![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi! they are deleting your uploads on commons, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Pitch drop experiment images. / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU -
I was surprised to see that you added this extrenal link, because I've seen you remove so many EL's or replace them with DMOZ links, especially when the EL's have advertising as that one does. I've removed it because it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:EL, in that it contains nothing that could not be in the article, if the article were of top quality. As a footnote, that source is not reliable, though the sources mentioned on the page at that link might be reliable. To be clear, I am not in the least supporting the idea of past life regression as science, it's not. This is only about the use of the EL. I have no doubt that your attention will improve the article. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
[1] This is a nobel topic but look at this stub! I don't even know where to start with this one since it is developed on supposed testimonials. Add to that the comments that the diet helps people like me live a normal life just pushed me over the edge that I cannot edit it any further do to my own restrictions about editing articles I have a strong POV about. Would you mind taking a peek? Personally I would like to see it speedy deleted and a new article if someone desires to do so. I've never done a delete request so I don't know what to do, I do know how to delete though I suspect that would be greatly frowned on. ;) Don't worry, kidding. Anyways I would love your opinion on what to do and how to it. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but the quality of an article is under threat. If you have time can you take a look at RFC nr 3 in the talkpage of the bates method article. See : [ [3]] . It is about mention objective results presented by ophthalmology about the Woods results. These results represent perfectly why the Batesmethod / NVI is controversial. It presents negative, positive and neutral results. The scientific reference which confirms the BM / NVI is controversial : [ [4]]. These Woods results have been presented for a while but aren now removed !!! Please comment if you agree or do not agree by providing your arguments on which it is based. See also the listed arguments at this moment. Appreciate your objective comment. regards, Seeyou ( talk) 11:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference. Material has been restored to the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
In addition to all of the publication histories, sections on literary significance and images of first editions from my own collection, I did a lot of work on the Christie pages to standardise the lay-outs and bring them in line as much as possible and in keeping with the Wikinovels template, especially with the page for "And Then There Were None" as the world and his dog seems to go to that page (ignoring the ones for works like "Poems" - can't think why!) and then make "helpful" changes. The end result has been a right mongerel of a page, in addition to the almost daily vandalism that the page suffers. I agree to an extent with your comments on the IMDB links for some of the films/tv series and I suppose there is no harm in deleting those links where there is a seperate page for film but not all of the films do have such a page and I think those should stay. I do disagree with you about the link for Burgh Island. Rarely has a book been written whose locale has so obviously been transferred to the written page and its importance is stressed in books such as the "The Readers Companion" that I quoted yesterday. It would be advertising if I had any link with island or lived in Devon (and I am the only person on this site who linked the two pages) but I live in Essex and have never even stepped foot in Devon in my life and know of no one who has any connections there! To not draw the reader's attention to the existance of the island would be to delete a crucial piece of information on the book.-- Jtomlin1uk ( talk) 09:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
[6], [7] & [8] Kind of an unusual way of thinking of 3RR to me but anyways I thought you would be interested that he is off the month block and this is unfortunately the way things have been going.
Just curious but have you been watching the latest Giano soap at his page, administrator board and the arbitrators board? If you want difs let me know but to me from just watching all of this and a few other political BS the voting for arbs is going to be a priority. I think for the health of the project there needs to be some big changes in the sitting arbitrators to end the clicks and the poitical garbage. I just know we need to get some new arbs there to help the arbs who are trying so hard to be fair, transparant and for the good of the community. I hope you are well. -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC) If you decide to check out the arb board, the Matthew Hoffman case is also a joke.
