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You have to remove the statement " possibly dangerously high doses of hormones" from the T. S.Wiley article. There is not one shred of evidence that the levels are even possibly dangerous, and the Denmark study is pretty clear that the dangerous levels are the low ones. Neil Raden ( talk) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Do any of those citations specifically cite the Wiley Protocol? If not, then to link them to the Wiley Protocol is original research that is forbidden by our policy on original research. You are not an expert and your word alone is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:No original research. If the Denmark study had "nothing to do with Wiley" then I am NEVER going to cite it on the page. Rosenthal's qualifications are irrelevant, what does count is that her opinions are verifiable in a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Until you have a reliable source that clearly and explicitly states the problems so far stated about the Wiley Protocol are suprious, this conversation is done. Until that time, please don't bother posting on my talk page. See points 3 and 4 in the box right at the top of the page. I've referred you to two policies and a guideline regards why I am not going to edit the page. Until you read those documents and come back with a policy-based reason to adjust the content, you are wasting both our time, but more importantly my time. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Your most recent edit of the MKULTRA article introduces some distortions as to what Sirhan Sirhan's lawyer asserted. In particular, Teeter asserted that Sirhan Sirhan was an experienced hypnotic subject who was under the influence of hypnosis when he fired his weapon at Robert Kennedy; considerable evidence supports this particular assertion. Based on forensic evidence from the official Los Angeles County autopsy of Kennedy's body (proximity of weapon, direction of gunshot wound, angle of entry of gunshot wound) and evidence collected at the scene (too many bullets to have been fired from Sirhan Sirhan's gun alone), Teeter also asserted that another weapon, and thus another shooter, were involved in the assassination; considerable evidence supports this assertion also. Teeters discovered links between the CIA and the appointment of Grant Cooper as Sirhan Sirhan's original attorney, and Teeter asserts that the CIA succeeded in compromising Grant Cooper, which is why he purposefully blew Sirhan Sirhan's defense; some evidence supports this assertion, especially a review of the flawed defense that Cooper mounted on Sirhan's behalf. It is Teeters final assertion for which we have little supporting evidence: that since we know the CIA participated in MKULTRA experiments using hypnosis, and since we know that the CIA learned hypnotic techniques from those experiments, and since we know there was a connection between the CIA and Sirhan Sirhan...that the CIA was the party responsible for hypnotizing Sirhan Sirhan and thus linked to the assassination plot. I have revised the section to reflect this more precise understanding of Teeter's assertions, which he lays out quite carefully in the cited interview. Apostle12 ( talk) 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Warning venting in process, you got mail! Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that peer-review on SRA has started, you might consider Harvard-style for endnotes since this format is suited for multiple references to same source, just as Richard is doing in the McMartin article. Cheers. — Cesar Tort 04:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, its my first time using them, so I don't know what I am doing yet, but yes, tagging them with "ref" so they go down into the footnotes looks the best. I like the way they actually tie now to a book citation and a url for the book in Google Book Search. I just came across an article yesterday where people were using "ibid" and "opcit" which became corrupted after someone added a new reference and the order changed. I also saw an article yesterday where the editor used "________________" after the first reference to mean that the book in the previous reference had the same author as the one using _____. It looks like Research Editor got blocked for while, he is much less tendentious than he was a year ago. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
See is you can fix the one damaged reference in Mcmartin, I will and see if I can find the problem. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of Mummy, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit to Gaturro. I guess I was just being dense, but I didn't understand how it was being used in this context. So, in actuality, there are ten books, two of which are didactic in nature. :-) -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
On the Crohn's disease talk page Here you used an hide box for soapboxing (I personally think the garbage should have been archived but agree with what you did as an alternative.). The problem now is when someone tries to use the new section button it too gets hidden under the hide box. I looked at it and it looks like you closed it but I'm not real good at all with this so would you check it out for me? I made a comment and just moved my comment above the box so it was visable though out of order but there is someone elses comment in the box that I never saw until today. Anyways, when you have the time would you take a peek and let me know how to fix something like this? No rush at all about this. There was an edit war on the external links section by two editors that if my count was right went way past the 3RR rule but no harm was done so I didn't do anything about it. There is enough drama going around without me causing problems about this sort of thing that slowly burned itself out way before I got there! :) Also I need to go back and figure out how to archive again since this talk page goes back over a year and desperately needs archiving. The last time I tried to archive I screwed things up so bad, thank goodness it was my own talk page and I had a wonderful editor watching over me to see how I would do who fixed it up for me. I guess I am gun shy to try again after my last fiasco. I got a bot to do it for me with the help of this same editor, that's how bad I did! :) Yes I know, be bold, it always can be fixed! Thanks as always, -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
{{archivebox| * [[Talk:Crohn's disease/Archive 1|Archive Page 1]] }}
Just a quick note to thank you for keeping an eye on Water ionizer. I have had a long and unpleasant experience with the editor Water Ionizer Research and thus I appreciate some assistance in dealing with this editors tricky editds. Cheers Gillyweed ( talk) 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Those were just various articles I got from Lexis Nexis -- I had to email them to myself one at a time. Each email has a seperate news story attached. I'm sure that much of it is duplicate information, but perhaps there are details that can get added. Enjoy. PelleSmith ( talk) 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Your wording is tops! :). I was just trying to stay away from the notion that SRA allegations were "blamed" on something. Good work and thanks. PelleSmith ( talk) 15:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello... thanks for investigating and reverting those edits. Unfortunately, there is a long-banned editor ( User:Serafin) who manages to repeatedly evade his block. His methodology is to create a new user account and make ten uncommented minor edits (usually to science-related articles) to get past the new-user restrictions. He then goes straight for the semi-protected articles Nicolaus Copernicus, Recovered Territories and Bureaucracy to add his POV, using the term "NAZI" in his edit summary. (This happens on a daily basis, so if you notice those sort of edits again, you can pretty much guarantee he's heading for his target articles. Feel free to revert on site and let an admin know he needs to be blocked.) Thanks again. -- Ckatz chat spy 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Re: your 4th September 2008 revision of Forgiveness which removed a paragraph claiming POV, this paragraph is actually argued as being NPOV on the discussion page here: Talk:Forgiveness#Paper. Would you look at the case made and reply there? Thanks. Whitespace ( talk) 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
If an admin could help me out here, in a fit of stupidity, I redriected Te Rangi Hiroa (Peter Buck) to Te Rangi Hīroa through a cut-and-paste rather than a page move, thus breaking the page's history. Could an admin write-over the move instead? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Here you go, some bonafide third party coverage, especially the part that contradicts Rosenthal: "Clinical trials soon will be under way, and patients’ full compliance to the system is critical to gaining FDA approval." That is completely opposite to what's been averred by certain references. I hope you read the whole article at [19] and will incorporate/fix some of the inaccuracies in this and the T.S. Wiley article. Neil Raden ( talk) 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I got to this page through vandal patrol so I thought I would take a peek, and yes I have seen the ongoing conversations there for past 24 hrs. I am trying hard to understand the one editor with very long posts but I can't keep up with what they are trying to say though I do have a strong idea. I am sure you understand my feelings about this article, personally I think it is one for a speedy delete but what can I say. This type of thing has been tried to be sold to me since the beginning of me being on the net and going to CD talk sites, so I have to be careful how I approach things here, please keep an eye on me and if I go nuts in what I say or do, please adjust my attitude. :) I'd appreciate a kick in the right place ;) if my POV becomes too strong here. Thanks!