I'm off work 'till monday, but I'll have a look then. If I forget please remind me. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You are currently close to violating WP:3RR on Talk:Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. Please stop. Do not edit other people's talk contributions at all. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you cut back Body Memory recently. There is a related page, Somatic Psychology [9] that also contains some unverified material and some waffle. I eliminated many of the most obvious examples a while ago, but perhaps if you have any time, you could also take a look. Cheers MatthewTStone ( talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks WLU i wanted to add diffs, some people were asking the blocking admin for them and i was seeing not them. I won't add comment there now. One thing i disagree with you, is , i am not sure i am so restrained!! Some times i am making some exasparated edit summaries but who does not w/ Guido, it is very hard. RetroS1mone talk 01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to pop in and see if you saw Guido's user page, and obviously you have. Thank you for your kind comment above about me. :) The thing is, the reasons I hold back on editing things that are obviously are very strong opinions for me, do to my poor health problems, is what I see happening with Guido. I totally understand that he wants the info to be there so others don't have to 'suffer' like he is, which is the problem with editing a page you are so totally emotionally involved in. There is a lot of information I'd love to put into the Crohn's disease article so that others don't have to have the problems that I have now because of not being diagnosed in time to prevent all the damage I now have. He could edit in other areas but of course he is here for specific reasons, to make sure the articles are true and correct to his prospective. These two don't work very well to edit an article, emotional, and RL living with the pain and loss of losing control over one's only body. I really wish I could get him to understand that he is too emotional to be editing the articles he has chosen but he doesn't seem to see things the way I do. I am sorry but I can't help feeling some kind of a understanding though in what he says. I just wish he would do it differently. I find the way he interprets policies kind of different then the rest of us which I see as part of the problems he has too. I was floored by the interpretations of the 3rr rules he stated for example. I am saddened by all of this though but I know the project isn't helped like this and his health is more important then the project. I know I have to step away from here at times do to I don't allow this place to be stressful for me. I am here to help and to find something to do with myself to keep my brain busy on other things, does this make sense? Oh well, thanks, talk to you soon.-- CrohnieGal Talk 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete, justice has been served. Horray! WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Boy I do like the attitude of the two of you, thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am not going to argue about your recent changes in Weightlifting, but I do believe that the sentence you removed commenting the coin is very valid for Wikipedia. It gives, from another angle, the importance of the sport. Since you left the image of the coin and changed its comment, I will leave it as it is. I just wanted to point out that the comment "... it is not valid for Wikipedia at all ..." I do not agree with it.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 03:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know whether you see Child-on-child sexual abuse as a fringe topic in any way, or if you share my concerns about sourcing bias (selection and use) and the volatility/indefinite nature of the lead. forestPIG (grunt) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You might (maybe) be interested in GDBs most recent edit to his user page, and my follow up on his talk. It probably isn't interesting though... Verbal chat 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
If you've an interest in User:Guido den Broeder, see here. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
G'day WLU
I wasn't aware of the DMOZ guidelines. Thanks for highlighting the finer points. As a newcomer here I've done a lot of looking around and given consideration to how others have gone about their entries. TBH haven't seen the 'DMOZ' at all. In this instance then the Open Resource needs to be clarified as the entry point to External Links with all new readers and us with our learner plates on?
I'm here to learn WLU and have to say the Wiki rules are complex. I appreciate that this is the way its done but its not very user friendly and its a great way to share valuable information across the world. Thanks again & Merry Christmas Zippomk2 ( talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU - I noticed a recent edit to Motivation for rape and checked it out. In reviewing the page history, I found that the same edit had been done previously and apparently reverted, and now being done again. It seems to me unlikely that it's supported by the sources. I was going to revert it, but I noticed you had edited the article so I thought I'd check it with you first, since I have not read all the sources used on that page. What do you think, should it be changed back? -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 07:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You have mail! :) No rush as usual. I hope you are well, happy editing, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
[12]I thought you would be interested. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU and assorted watchers, I saw GDB move his experiment to a new page, so I've tagged it for deletion above. We should probably move forward with the ANI soon too. Does that need any further work? Thanks, Verbal chat 13:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Along with Verbal to this. Let the games begin? I sure hope not but I thought you should know if you weren't aware.-- CrohnieGal Talk 14:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You are currently close to breaking WP:3RR on Chronic fatigue syndrome, with 3 reverts in a couple of hours. Please consider other ways of editing than reverting everything you don't agree with. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to re-review, but isn't it not 3rr if I revert to "various" versions? - no, sorry, quite wrong. *Any* revert counts. And yes, I have noticed the discussion is closed - this is just for info. Be aware of [13], though it doesn't help in this case William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