Also, do you have time for an email? It won't be about Wiki at all, just kind of a shoulder to cry on? Let me know via email if you have the time to listen to my latest. Plus you might be able to help me find some research I am having problems locating on my own that I am doing for personal reasons. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The editor with very long posts? I guess that just may be referring to me, so apologies to you both if it is making your editorial job hell - that certainly is not my intention. I would like to think that my intentions by now are fairly clear - to bring some balance to this highly emotive and controversial subject, that is under-researched, but that everyone it seems has an strong opinion on. And just FYI - I also disagree strongly with some of the highly contentious claims made by SOME therapists in the field - but research is slowly but surely starting to vindicate at least some of the value of what they do, even if the autotoxemia thing is a bit of a redherring that gets coatracked a lot. Thanks WLU for the heads up with all the rules of WP - I am a newbie, so learning all the time. And yes, I do know a fair amount about this field, both the good and the bad from many years of researching - hence the long posts. Mea culpa. I will try and keep my discussion posts brief and to the point in the future. Please feel free to respond on my talkpage. -- Antoniolus ( talk) 05:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies you two. I appreciate Crohnie where you are coming from - and no, I don't get offended, nor do I take things personally - but thanks for the sentiment nonetheless. I also hear very clearly your arguments about fringeworthiness - and agree that there are elements here that are clearly fringe in the extreme. I have both seen and heard some outrageous claims supported by nothing more than ignorance and faith by some of those who practice colon cleansing in its various guises - but as I have probably mentioned before (sigh ... sorry!) , I don't think that in itself constitutes grounds for dismissal. I do think that some subtlety in approach to dealing with the subject is called for, and differentiation between the therapeutic modality and the therapists who practice it - or it should be made very clear in the intro. In the same way that there are bad doctors out there, but that does not invalidate medical science. That would seem to be fair to the subject matter considering some of the orthodox medical research out there, though how to weave that in without appearing to be antogonistic to some of WP's rules is difficult - and extremely so if one wants to be succinct, and not to start synth issues. The wealth of anecdotal evidence clearly cannot be included, but I think should be borne in mind when one is editing. And yes WLU, I do agree that there are huge quack elements out there - but not all - babies and bathwater ... FYI I started in life as an engineer with a background in physical sciences before I became a DO, and have since studied many other medical modalities over the years. Many of those I dispute the validity of in terms of the way they are taught and the claims that are made - mostly surrounding proof (or usually lack of it) as well as dogmatic belief systems based on faith - though doesn't mean that I throw them out necessarily, just recognise that there is a time and place to use modalities with judicious clinical judgement. A lot of research is called for, which may or may not happen. I don't 'want there to be benefits' - I don't wrap my identity up in the sum total of my learning, quite the opposite - scientific method rides way above all that. Medicine is regrettably imperfect, but thankfully getting better all the time, and panaceas are almost certainly bogus! Thanks for your time and input. And sorry, trying to be succinct, but answering you both ... Kind regards -- Antoniolus ( talk) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Apologies WLU, this is all starting to get a little ridiculous, and probably over heated. It appears that you are the principal editor in this article - would you be interested in sandboxing a revision that we can start finding consensus on, and that may agreeable to all - at least in the interim? I have neither the time, nor the desire in getting into an edit war here, which will probably result in either arbitration or deletion - neither of which I feel should be necessary. I only wish to see an article on the subject which is representative, and with a little scope for neutrality, if that is possible. I hope you feel the same way, but please advise - there is common ground here and plenty of scope for satisfactory compromise, even if our avenues of expression may differ somewhat. -- Antoniolus ( talk) 04:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am taking a long wikibreak since next Tuesday. Before I leave do you need help in some of the articles I've now unwatched? (Oh yes: the SRA peer-review will be closed pretty soon. We still might ask for further comment before a bot closes it.) — Cesar Tort 20:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Why would you delete rationalwiki from the list?-- Sallicio 00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You have weighed in in the past on the Fathers' rights movement page, and I wonder if I could tempt you to do so again. We are sorely in need of some other voices and opinions on the talkpage page, and your comments on some of the outstanding issues would be gratefully received. Unfortunately it is a tedious read, but the two most active sections are this one [20] and this one [21]. -- Slp1 ( talk) 17:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear WLU, your addition of a proposed deletion template to the page Sklogwiki has been noted. All the best -- Spud Gun ( talk) 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your revert in Derivative work. Please be more selective in reverting, what you did looks like WP:BITE. Knowledgable contributors should be handled with care, especially when they start contributing. Please could you take the time to explain to the contributor on his/her talk page, User talk:66.208.26.115, how the contributions could be improved. Thank you. -- Edcolins ( talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Could you help here [1] I think I figured out how to but I am not sure so it would also be helpful to me to learn too. She/he is a pretty new user and found this article to learn things here. I am not helpful too much. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(bing!) I was entranced the first time I saw the {{tl| wikitext, it fills the cockles of my heart with joy and is much more fun to use than the no wiki tags (which are accessed via a button on the tool bar - the W with the red circle and like through it next to the sig button). WLU ( talk) 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yo man. I took a shot at editing an article pursuant to Wikipedia's policies and as per our conversation. Please take a look and let me know if I screwed anything up. By the way, I live in Manhattan if you need vacation advice... Hammerfist ( talk) 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Would a copy of the paper (by e-mail) be sufficient to allow the edit? Dan Watts ( talk) 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would argue that a training split is a major part of strength training and that it deserves its own section that could and should be more than a stub. A one paragraph mention on the strength training page is insufficient, in my opinion. I will work on expanding the entry on split training and resubmit it when it's a bit longer, and perhaps this way I can demonstrate that this topic should be more than a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmogul ( talk • contribs)
http://pr-gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10435&Itemid=9 This refutes at least half the stuff in the Sara Rosenthal article. The journal itself has been contacted by attorneys to retract the article for its bias, inaccuracies and deception. More to come. Neil Raden ( talk) 02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. If you can cast your mind back to this edit, I would like to ask whether you were aware a third opinion had been sought prior to it, and whether you were solicited to comment there. Thanks, and I hope no offense is taken to my curiosity. 86.44.27.243 ( talk) 07:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you still want that personal tourism page deleted? If so try db-u1, or let me know. I hope you took some pictures for Wikipedia, to justify all the disk space we sacrificed! EdJohnston ( talk) 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at. I *know* linguistics is not a minority field or a fringe position. So? I'm sorry, but what kind of expansions are you referring to in terms of the texts and citations, etc? The problem with the article is that it brings out only one position, one school of thought through its content. I don't know whether you are familiar with the subject or not; I am not sure whether you know the background under which the linguistics edit war actually happened. See the talk page. However, what you see under the linguistics article is just one philosophy and all the research done solely under that school of thought - the structuralist position, the Chomskyan one and I am fine with that being there, as long as the other positions and schools of thought aren't ignored. Which is being ignored. There is a post-structuralist position, there is the philosophical approach to language, there is a literary approach, a contextual approach; these approaches aim to look at language beyond its surface structure. The former one only looks at the structure of language; not at its social value, not at its role in society. There is sufficient work being done under post-structuralism and linguistic philosophy, but the people who are currently monopolising the linguistics page are not allowing that to be written about. I hope you've got what I'm trying to say. Let me know how you can help me to improve those articles on language and linguistics. And your tips / advice has been noted; thanks -- Supriya 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(bing)Consider writing a draft on a sub-page and showing it to the contributors on Talk:Linguistics rather than me (who doesn't really care about that page). I can not help with content and will not read up on it either as I'm just not interested. I can give you opinions on reliability of sources, template use, wording and formatting though. I doubt the topics are being censored, but your rather high-handed approach may have irritated the other contributors sufficiently that they're reverting rather than integrating. This is a community project, so long posts detailing the failings of your fellow contributors is not looked well upon. And please review the policies that have been dropped on your talk page, or start off with the simplified rule set. Also consider that linguistics is a very high level article and should not necessarily discuss all topics - perhaps they are better dealt with on sub-pages. I would also highly, highly recommend you approach the other contributors on the linguistics page with your ideas and ask them what they think, how it could be integrated, what could be done rather than assuming they're censoring. Consider that one of the people you are disagreeing with, User:Dbachmann, has nearly one hundred thousand edits and is the 17th most prolific contributor to wikipedia as well as being an admin. You don't get to that level of contribution by not knowning what you're doing. Garik has 10 times your edit count and Angr has fifty-five thousand as well as also being an admin. These are the core of wikipedia's user and management bases, not yahoos with an axe to grind. If you can't get along with them I don't know how well you'll do here. But feel free to ignore me if you'd like, it's up to you. These are fantastic people to learn from and collaborate with, not people to pick fights with. Please take their advice or you will end up one of the many frustrated former editors complaining that wikipedia is a failed project and they will continue editing as they always have. I was a fan of long talk page postings (still am obviously) but eventually you have to learn and play by the rules, leave or get blocked. Which one it is, is entirely up to you. WLU ( talk) 18:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you're talking about this edit, I reverted not because of the lists, but because of the "this section should be" which is WP:NPOV, out of WP:TONE and important for the talk page perhaps, not the main page. Also, I've never heard of Star News, and would never refer to them in an article. Which is why we have to be careful about what is placed on a high-level page like that. Lists can list every single tv and newspaper that has a wikipedia page, but journalism should not. It should link to the lists maybe. I'd be more inclined to link to newspaper and news station, then have the list of links in those pages. WLU ( talk) 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your position on this matter. I would suggest, however, that the links I put up are of higher quality than the www.exrx.com links that many of the exercise pages contain. Also, although Wikipedia is not supposed to be a how-to, for fundamentally practical information such as artices on specific exercise movements I feel that illustrated examples will help to explain the content.
Also, did you see I put the Training Split article into the Strength Training article under the recovery heading? Rmogul ( talk) 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
First off, although it is my website and I have made no attempt to hide that fact, there really is no way to tell with certainty that I was putting the links up. With the increased popularity of the site it could very well have been someone else. I have read the conflict of interest page, and I have to say that I do not believe that adding a link violates conflict of interest if the link is informative and relevant.
I am a graduate student at this time, and although I admit that Physiology is not my concentration I have read many textbooks on the issue of exercise and fitness and I have to say that they are often contradictory and inaccurate. I could run through all of the posts in the entire exercise and fitness sections of this site and find something in some textbook somewhere that contradicts it, but that does not help the readers at all.
The idea that animations are more "encyclopedic" than still images is an odd claim to make, and frankly I do not see the basis of it. I do not like ExRx because the information is very limited and the animations are very small. I feel that readers will be enriched more by larger images than small animated gifs. In fact, one of the reasons I even took the time to make a site dedicated to exercise is that I felt ExRx was severly lacking.
When it comes to multiple external links, I feel that when it comes to something as practical as how to execute a given exercise readers will benefit from multiple examples that show the move from multiple angles. I know that when I was a novice strength trainer I purchased multiple books on the same subject in order to see different angles and explinations for the movements.
Finally, when it comes to the www.uwlax.edu page I would say that I agree in general that university sites are better than private sites, but if you look at the authors they all seem to have BS or MA degrees, not Ph.Ds. I could host my site on UCLAs servers, but the content would not change. Being on a unversity host does not guarantee accuracy.
Also, let me point out that when you went through and reverted all of my edits, you eliminated content that I added to the articles. You should have been more careful as opposed to simply running through and reverting everything I did. I could play the same game, going through and simply undoing everything that you did, but that is immature.
Basically, I hold that the links are beneficial to the end user and should thus remain on the pages. Wikipedia, in my opinion, exists only to assist the end user in accessing information, and I feel the links help to accomplish that goal.
Thanks
Rmogul ( talk) 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I never tried to hide it... Anyway, I'm tired of this anyhow. Even before I put up links the content I put up here was just deleted by someone anyhow. Don't need to worry about me adding to this site anymore. I didn't really mean to do anything wrong, sorry if I did. Rmogul ( talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"First off, although it is my website and I have made no attempt to hide that fact, there really is no way to tell with certainty that I was putting the links up. With the increased popularity of the site it could very well have been someone else."
"I have read the conflict of interest page, and I have to say that I do not believe that adding a link violates conflict of interest if the link is informative and relevant."
"...I have read many textbooks on the issue of exercise and fitness and I have to say that they are often contradictory and inaccurate. I could run through all of the posts in the entire exercise and fitness sections of this site and find something in some textbook somewhere that contradicts it, but that does not help the readers at all."
"The idea that animations are more "encyclopedic" than still images is an odd claim to make, and frankly I do not see the basis of it."
"When it comes to multiple external links, I feel that when it comes to something as practical as how to execute a given exercise readers will benefit from multiple examples that show the move from multiple angles. I know that when I was a novice strength trainer I purchased multiple books on the same subject in order to see different angles and explinations for the movements."
"Finally, when it comes to the www.uwlax.edu page I would say that I agree in general that university sites are better than private sites, but if you look at the authors they all seem to have BS or MA degrees, not Ph.Ds. I could host my site on UCLAs servers, but the content would not change. Being on a unversity host does not guarantee accuracy."
"Also, let me point out that when you went through and reverted all of my edits, you eliminated content that I added to the articles."
"You should have been more careful as opposed to simply running through and reverting everything I did. I could play the same game, going through and simply undoing everything that you did, but that is immature."
I moved my comment because you asked, and will happily do so again. However, its really more of a preference than a "convention". I'm not saying its better, or that it doesn't lead to confusion at times, but its pretty normal when someone feels they have been directly addressed and a third editor jumps into the thread to make the response clear. Its not a big deal, either way and I'm happy to oblige but just remember this is your preference, and some of us have other preferences. Also, please note that responding to "your argument" is not focusing on a contributer in the least, it is a way of identifying an "argument". "Your" is a an adjective and not a noun, and hence cannot be the object (or subject) of any sentence. I'll try to remember your advice in general. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
that you put in the economics project- I do not know if you have had it sufficiently answered - If you have I would like to see the answer, please respond - it would be nice if you would put a message over in my talk page.-- Kiyarrlls ton 18:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
[4] I didn't know this kind of secrecy happened here. Apparently no one knew what was happening that involved themselves until the closing and sanctioning, kind of scary to me. Anyways, I thought maybe you would be interested since I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of talk about this for some time to come. If not interested, of course ignore and delete. ;) -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you removed the {{ tooshort}} template, either accidentally or deliberately, from talk:intelligence. The lead remains too short and I have restored the template. If you did it on purpose, please stop - it's annoying. Richard001 ( talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The controversy has re-started. Please have a look at the talk page. There's not a single thing that has been unsourced or uncited. Yet, they want to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supriyya ( talk • contribs)
My computer took on a mind of it's own this morning and hubby fixed it. A button got stuck on my scanner and took control! :) -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Hi I got them, 2 of them. I did respond to just let you know I received them. If you would, would you copy the headers and email them to me? I want my husband to see it to see what is going on. If you can't do it directly, I gave you my email address and also you should be able to copy/paste it as a response to my email that would be helpful to me so I can figure out what the heck my computer is up to now. It's like it has a mind of it's own lately. I will respond soon. Did you get the email I sent back to you? I hope so, this is driving me crazy to be honest! Since you are having a time, like me, with real-life issues and concentration I will send something to you to hopefully give you a smile! -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I'd give the editor a final warning (all warnings had been deleted from their page) so I would have ARVd them pretty soon anyway. I found it amusing that they were trying to accuse me of unconstructive editing - but I've seen it all before. Also, I believe I'd already placed a refactoring (or similar) template on their page - the revision history shows how messy it got over the last couple of hours. Anyway - thanks for helping out - it's 02:10 am so I'm gonna get some sleep! Booglamay ( talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
[8] I have reverted once and don't like to do a second revert on my for obvious reasons. Would you look in at this and tell me, or the article, if all those links follow WP:EL? I mean like the first one looks like it is not WP:RS and looks more like a blog to me but of course I could be wrong. But basically the links just added is nonsense to me. I don't want to try to sway your opinions one way or the other so would you mind taking the time to go through the links too? I would appreciate the help and your opinions on this matter, thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU, I've just stumbled over your sub-page in my wiki-wanderings. It is excellent, I think I might add it to my standard welcome repertoire as "optional reading", so please make sure it stays around!