[14] Since you have been gathering difs it might be useful for you here plus save you sometime that can be used to work on articles. I haven't commented yet. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Will do (sorry, been busy with pre-Christmas work). Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 14:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Enjoy your break! Sorry for kicking off a lot of work for you just as I had to leave my PC for 24hrs - I didn't think a simple MfD with clear policy support would lead to ANI and the ban quite so quickly (if I was into conspiracy theories I might think someone pushed it fast to try to derail your efforts). If I can help you on any articles that need attention just let me know. Remember to take Christmas off! Yours, Verbal chat 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi... in response to your comment on Jimbo's talkpage, I don't see any need to keep compiling diffs and stuff for an AN posting (kudos for blanking it, too). Guido is gone, he's unlikely to ever be back, it's not really fair I think to keep on at him. If he ever comes back then dig it up again, sure, but he's already been banned so I don't think we need to keep waving the pitchforks, y'know? Personally, I'd add a {{ db-user}} to the page, but that's your call. // roux 17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through the old talk page of Broeder, and I gotta say, you gave him a lot of chances. You were civil to him repeatedly. I still don't know if I fully support the commnity ban, because I don't understand everything that happened, but I think you treated Broeder better than most editors would. travb ( talk) 20:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you were not notified I thought I would bring this to your attentions. This is to notify you of a conversation on the ANI board that might be of interest to you. Hope you are well. -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice work!! You beat me to the punch as I was looking for those sources. Just one small thing - two of the links to the IPF World Championships (Denmark and Canada), don't work. Just a heads up! -- Yankees76 ( talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm really stressed out right now, I'm probably too unstalbe to be editing Wikipedia right now. I'm just upset because an article I spent two hours making ogt deleted. I feel like killing myself. Sorry if I put htat speedy tsg up and offended you. I'm done with wikipedia anyway. Mrld ( talk) 01:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you changed the references in Watchmen to include citation templates. However, it is proper proceedure on Wikipedia to add references in the style established in the article. You're not supposed to completely change the reference style. Cite templates haven't been used in the article since they are needlessly complex. You also did a fair bit of overlinking; be careful not to link words unless it is necessary for context. I've reverted your changes for the time being. See Wikipedia:Citation templates and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. If you have any questions, let me know. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I added a second paragraph to my user page. If you feel like it and wouldn't mind would you do a copy edit for me? I mean I don't know this stuff too well and did my best to update what going on since I've been grouchy lately. I know you can't know exactly what is going on but you can get an idea from what I have written. I just want to make sure it reads ok esp. since I am really bad with run-on sentences. Thanks, and remember there is never any pressure from me about things. Just so you know, I got testy yesterday, which you know I don't usually do, but I did apologize this morning which was accepted by the editor. I am glad the editor understood and everything seems to be ok. We have never run into each other before so being grumpy in my responses were not to cool to me. Oh well, I guess it's true, I'm only human after all! :) Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Over in the watchmen article, I've been trying to count all opinions from the various discussion threads on R's journal, but Preppy is a little focused on the specific "need a vote" [18] thread. My own fault for creating it, I guess. Would you mind making a yea or nay in that thread, if you want the journal included? -- Bertrc ( talk) 08:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought this might be of interest to you. It's being put together now and since it is new and since you have sort of dealt with this I thought you might be interested in a link to it.
On a different note, I like what you are doing with my page. I put the disclosure on my talk page so that if anyone questioned your editing of my page you could show it was with my knowledge. :) I will have to look closely at what you have done when you are finished because I have a real problem with coding and the such. I have absolutely no idea how to do a lot of the ocding stuff. You can say I am one of those dummies when it comes to learning how to use code which is a big drawback at times. So thanks again, I look forward to watching what else you have in mind to do. What can I say, I am easily ammused. Oh and I got a laugh at being order to come fix dinner, I left the computer under the same circumstances.HA! -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
How do you go about listing a picture for deletion that is an obvious copy from the web? I stumbled across this today. Here's the picture on another website: [19] and here's the Wikipedia image that was just uploaded the other day. [20]. It's the exact same image. -- Yankees76 ( talk) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
A lot of water under the bridge, but I appreciated the link you provided (somewhere!) to the Sept 08 discusion on naming. A great discussion chaired by you but a pity it did not reach a 'logical' conclusion, and seems to have got lost somewhere!. You made i think a good summary point that both CFS and ME fall on a continuum of similar conditions, even if diagnosis for one may exclude the other, and i think you got high consensus for that. However it was also clear that neither the description/crieria for CFS or ME described the continuum in full. Clearly there is no official name for this yet and time and research should eventually clarify it. In the meantime use of the terms ME/CFS or if you prefer CFS/ME has it seems been adopted elsewhere as more inclusive. That is the way the three editors including myself ( none of whom contributed to the recent discussion) saw it when we spent many months subdividing the Article. With a further qualification that all edits should specify which criteria was used in patient selections, so as not to confuse the readers. The fact that some researchers and editors want to use the term CFS as a continuum descriptor IMHO is only heaping another layer of confusion upon readers. I personally prefer CFS and ME to be covered in the same Article, (as above) much the same as sudden onset vs delayed, post viral vs psychiatric etc. But think it inaccurate and retrograde to use CFS as a blanket title and descriptor for a range of conditions, only one of which its definition describes, until there is unanimous agreement for that in the literature. Thanks Jagra ( talk) 03:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
What do you think? Worth an article? I don't know if you have a COI, feel free to email me from my talk page. dougweller ( talk) 09:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Mattmr. 71.194.32.252 ( talk) 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi WLU, FYI some editors at Chronic fatigue syndrome have talked about banning me. That is a later step in a dispute process, but it can start with a request for comment about me and i think comments are good. I sent some of the editors the guidelines for Rfc [21]. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there you've got mail! Warning, I'm in a bad mood so it's a bit testy what I need to chat about. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the controversy will always be there with that article by the nature of the topic. There are some articles that are so contentious that every word is argued over. I think the exact wording in the quotes will be helpful when the next person comes along to challenge. I am a big reader of biographies, and 1/3 of the text in one in print can be the reference and endnote sections. No one is expected to read all of them in a book, and no one is expected to in an article. But, when you are a serious researcher looking for an exact source, and an exact quote, I am glad they are there, and are complete. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
WLU, I wonder if I could get you to watchlist this page for a few weeks -- and then (really) to do nothing about it, except to glance over the talk page comments every couple of days, to be sort of an extended part of my memory? I'm starting to think about what it would take for an involuntary topic ban for a user that is having trouble with the difference between WP:V and Truth™, but I don't have time or energy to deal with it right now, and I don't want to make hasty decisions.
In the nature of fair warning: Nearly every editor has a very strong, deeply personal POV. Most have some level of conflict of interest (e.g., one of them is named in the article, another is a real-world friend...) There's usually a fair bit of yelling on the page, and a good deal of edit warring. This request is sort of like asking a friend to help you muck out the basement after a flood, and I know you're busy, so if you're not up to it, that's just fine. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) (who will watch this page for a few days)
Thanks for cleaning up after me--and I think you know that "misspelling" wasn't the right word: it was a leftover from the Dutch article. ;) Drmies ( talk) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#CFS.2FME_text_under_header
You were involved in the whole naming thing, so I think it's fair to give you a chance to comment on it. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sort of ;) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
No harm intended. I'm no expert on WP:BLP, just so you know. My reason for doing that little edit was that I was worried that mentioning the harassment in the lead paragraph, so prominently, gave that one fact undue weight and made it possible that it could result in a WP:BLP challenge - thus putting the whole page in jeopardy. I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seemed to be the type of assertion that someone could argue is libelous... and some of her associates do come to Wikipedia. Really, just seeing the "she harasses people on the internet" in the first paragraph made my alarm bells go off.
Personally, I think it might be wise to re-write the entire article in a traditional journalistic voice - e.g., instead of saying "Posting under the screen name 'Curio', Napolis began a pattern of harassment against those she believed were involved in the conspiracy", I'd re-write it as "an article in (insert source here) asserted that Napolis, posting under the screen-name 'Curio', began a pattern of harassment against those she believed were involved in the conspiracy". That way Wikipedia's only reporting assertions, not making them. That seems to work for journalists.
In fact, might it also be good to re-structure the article to a sequential account of her notable activities? I don't think we'd normally have an article on the average internet stalker (else they'd number in the millions). Maybe the article should establish her importance, and then place the more recent craziness further on, to give it its proper weight.
Anyway, I dunno. I'd like to see the article remain, even though I think she's only borderline notable. And while I'm no expert, I'd think it'll be very difficult to make an article on her withstand BLP challenges, since there aren't many positive things that could be said. So, that's the only reason I got involved.
AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting article, I read the "Michael Aquino response" too. I wonder whether investigators have gone back and looked at her work as a child abuse investigator and a licensed MFT in light of her delusions, which I think would be quite warranted. Also, the fact that she was apparently able to keep her delusions in check so long as she was on probation, and started up again once it was over suggests a certain shrewdness to her illness! Шизомби ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering why it was removed:
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS/ME): The Facts, Frankie Campling, Michael Sharpe, 2000, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780192630490 -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 15:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi - a little confused by your message... not sure if you realised that my last revision was simply some text next to the Open Directory Project link to state that it is what it is: a list of CFS-related organisations - I didn't think it was as clear as it could be. There's nothing against Wikipedia:MEDMOS#External_links there (in fact the policy encourages such a link), nor am I promoting anything, nor any of the other things you've told me to stop doing. I realise you've taken on a lot of the overseeing of this article, and that editing has to be tight where there is controversy, so I can understand your heavy-handedness - but I think saving such messages for those trying to push a particular POV or interest into the article would be a good idea. Apologies if this seems like a rant, it certainly isn't meant as such - I appreciate your work on this article, and I'm reasonably new to this. Always curious when I seem to have trod on a toe. - Bobathon ( talk) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
...or should I take this to AN/I? For what it's worth I accept your "I told you so" and am humbled for it. Padillah ( talk) 14:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have it but it is a pdf file. How could I attach that to an e-mail to you? Ward20 ( talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey WLU, it sounds like life is working you hard. Heh, wikipedia is actually me escape from the grind. Ah well, I don't suppose you want to come back and voice an opinion on including Rorschach's journal in the Watchmen? [22] I thought I had a massaged earlier versions into a good edit [23] but I am getting tired of it. Heck, I'd even appreciate it if you let me know if you think I am being a poor wiki-editor for pushing this. I hope things perk up. -- Bertrc ( talk) 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've replied to your problem on the Help_talk:Template#Help_with_infobox_publisher page Ronhjones ( talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I just want to pop in to say hi, it's been awhile and I didn't want you to think you were free of me! :) How's it going? Are you able to edit more often or are you still on a short leash? Well anyways, hope you are well. It's so cold here, but saying that I am in FL so things are as bad as it is in other places. Take care, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you have contributed to either or both of the aforementioned articles. If you have any thoughts about whether or not and/or how to merge the pages, please respond at the discussion page of negative pressure wound therapy. Thank you, Where next Columbus? ( talk) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi WLU,
I think you misunderstood what the following was about:
This isn't so much about SRA, but rather a before and after time line of when the "general public" started taking the sexual abuse of minors seriously. It didn't necessarily have to be the McMartin preschool case, and easily could have been a different one. McMartin just happened to be the first that generated a HUGE amount of media attention. Most likely, this was due to the then-recent discovery that AIDS isn't limited to homosexuals, and could infect anyone. Unfortunately for naturism, many Americans feel nudity and sex go hand-in-hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RGNU ( talk • contribs)
What do you mean by hardblock? Extending his 1-year ban to indefinite? Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you reported this user for vandalism and was surprised to see that he/she appears to have marked as resolved their own case here. Please also note that the photograph he has been trying to use for mouth breathing and is now on his talk page is actually the son of a fellow editor who has been trolled by this user. Titch Tucker ( talk) 15:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet. I have never edited using any other account (though I have been looking at wikipedia for some time). I consider false sockpuppet accusations a kind of personal attack. Henry James Fan ( talk) 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres. |
As you have shown an interest in Steven Erikson we thought you might like to take an interest in this well established WikiProject. |
You might like to take an extra interest in our Fantasy task force |
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Alan16 ( talk) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC) |
Friend of yours? PelleSmith ( talk) 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I just reread the Crohn's disease article and I have to admit I am disappointed. I think there is a lot of garbage now in it but need a POV check from you. If you have time can you take a look? I think if you read the lead you will see what I am talking about. Thanks in advance. It's been awhile so I hope you are well and busy with fun things! :) -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I was up by Disney myself about a year ago for the weekend with my family. My mom owns a timeshare near there. But I don't do Disney anymore, no patience with lines for a 3 sec ride. :)
Well I saw you did the external links again to remove the excess. I didn't get that far before I got sick. I am battling with the flu, yuck. Anyways, what do you think of my changes? I am really trying to be a lot more bolder than I have been. I am going to try to work another article, Diane Downs when I am feeling better. It needs a lot of work too and is also the target of vandals so it should be intersting to say the least. Well have a good trip and hope to see you on the flip side. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, a few days back (after spotting Mormon sex in chains case wrongly, though amusingly, placed in Category:Abduction claims), I eventually found my way to Talk:Alien abduction, where I read the discussion that led to renaming the article. If I had taken part in the discussion, I would have supported the name that you suggested, Alien abduction phenomenon -- and I still think that is preferable. I was planning to reopen that issue, in connection with renaming the poorly-named Category:Abduction phenomenon, which still retains the now-discarded prior name for the article. But another editor preempted my plans and opened a CFD to rename the category. It occurred to me that you might like to join the discussion. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi WLU with regards to the removal of the following text from ther above page:
Am sorry you have overstepped the mark! These organisations relevant. If you check the page as it stands the remaining organisations are USA based. So I have undone the edit and dispute your claim to remove them as unber the WP EL. These medical conditions are not the sole domain of the USA, in fact are unfirtuantely world wide. WIKI is NOT the sole domain of the USA either. I have family in Ohio and NY so am not anti USA at all, as you see I'm UK born, now residing in Australia and I have Crohns...Kind Regards Zippomk2 ( talk) 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't agree with your arbitray decision on exclusion and to leave the External Links, see below;
The links I inserted are no different to the remaining two in anyway shape or form. Except they are US based, which is you re read my post above is what I was and still am getting at. I will as you suggest and I was going to anyway refer all 5 (five) for the Open Data Project as the remaining two are also an External Link and fall into Wiki Criteria as such. Zippomk2 ( talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed the above article for deletion, because I have taken the info, and it has been split into three other articles. Founding Races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series - Foreign Races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series - Human Races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series.