I have some comments, with regards to the section on "Suffer not the Vandals", as regards warning templates. I have warned some small dozens of vandals, nothing serious, but here is my experience:
Perhaps you could incorporate some of this into your essay, the informal approach almost always works for me, in my limited experience. That's not to take away from the templating approach, I've just found that a more personal approach often works wonders, and sometimes turns up someone who is genuinely confused and welcomes the opportunity to make personal contact - then you get the chance to drug 'em up with the Wikipedia addiction :) Sorry for the long post, thanks for the essay! Franamax ( talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Getting cleverer and cleverer... by making one SPA for each edit, who knows how many pages were done this way. 67.162.108.96 ( talk) 04:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your dedication in cleaning up after this idiot over the past few months - I noticed you quite a few times in the various article histories. Great essay btw ;)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Awarded with gratitude for your assistance in bringing the Barefoot Bandit and his 87 Socks to justice, and helping keep Wikipedia respectably shod. Many thanks, EyeSerene talk 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
That one looks like it is verifiable. Are those sources OK? Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I'm not ignoring you - but I have been really busy. Perhaps next week I'll follow-up on things. Heliocybe ( talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The idea is that the sections are there, even if empty, to indicate that the sections should be filled as they are necessary. As to the other issue, do what you feel best. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 01:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Felix Felix Basinger ( talk) 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Weeds is not automatically paired with 'widow's' - see Ye Sacred Muses and, doubtlesss, other examples of that era. Have reverted. Linuxlad ( talk) 07:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, did I use the correct ICD codes in the infobox? Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent copyedit in Alex Constantine. I've just added my comment in talk page. — Cesar Tort 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, well, well. At least there's something in which we agree, Biao: skepticism of CIA's SRA experiments. WLU: I see that you've got Ross' book. Let me state that he can be very skeptic and very credulous. When I visited him & his therapy group sessions in 1997 I confronted him in private that he seemed to take at face value his patients' claims of extra-sensory perception powers. I believe he is a supberb clinician, but he falls in all the traps of clinicians: believing more than what is needed. It's a huge subject and I don't want to overwhelm this page with it. Just advising to approach Ross with due caution (of course, you know how to do that). BTW, most of the edits in Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, which I started, are mine. — Cesar Tort 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
WLU, good luck with the mess I generated by way of that list ... sorry about that :(. I have to stick to my guns this time and really stay away from this place--SRA is frustrating but the other situation that brought me back, and now looks to be turning into another disruptive and nonsensical fiasco just drains me of everything positive. I'll be on email, but I have to leave you all hanging at the SRA entry. Hey at least maybe some of those sources prove useful. Sincerest apologies and good luck. PelleSmith ( talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU, please put down the gun, and let's talk. I'm not spamming. Sure, I need to get used to Wikipedia's nuances, and I'll change the links so that there is no mention of ejunto. I've seen a number of links to free audio from LibriVox and this is the same idea. Anyway, I'm more than happy to reformat, or relocate the links, but this content is highly relevant for Wikipedia users...just like all the other external links. I can totally understand why you thought this was just about promotion. I've reviewed the external links guidelines and think the content of the link conforms. If not, please advise why. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaster77 ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I severely doubt that Wikipedia will be able to successfully deal with the situation as long as letting anyone off the street (including people who can register multiple accounts or pop on through various IPs) can edit freely just as well as people with proven knowledge and objective writing skills. It's the tragedy of the commons, basically, as the good guys are always going to get screwed.
I think I saw on Jack-A-Roe's page that you recommended him for admin. I can't think of too many people who would be worse. Look at his edit history and it's obvious that the person is here with a very specific agenda to promote. It wouldn't surprise me if it's someone who got into trouble for POV-pushing in the past and came back under a new name. I see that the person also had been accused of sockpuppeting in the past and had his user page totally wiped twice. That's not someone I would trust. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
{undent} I agree with DreamGuy about JAR. Yes: he's smarter than another pusher and as civil as him/her. But he's a pusher who, to date (I may be wrong), I haven't seen "writing for an enemy". His extreme pov is obvious in pretty controversial talk pages such as pederasty. It'd be a very bad idea to promote him as an admin. — Cesar Tort 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well... that was relatively easy because User:Slrubenstein is not a pusher (though our belief systems are diametrically opposed). What concerns me of a "JAR admin" scenario is that AT/RE would take it as an endorsement for his pushing. After all, JAR has defended him even on the boards when the admins consensus was to block the pusher. I agree with Dreamguy that people with conflict of interest (COI) should avoid these articles. I am not saying that JAR or AT/RE were sexually abused. But Dreamguy is right when he says that these guys have developed an obsession with the subject of child sex abuse. I for one quit from editing psychiatry-related articles because of my own COI (my mother used to pour psychiatric drugs in my orange juice when I was a teen even though I was perfectly sane!). It's very painful to edit the psychiatry articles in the wiki because the psychiatric drugging of sane children is not a subject that I can back up with RS or WP:UNDUE (because of finantial interests with BigPharma, most of the peer-reviewed journals agree with Ritalin and other dugs). I learnt it the hard way when I was dragged to a nasty ArbCom process a month after I arrived to Wikiland. I simply quit from editing those articles. No one ever blocked or restricted me. Although I am not saying with my example that the pushers in the false memory debate were also abused, the rational way for them is not to edit articles in which they clearly show an obsession. More detached editors are ideal to deal with such articles. — Cesar Tort 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
WLU, I know you respect scholarship even when the views differ from yours, so when I read these papers, I thought you'd be interested in checking them out.
KS Pope (Harvard/Yale degrees, over 100 peer-reviewed articles, APA Award for Distinguished Contributions to Public Service)
Although this author has the same last name as Harrison Pope of the FMSF, this Pope has a different approach. I have no idea if they're related or if it's just a coincidence. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 21:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader,
geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at
geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.
Thank You, Sam4bc ( talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Since Biao recently responded to one month posts (and you responded him as well), maybe those exchanges ought to remain for a little while. But before the page is unprotected perhaps we could archive al least 250 Kb of dicussions in the "empty" folder (the page is now more than 300 Kb)? — Cesar Tort 17:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the section on arterial venous switching from Stroke, i'm currently in an ongoing discussion with the author of the information trying to persuade them it is not the right time or place to add this information. Somehow they found patents are valid under WP:MEDRS. Anyway, thanks— CycloneNimrod T@lk? 15:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You have removed the contents of Cultural references section. I understand you want to clean up the article, but I think you should rather move this information to Dissociative identity disorder in fiction article, which you are referencing, instead of just deleting it. Otherwise you waste somebody's else work. Tigrisek ( talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think your recent post critical of AT/RE is so important that it merits spelling correction. Also, in your sentence "So to directly reply, removing the criticism of Victor is not [violating] NPOV, it's a removal of a quote-mined selection which mis-interprets Fraser's analysis of Victor quite badly", doesn't the word in brackets is missing? And in "then proclaiming the page is NPOV would be laughable were it not so frustrating" I guess you meant "pov" instead of "npov" since s/he pov-tagged the article. — Cesar Tort 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Not really, only the ones with the "Nazi" edit summary here. Are there many more that you are aware of? Cheers TigerShark ( talk) 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I am a board certified physician from the US with five boards in medicine and subspecialties. I have noticed your interference with publishing the concept of Arterial Venous Switching as an experimental treatment for stroke, even though it was mentioned clearly that it is first copy righted and second is experimental. Now what is your definition of treatment? Because I always studied treatment in any topic that includes old established as well as new and experimental. In case of the latter, the experimental phase may be mentioned (e.g. phase one or two, animal research etc.) So if your administrator function is to make sure that the information is accurate, then there is no justification to delete the “experimental” mention of the concept, without being biased to any form of therapy versus the other. Let medical research determine if the arterial venous switching is a valid approach or not. You have no right to determine it is not, from what I understand, unless you have done a similar research (that you should reference also) which proves it to be a non viable approach. Until then, the public has the right to know what is current therapy for stroke and what future therapy might look like.