The idea is that rather than having 4 pages open to read about the Tiste Andii for example, you'll now only need one. It isn't finished yet, but the page I proposed for deletion is now no longer needed. Thanks, Alan16 talk 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Undent. Honestly, I think at least the Malazan Empire could be a standalone page with a {{ main}}. Look how long the tables of contents are - it's a section in and of itself. I don't really have time to look into it today (and I don't really check my watchlist anymore) but I'll try to get around to reviewing the current pages. I may also end up reverting in some cases, but I'll try to convince you to do it instead. Have a look at WP:LENGTH though - if any of your articles are brushing against the higher values, consider re-splitting them and just using {{ main}} templates to link appropriately. So long as each page covers a substantive volume of text in appropriate detail, there's no need to reduce the number of pages that exist. For instance, I would think Malazan Empire and The Bridgeburners are sufficiently lengthy (or potentially so) to exist as standalone articles. I would also suggest not using a lot of section titles, because of what it does to the table of contents (and with very little value added to most readers, I would think).
The other issue to consider is updating the {{ MBF}} template - it's at (or should be at) the foot of all the MBF pages. It can be edited like any other page, it's just a matter of finding it. It should also be kept up to date with the page changes, though I can do that if you'd like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I can only defend it as based on my judgement; if you look at the last version, read it with an eye towards detail. Remember that this is not encyclopedia malazica, it's a general purpose encyclopedia written for the world at large. We have a template {{ In-universe}}, and were I not to merge it, I probably would have thought it deserved that tag. How much of the information can stand alone, can be read without having to read a large number of other pages on the Malazan world? How much of it makes sense without the larger context? How much of it is original research and inference? Is it necessary to have the names of all the members of T'orrud Cabal? Is it encyclopedic to have such a detailed description, lifted probably from a single page or even paragraph within the book, of the "crooked aisles" of Lakefront when Lakefront is undefined? The consecration of K'rul's belfry when K'rul is undefined? I'm not trying to be pedantic or lecture (though I'm probably succeeding, which I can't seem to help), I'm trying to give a sense of some of the background that informed that particular edit. Most of these pages are actually on the fence, if not far into the territory of speedy deletion candidates, because they lack real-world context that is our standard of notability. Have a look at WP:FICTION too - a significant portion of the community would clearly and happily see most of these pages deleted, and I can't really argue with them because they pretty clearly fail WP:N. It's only my love of the series that keeps me from deleting them (and the screams of many fans who would doubtless vandalize my talk page into oblivion), and the only way I can see to help preserve them not only from deletion but from cruftland is to roll the smaller pages into the larger ones, while trying to keep it to the essential details. If you are unsure about the edit still, could I suggest you look into a third opinion? In large part, my decision was a judgement call based on experience, and I'm pretty sure a 3O would back that up - at some point all long-term editors have to strike a balance between the topics they love and the detail they'd like to give it, and the realistic demands of wikipedia if it wants to be an encyclopedia that is taken seriously.
Um, yeah. WP:TLDR may apply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 02:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
You uploaded the banner to Wikipedia so I assumed it was free use - like the Erikson picture. If you want me to remove, just say so.