Your peers who are part of this effort are respectable and reputable physicians including Dr. Elazer Edelman, The Director of Harvard/MIT Biotechnology lab. Please refer to Reviveflow.com and look up the medical advisory board if you want a peer opinion to satisfy your conditions off publishing information. The Wikipedia is made to be by the public to the public and not be controlled by any biased opinion to prevent freedom of information availability.
Obviously people like you who "control" information and interpret what they want to their own liking is the reason why any project start great then ends somehow biased with double or triple standards. So, even though I expalined to previous readers who wanted to delete the section of the Arterial Venous Switch because it dd not suit their purposes, you still followed this uneducated approach and also deleted it. I don't see any inaccuracy when I am explaining a term of a new technology that was validated and successful in animal model, to the public. It was described under "future Therapies" not "Treatment". Your opinion is simply a "block" on a scientific fact.
So, if someone googles the term and find a definition for the term arterial Venous Switch and find it, would not you think it should have been found in an online referrence like wikipedia? obviously your answer will match your superficial understanding of the topic when you categorized it as advertisement. If you or a family member of yours will get stroked, trust me, you will be looking for any hope for future therapy. i am sorry i wasted time and energy on a silly subject like Wikipedia, that became a monopoly to biased opinionated semi-educated public —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soomeh ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I left messages in responce to the "rude" deletion of my edit by other editors who try to explain to me something, they lack enough knowledge on. The concept of "Retrograde Cerebral Perfusion" is a very valid medical treatment to brain ischemia and is currently used in many fields including "cardiac surgery/CPB". Before an editor assumes the position of the "teacher" ans start spreading "incorrect information" they can ask experts for help or get some self education to be on the level of discussion, leave alone editing. So, I advise you and other editors who "concluded that the concept of "Venous or retrograde perfusion" is a "conflict of interest" or "commercial", to read more on the subject, before editing me. I have spent enough time and effort on "Stroke" and I know what I am talking about, regardless of being a physician or not and regardless of being "Board Certified" or not. I hope you can do the same and READ MORE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soomeh ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That's it. I've had enough of your shenanigans. Good day to you. — Cyclonenim T@lk? 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
[9] Hi. According to external link policy, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The site I linked to on Atherosclerosis has several patient interviews that couldn't be included in Wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valejo ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Real world has had me busy so I just wanted to pop in and say howdy! I hope you are well and doing what you do. Take care, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In September 2007 I added a chapter about the Netherlands in the English page on satanic ritual abuse. Due to harassments, insults and false accusations from several contributors, especially from biaothanatoi, I decided to make a separate page about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Again due to biaothanatoi, this page was redirected to the English page on satanic ritual abuse several times. Then I made another page on satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands in December 2007. Since then a couple of contributors have tried to redirect this page to the English page on satanic ritual abuse, but I discovered that mostly within a couple of days and reversed those redirections.
Before redirecting again, you should consider that this page contains information from mainly Dutch sources that are not accessable to you because you do not speak Dutch, the information from these sources (scientific books and articles, newspaper articles, television news magazines et cetera) is relevant because it shows that the discussion in the Netherlands took a totally different course than in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries where satanic ritual abuse was an issue, and that the fact that you cannot read the original Dutch sources does not mean that those sources are not reliable or that the author of the page is a layman.
Therefore I would like to ask you not to redirect this page again to the English page on satanic ritual abuse. Give the readers in the world the opportunity to read what has happened in the Netherlands regarding satanic ritual abuse, and why the discussion took such a different course in this country.
Since my English is not perfect, please correct the grammatical errors, but leave the content of the page unimpaired.
Yours sincerely
Criminologist1963 ( talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Your edits have been simply reverting data at the SRA page without an attempt at consensus. Your edits will not allow a neutral or pro position to be on the page, though there are many sources backing both positions. Please stop reverting without consensus. ResearchEditor ( talk) 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
shouldn't the stroken word be removed in the ANI board or am I misreading it? Cesar Tort 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
{undent} Although Biao has about the same pov of RE, I'd much prefer dealing with him, Biao, in spite of the fact that he is writing his PhD on SRA. At least Biao has a grasp of WP policy and nowadays doesn't push his pov as he did last year (when he found weak resistance in talk page). Now the admins have a bit of the flavour in their own board of RE's behavior in talk pages. — Cesar Tort 21:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been trying to find a form of words that might cover the same ground as that pseudoscience box and be acceptable to everybody involved. I think most of the editors on the page would agree that OM isn't as unreal as homeopathy or therapeutic touch, but is obviously seen as not mainstream science. Could you live with "This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific." diff? Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
see here —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchEditor ( talk • contribs)
I just want to drop you a note that I responded back to you on my talk page. I find sometimes I forget and miss to see on my watchlist when people respond to me. Have a good one, I hope your day is better than what's going on here! -- CrohnieGal Talk 10:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey WLU, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! — Cyclonenim T@lk? 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
About the addition of sources, I'm working on it. Within a little while, I'll make sure there are more to the page. Supriya 18:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey. Yes, I had considered doing that myself. In any case, I am keeping a copy of the article (with the wiki formatting and all) as a backup on my hard disk, so that should not be a problem. I did think of the same thing myself, but thanks for the detailed steps - I'll keep those in mind. I do feel that there have been two or three opinions on the deletion page that are "pro poststructural linguistics", so there should be a chance to. Anyway, if the deletion happens, then I'm sure that there will be something fresh that can be done later. Thanks again - and about the WP:WAX page you sent me, I did scan through it. I'll get back to you more on it later. Supriya 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WLU,
My revisions to the John Sarno entry, calling TMS by its new name ("myoneural") is based directly on Dr. Sarno's renaming of TMS. I learned of this change during my meetings with him on July 2008. His new TMS document calls it ("myoneural"), and it's how re refers to TMS in his lectures. Is this not a good enough source or reason to make this revision??
-- Akalati ( talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. I haven't desired adminship; it doesn't sound like fun, to be honest. And I didn't know I was in the top 3000! Maybe I should cut back.... Eubulides ( talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am back again to inform Wikipedia users of the truth about WLU and FisherQueen and BigDunc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMajorGeneral ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
...what did you mean by this? Gb T/ c 07:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Maxschmelling has added [11] or edited thusly: User:Diligent Terrier is not currently accepting new adoptees [12] [13]. I am presently under Terrier's adoption and Terrier had been very very diligent in my tutorial. Now, this time, Terrier removed his template Wikibreak and stated on his user page:This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. What is the point of Max editing Administrator Terrier's adopter's page. What is the basis? It behooves, that out of respect to my parent, Max should have first posted his edit suggestion on Terrier's talk page. Worst, Max wrote: "but I don't think you should take on any new adoptees at this time." Without respectfully waiting for reply, Max went ahead. [14] May I please ask you to share your comment on this? Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters Cheers.-- Florentino floro ( talk) 10:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually you should start a discussion before REMOVING the section in it's entirety. In fact it may have been discussed many times already. NeoApsara ( talk) 18:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Greetings! I see your concerns about forum-shopping; if it makes you feel better, start the post at AN/I with "I posted this report to AIV, but an administrator suggested this was the better forum for it."
Part of the reason I think it's more a case for AN/I is that a longer-perspective look is needed at the actions. AIV is very in the moment: discussions go away as soon as an individual is blocked or when the report is manually removed (stale, not vandalism, etc.). AN/I threads are longer-lived; it's only after several days without further discussion that they get archived.
I also don't think it's a cut-and-dried situation with him. Is he editing disruptively? Somewhat. Is he editing in good faith? Yes, since he thinks he's improving Wikipedia. Would he be better advised to discuss the situation on a talk page rather than edit war? Absolutely.
I'm going to leave a message on his talk page inviting him to explain his edits. If he decides not to, but instead starts revert warring again, then it's a pretty clear-cut three-revert rule violation. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Check this out, in combination: the contribs of contributions, plus this article, plus the August 10th entry for this. Nandesuka ( talk) 22:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | ||
I, delldot talk, hereby award WLU this barnstar for your excellent and tireless article work and insistence on high-quality content. You also do a great job communicating with other editors and lending help to those who need it. delldot talk 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active! With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise ( talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The word 'treatment' is not a synonym for therapy; it has a broader meaning, and the other references are valid specifications of the general term. In particular, in my own experience, there are contexts where the word 'treatment', used without qualifiers, indicates a film treatment, as correctly disambiguated in the page as I left it. The word 'treatment', without embellishment, does not have an inevitably medical connotation at all, and the wider usages shown in the disambiguation page are entirely valid. AlexTiefling ( talk) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Deadhouse Gates.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
For pointing me to the use of citation templates. You were right! They've been easy once I got the hang of them, and use them all the time now. Many thanks Professor marginalia ( talk) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, thanks for editing CFS. I tried here explaining why CFS is still the term for using, but I don't think any one agreed. They say ME/CFS and when you show its really mostly CFS then they say well, ME and CFS are separate. It is an article I just gave up on because there's about five editors that really believe strongly about ME and for them CFS is like a existential insult. So I am "chicken out"!! RetroS1mone talk 13:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I responded to you, I did hit preview and everything looked ok then when I saved it a whole slew of stuff showed up. What did I do? Did you have this stuff hidden or something? I tried to undo my comment, which is way down at the bottom of all the other stuff, but I got a database syntax error of some sort which wouldn't allow me to delete myself. Sorry, I don't know how I made a mess of your page. Please help and explain so I don't do it again! Thanks and so very sorry, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reported your editing behaviour at AN/I here. Things cannot go on like this. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
In Sophia Mirza you have already violated WP:3RR. Make sure that you do not revert again. Use talk instead. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU, I would love your opinion here [15]. I hope my response doesn't sound snotty, I tried to be careful to Assume good faith and No personal attacks with this editor, but I also know his history about bacteria and his conspiracy theories about Crohn's disease and Inflammatory bowel disease in general which is that the government and pharmaceutical companies don't want people to know about bacteria control curing all IBD because of profits. I would appreciate two things if you have time, first, tell me if I need to refactor since you know I don't like to be rude. I think I may have come off a bit strong here but I also know that if User talk:Caesarjbsquitti isn't disputed he is going to add gobs of POV info about bacteria (this can be seen in his talk page history and the history of all of the IBD articles. My comments I think came more from my own POV and emotions from knowing his and I probably should delete my comments all together. I would also appreciate if you would see what he wrote there and make your own comments to what you feel about them. I would appreciate hearing your opinions on this when you have time, no rush. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC) PS: If you would just flag my page that you commented on the above I'd also appreciate that too! :)
Undent. You don't "use" a template, if you insert a template into the page (basically anything in squiggly brackets) then it'll transclude (or if a subst: template, pop in a bunch of text). Your ( {{=)}} ) is actually a template that replaces the text with a picture - don't believe me, type template:=) into the search box and see where it takes you! (it'll take you to template:=) by the way) You tried to generalize by using a different combination within the {{}}, but that gave you a totally different outcome. If you still want the different options for smiley faces, try some of the "arguments" the template page gives you (where arguments are basically piped tempaltes). {{=)|sad}} transcludes to , if you replace "sad" with wink, blush, surprise (or 3, 4, 6), you'll get a different smiley. Templates are handy, but not as intuitive as wikilinks can be. I doubt anyone would say you vandalised my page, and if they had I would defend you vigorously. The only way to fix would be to find and remove the template, and the only way to prevent it would be to preview (which you would use to remove the template before saving). WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There are no Wiley clinical trials therefor there can't be ethical problems with them, only opportunistic medical "ethicists" who got their job by marrying the head doc at the university. Why in the world did you insert that phrase??? Neil Raden ( talk) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | A glaring example of unregulated and unethical research in BHRT is The Wiley Protocol, which became more widely known to the public through Somers' promotion of it as legitimate research. The Wiley Protocol has involved over 1000 participants in the administration of 'a trademarked, patent-pending delivery system consisting of bioidentical estradiol and progesterone in a topical cream preparation dosed to mimic the natural hormones produced by [a 20-year old woman].' This protocol emphasizes a 'rhythmic' dosing schedule using potentially unsafe high dosages of hormones. Somers' book misrepresents TS Wiley, its lay investigator, as a respected and published scientist. Somers' book also serves as a recruitment tool for unwitting human subjects. This is a multicenter Phase II trial (with no record of Phase I testing) involving 129 study sites in 29 US states, and 2 study sites in British Columbia, Canada. Since data is being collected and presented on women enrolled in this trial, but has not been IRB approved (interviews: TS Wiley, and D Turner, 13 March 2007; J Taguchi, 15 March 2007), or monitored by an investigator with experience in scientific methodology or clinical research, it does not meet criteria for regulated or ethical research. There are no formal exclusion or inclusion criteria for patient enrollment (interview: J Taguchi, 15 March 2007), and the study population spans women aged 19 through 90, who may not understand that they are enrolled in unethical research.64 Serious safety concerns about this protocol have been raised. Co-investigators appear to be prescribers of this protocol who widely vary in training, ranging from physicians to massage therapists; and pharmacists who are contractually obligated to Wiley as a source of the compounded pharmaceuticals sold to participants of the protocol. The study is funded by participants, who are paying for the protocol with their prescriptions. Typically, study agents should not be sold. | ” |
I noticed this reference on your user page
So I poked around, and based on the fact that volume 53 is from 1997 (and there appears to be one volume per year) I think it's a pretty good guess that 51 is from 1995. If you want me to, I can look for the hard copy next time I'm at the library. Guettarda ( talk) 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with looking like Satan? It's not important, but I think the previous photo shows humanity and intensity. (Imaging if Bush looked into those eyes instead of Putin's.) Einstein and others get the same treatment, with late life photos replacing prime of productivity period stuff. EricDiesel ( talk)
No problem. I made the page because the website does have a lot of legimate content. Regards, -- Truetech ( talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You deleted the
Nightingale Research Foundation page, which is fine, but partway through the deletion discussion the page was moved to
Byron Hyde and re-worked. Byron Hyde had his own
deletion discussion a year ago, and the new debate wasn't directly addressing his work. I'm not sure if this is a simple
User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted#Incomplete multiple AFD closure case, so I'm asking. I'm OK with the page being deleted, or re-starting a new deletion discussion if required. Right now the page has a lingering AFD template at the top which should be dealt with in some way and it's sufficiently complicated that I'm throwing it at your mercy discretion.
WLU
(t)
(c)
(rules -
simple rules)
14:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey there WLU! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers! |
Hi WLU, I have an article I was working on just to put citations in since it was filled with
citation needed at
Ed Gein. Well during my search I found two different refs that I was using and the second one, about.com I found that there are paragraphs that are total copy and pastes of that site. I tried to change the wording though to me my wording now sounds a bit weasely unfortunately. I guess what I did is ok but how do I go about getting rid of the
copywrite problems, or I guess the better question is, am I doing ok with how I am trying to rid the article of the problems? I put notations in the edit summary a couple of times so that hopefully no one thinks I am the one who put the original information in. This is the first time I have run into a situation like this so I am going all out asking for input on how to deal with this in the proper manner. I would really, really love your input on this. I was having a pretty good time until I got to the second reference and saw the exact words in the article. Now I am feeling a bit overwhelmed and shy to edit more to be honest. A boost to be
WP:Bold and suggestions would be more than welcomed at this time! :) --
CrohnieGal
Talk
19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello WLU, thank you for your comments and intervention in the Belzebuub/Mark Pritchard biography. You are right that the sources being used for the article are very one-sided and self-serving, which is why I called attention to it in the first place. What I would like to ask you is whether a google cache [16] can constitute a legitimate source for the article. It is very fishy that the information on this guy's website, which references him as being the reincarnation of "Belzebuub," was taken out during the dispute on the article's talk page. If you look at the google cache you will see what I mean.
Personally, I think the article is too self-serving, as you have said so yourself. The guy who made the article, and who has been attacking people on the talk page, clearly has some POV issues. Also, either himself or another person is trying to recruit others from his school's webforums [17] in order to help his position in the article.
If you do decide to keep the article, I think it would be necessary to add the reference to the biography from a work by another occult author, by the name of Samael Aun Weor, who supposedly made a prophecy in the 1950's about the birth and whereabouts of "Belzebuub." The dispute on the talk page was about whether the book The Revolution of Beelzebub [18] has anything to do with this guy who calls himself "Belzebuub."
Some of the arguments about the relevance of this book is that in it, this person or being was to be born as a woman in France. Although the subject of the biography is a Welsh male from Australia, what it originally stated on the "Belzebuub" website was that Samael Aun Weor made mistakes in his earlier works, and had "messed up the prophecy," so to say. But this was taken out of that website since the argument on the talk page.
I will of course rely on your direction and judgment. I had also reported Matt reltub for his behavior, which you can see from the talk page is pretty unwarranted.
Thank you for your time and your help. Rabicante ( talk) 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There are many sources that show that SRA is real. Why are you telling me I can’t edit the satanic ritual abuse page? Extrabreeze ( talk) 14:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
you added to Wiley Protocol "ethical problems with the clinical trials that are being run to test it." You have got to remove it. THERE ARE NO CLINICAL TRIALS. I'm not going to get into an argument about Rosenthal's distorted "scholarship," but I can tell you categorically there are no clinical trials. If you insist on leaving that in, I must insist that you can PROVE there are trials. You won't be able to. Where is your reliable source? You can't use Rosenthal, she fabricated this idea so she could criticize it. You've always been pretty fair, and I've let things gto that just aren't true to avoid an argument, but I'm not going let this one go. The whole Rosenthal thing is about to explode. Let me know if you's like to see the letters some doctors have written to the journal disputing what she wrote. Unlike Erika Scwartz, none of them are married to the editor in chief of the New York Times, but we'll get them published somewhere.
Also there is a new observational study that just came out of Denmark that followed SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND women and basically confirmed all of the major claims of Wiley about HRT, and cast doubt on the current standard of care. Neil Raden ( talk) 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You have to remove the statement " possibly dangerously high doses of hormones" from the T. S.Wiley article. There is not one shred of evidence that the levels are even possibly dangerous, and the Denmark study is pretty clear that the dangerous levels are the low ones. Neil Raden ( talk) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Do any of those citations specifically cite the Wiley Protocol? If not, then to link them to the Wiley Protocol is original research that is forbidden by our policy on original research. You are not an expert and your word alone is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:No original research. If the Denmark study had "nothing to do with Wiley" then I am NEVER going to cite it on the page. Rosenthal's qualifications are irrelevant, what does count is that her opinions are verifiable in a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Until you have a reliable source that clearly and explicitly states the problems so far stated about the Wiley Protocol are suprious, this conversation is done. Until that time, please don't bother posting on my talk page. See points 3 and 4 in the box right at the top of the page. I've referred you to two policies and a guideline regards why I am not going to edit the page. Until you read those documents and come back with a policy-based reason to adjust the content, you are wasting both our time, but more importantly my time. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Your most recent edit of the MKULTRA article introduces some distortions as to what Sirhan Sirhan's lawyer asserted. In particular, Teeter asserted that Sirhan Sirhan was an experienced hypnotic subject who was under the influence of hypnosis when he fired his weapon at Robert Kennedy; considerable evidence supports this particular assertion. Based on forensic evidence from the official Los Angeles County autopsy of Kennedy's body (proximity of weapon, direction of gunshot wound, angle of entry of gunshot wound) and evidence collected at the scene (too many bullets to have been fired from Sirhan Sirhan's gun alone), Teeter also asserted that another weapon, and thus another shooter, were involved in the assassination; considerable evidence supports this assertion also. Teeters discovered links between the CIA and the appointment of Grant Cooper as Sirhan Sirhan's original attorney, and Teeter asserts that the CIA succeeded in compromising Grant Cooper, which is why he purposefully blew Sirhan Sirhan's defense; some evidence supports this assertion, especially a review of the flawed defense that Cooper mounted on Sirhan's behalf. It is Teeters final assertion for which we have little supporting evidence: that since we know the CIA participated in MKULTRA experiments using hypnosis, and since we know that the CIA learned hypnotic techniques from those experiments, and since we know there was a connection between the CIA and Sirhan Sirhan...that the CIA was the party responsible for hypnotizing Sirhan Sirhan and thus linked to the assassination plot. I have revised the section to reflect this more precise understanding of Teeter's assertions, which he lays out quite carefully in the cited interview. Apostle12 ( talk) 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Warning venting in process, you got mail! Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that peer-review on SRA has started, you might consider Harvard-style for endnotes since this format is suited for multiple references to same source, just as Richard is doing in the McMartin article. Cheers. — Cesar Tort 04:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, its my first time using them, so I don't know what I am doing yet, but yes, tagging them with "ref" so they go down into the footnotes looks the best. I like the way they actually tie now to a book citation and a url for the book in Google Book Search. I just came across an article yesterday where people were using "ibid" and "opcit" which became corrupted after someone added a new reference and the order changed. I also saw an article yesterday where the editor used "________________" after the first reference to mean that the book in the previous reference had the same author as the one using _____. It looks like Research Editor got blocked for while, he is much less tendentious than he was a year ago. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
See is you can fix the one damaged reference in Mcmartin, I will and see if I can find the problem. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of Mummy, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit to Gaturro. I guess I was just being dense, but I didn't understand how it was being used in this context. So, in actuality, there are ten books, two of which are didactic in nature. :-) -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
On the Crohn's disease talk page Here you used an hide box for soapboxing (I personally think the garbage should have been archived but agree with what you did as an alternative.). The problem now is when someone tries to use the new section button it too gets hidden under the hide box. I looked at it and it looks like you closed it but I'm not real good at all with this so would you check it out for me? I made a comment and just moved my comment above the box so it was visable though out of order but there is someone elses comment in the box that I never saw until today. Anyways, when you have the time would you take a peek and let me know how to fix something like this? No rush at all about this. There was an edit war on the external links section by two editors that if my count was right went way past the 3RR rule but no harm was done so I didn't do anything about it. There is enough drama going around without me causing problems about this sort of thing that slowly burned itself out way before I got there! :) Also I need to go back and figure out how to archive again since this talk page goes back over a year and desperately needs archiving. The last time I tried to archive I screwed things up so bad, thank goodness it was my own talk page and I had a wonderful editor watching over me to see how I would do who fixed it up for me. I guess I am gun shy to try again after my last fiasco. I got a bot to do it for me with the help of this same editor, that's how bad I did! :) Yes I know, be bold, it always can be fixed! Thanks as always, -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
{{archivebox| * [[Talk:Crohn's disease/Archive 1|Archive Page 1]] }}
Just a quick note to thank you for keeping an eye on Water ionizer. I have had a long and unpleasant experience with the editor Water Ionizer Research and thus I appreciate some assistance in dealing with this editors tricky editds. Cheers Gillyweed ( talk) 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Those were just various articles I got from Lexis Nexis -- I had to email them to myself one at a time. Each email has a seperate news story attached. I'm sure that much of it is duplicate information, but perhaps there are details that can get added. Enjoy. PelleSmith ( talk) 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Your wording is tops! :). I was just trying to stay away from the notion that SRA allegations were "blamed" on something. Good work and thanks. PelleSmith ( talk) 15:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello... thanks for investigating and reverting those edits. Unfortunately, there is a long-banned editor ( User:Serafin) who manages to repeatedly evade his block. His methodology is to create a new user account and make ten uncommented minor edits (usually to science-related articles) to get past the new-user restrictions. He then goes straight for the semi-protected articles Nicolaus Copernicus, Recovered Territories and Bureaucracy to add his POV, using the term "NAZI" in his edit summary. (This happens on a daily basis, so if you notice those sort of edits again, you can pretty much guarantee he's heading for his target articles. Feel free to revert on site and let an admin know he needs to be blocked.) Thanks again. -- Ckatz chat spy 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Re: your 4th September 2008 revision of Forgiveness which removed a paragraph claiming POV, this paragraph is actually argued as being NPOV on the discussion page here: Talk:Forgiveness#Paper. Would you look at the case made and reply there? Thanks. Whitespace ( talk) 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
If an admin could help me out here, in a fit of stupidity, I redriected Te Rangi Hiroa (Peter Buck) to Te Rangi Hīroa through a cut-and-paste rather than a page move, thus breaking the page's history. Could an admin write-over the move instead? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Here you go, some bonafide third party coverage, especially the part that contradicts Rosenthal: "Clinical trials soon will be under way, and patients’ full compliance to the system is critical to gaining FDA approval." That is completely opposite to what's been averred by certain references. I hope you read the whole article at [19] and will incorporate/fix some of the inaccuracies in this and the T.S. Wiley article. Neil Raden ( talk) 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I got to this page through vandal patrol so I thought I would take a peek, and yes I have seen the ongoing conversations there for past 24 hrs. I am trying hard to understand the one editor with very long posts but I can't keep up with what they are trying to say though I do have a strong idea. I am sure you understand my feelings about this article, personally I think it is one for a speedy delete but what can I say. This type of thing has been tried to be sold to me since the beginning of me being on the net and going to CD talk sites, so I have to be careful how I approach things here, please keep an eye on me and if I go nuts in what I say or do, please adjust my attitude. :) I'd appreciate a kick in the right place ;) if my POV becomes too strong here. Thanks!
Also, do you have time for an email? It won't be about Wiki at all, just kind of a shoulder to cry on? Let me know via email if you have the time to listen to my latest. Plus you might be able to help me find some research I am having problems locating on my own that I am doing for personal reasons. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The editor with very long posts? I guess that just may be referring to me, so apologies to you both if it is making your editorial job hell - that certainly is not my intention. I would like to think that my intentions by now are fairly clear - to bring some balance to this highly emotive and controversial subject, that is under-researched, but that everyone it seems has an strong opinion on. And just FYI - I also disagree strongly with some of the highly contentious claims made by SOME therapists in the field - but research is slowly but surely starting to vindicate at least some of the value of what they do, even if the autotoxemia thing is a bit of a redherring that gets coatracked a lot. Thanks WLU for the heads up with all the rules of WP - I am a newbie, so learning all the time. And yes, I do know a fair amount about this field, both the good and the bad from many years of researching - hence the long posts. Mea culpa. I will try and keep my discussion posts brief and to the point in the future. Please feel free to respond on my talkpage. -- Antoniolus ( talk) 05:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies you two. I appreciate Crohnie where you are coming from - and no, I don't get offended, nor do I take things personally - but thanks for the sentiment nonetheless. I also hear very clearly your arguments about fringeworthiness - and agree that there are elements here that are clearly fringe in the extreme. I have both seen and heard some outrageous claims supported by nothing more than ignorance and faith by some of those who practice colon cleansing in its various guises - but as I have probably mentioned before (sigh ... sorry!) , I don't think that in itself constitutes grounds for dismissal. I do think that some subtlety in approach to dealing with the subject is called for, and differentiation between the therapeutic modality and the therapists who practice it - or it should be made very clear in the intro. In the same way that there are bad doctors out there, but that does not invalidate medical science. That would seem to be fair to the subject matter considering some of the orthodox medical research out there, though how to weave that in without appearing to be antogonistic to some of WP's rules is difficult - and extremely so if one wants to be succinct, and not to start synth issues. The wealth of anecdotal evidence clearly cannot be included, but I think should be borne in mind when one is editing. And yes WLU, I do agree that there are huge quack elements out there - but not all - babies and bathwater ... FYI I started in life as an engineer with a background in physical sciences before I became a DO, and have since studied many other medical modalities over the years. Many of those I dispute the validity of in terms of the way they are taught and the claims that are made - mostly surrounding proof (or usually lack of it) as well as dogmatic belief systems based on faith - though doesn't mean that I throw them out necessarily, just recognise that there is a time and place to use modalities with judicious clinical judgement. A lot of research is called for, which may or may not happen. I don't 'want there to be benefits' - I don't wrap my identity up in the sum total of my learning, quite the opposite - scientific method rides way above all that. Medicine is regrettably imperfect, but thankfully getting better all the time, and panaceas are almost certainly bogus! Thanks for your time and input. And sorry, trying to be succinct, but answering you both ... Kind regards -- Antoniolus ( talk) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Apologies WLU, this is all starting to get a little ridiculous, and probably over heated. It appears that you are the principal editor in this article - would you be interested in sandboxing a revision that we can start finding consensus on, and that may agreeable to all - at least in the interim? I have neither the time, nor the desire in getting into an edit war here, which will probably result in either arbitration or deletion - neither of which I feel should be necessary. I only wish to see an article on the subject which is representative, and with a little scope for neutrality, if that is possible. I hope you feel the same way, but please advise - there is common ground here and plenty of scope for satisfactory compromise, even if our avenues of expression may differ somewhat. -- Antoniolus ( talk) 04:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am taking a long wikibreak since next Tuesday. Before I leave do you need help in some of the articles I've now unwatched? (Oh yes: the SRA peer-review will be closed pretty soon. We still might ask for further comment before a bot closes it.) — Cesar Tort 20:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Why would you delete rationalwiki from the list?-- Sallicio 00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You have weighed in in the past on the Fathers' rights movement page, and I wonder if I could tempt you to do so again. We are sorely in need of some other voices and opinions on the talkpage page, and your comments on some of the outstanding issues would be gratefully received. Unfortunately it is a tedious read, but the two most active sections are this one [20] and this one [21]. -- Slp1 ( talk) 17:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear WLU, your addition of a proposed deletion template to the page Sklogwiki has been noted. All the best -- Spud Gun ( talk) 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your revert in Derivative work. Please be more selective in reverting, what you did looks like WP:BITE. Knowledgable contributors should be handled with care, especially when they start contributing. Please could you take the time to explain to the contributor on his/her talk page, User talk:66.208.26.115, how the contributions could be improved. Thank you. -- Edcolins ( talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)