Also, I have an E-Mail stating that the author (Aiden Moher - a guy who writes a blog on fantasy novels) releases it under the GFDL. And the rational was okay I thought. After all there is no way it could be used for profit, and if it was to be used on a large scale, then it would be of a lower quality. Alan16 talk 11:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we have a hardcore POV pusher on this article. The article seems to have largely been reverted back to an old version from before ResearchEditor was banned with no edit comment, and the talk page was attempted to be "archived" by wiping out all of the discussion completely. Once he was caught he started with personal insults and making clims that his own personal experiences of having multiple personalities prove the condition is real and yada yada yada. Not sure if we have a sock or just a bad editor reverting back to an old, POV-pushing version quite aggressively. DreamGuy ( talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
WLU, thank you for your edits on Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The article flows a lot better after your edits. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please except this to you to show how much I appreciate your friendship and time you have spent helping me to become a better Wikipedian. Thank you very much for being my friend and always having a helping hand for me when I need it.
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
I award this Barnstar to WLU for the kindness, friendship and help. Thanks for always being there for me! -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)-- |
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/conditions/digestive/crohns-disease/surgery/intestinal-transplant Is this a WP:RS? It has information that I have read about. I have read that this surgery was done once and with success out of the USA. I don't remember all of the details, sorry, but I know I was very intrigued esp. since I am close to having problems with Short bowel syndrome do to multiple surgeries. I just can't tell if this site is reliable for the information given. It kind of looks like a sales site when looking through it but I need an opinion about this one. My POV is definitely getting in my way on this one. Though I like the idea of this surgery being able to help, I am not sure it really can be done on a regular basis to help CD patients. I could go on but it's not necessary since you know me well enough to know my POV about this. Your opinion would help, as usual take your time. Thanks again! Also, sorry for taking too long to show my appreciations for all of your help. I hope you enjoy the barnstar, you really deserve it and more with all you have done to help me. -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Incase you haven't seen this I thought you would be interested. Hope you are well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Undent. I just checked Guido's talk page history, and it looks pretty much like bullshit. If the best he can manage is one person letting me know, and one person telling me something I was already aware of, it's not much of an issue. I do think it's something to be aware of, but not paranoid of. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you've been around a while, so I guess you know where to shove put this:
All the best, I hope it's the right one. Verbal chat 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What do you mean that the previous RFCU turned up unflagged accounts? Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You changed the pedophilia in books article. I've not read the book myself, but I have read reviews that say it is Eli (a girl) who is the pedophile's object, not the boy Oscar. Are these reviews incorrect? 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Tony
Eli is a castrated boy (actually a step beyond castration because his penis was removed, not just his testicles). The book portray's Oscar's initial perception of Eli as being a girl, but later it is revealed that he/she/it is a eunuch.
Autism therapies #Educational interventions is supposed to be listed roughly in order of most-to-least proven. I agree that this is hard (there obviously isn't universal agreement on that order) but I thought it better than alphabetic. Currently the article doesn't list DIR/Floortime mostly because nobody has taken the time to write a reasonable short summary of it. It's a tricky business, as Myers et al. 2007 ( PMID 17967921), our most reliable source on autism therapies, doesn't mention DIR/Floortime, Greenspan et al. 2008 ( PMID 18381546) complained about this omission, neither I nor anybody else has taken the time to wade through this tricky topic. Eubulides ( talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Please be fare and leave more than one reference website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.93.111 ( talk) 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not need to make a case. Spend 5 seconds on the website, and you will see. GenXGlow has also made significant contributions within the glowsticking youtube community. see: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=GenXGlowDotCom&view=videos&query=glowsticking
Please stop wasting my time, I do not have much time for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.93.111 ( talk) 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone watch this page? Check out the contributions of Neil Brick on Citizendium - [26]. Anyone who knew ResearchEditor should check out some talk page contributions too, they're pretty similar... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments, yes you can indeed remove Talk Page material if it does not pertain to improving the article. Article Talk Pages are not forums or message boards, and thus, using them for general discussion of the article's topic is not permitted. You say that some of the material has "merit". In terms of a discussion about the magazine, yes, but in terms of Talk Page guidelines, it has none, since there is no discussion about improving the article in that thread. If, however, you can point where there is mention of improving the article in that section, I'll hold off from removing it again. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I thought I'd read something like that before, but I wasn't certain. Alan16 talk 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I'm actually in agreement with you regarding Satanic Panics. O'Brien has pointed to Hammond's speech as proof that she's not nuts. If I can find a reference from a decent source, I'll use that instead. I feel it's important when editing articles about such fringe figures to include material that is supportive of their claims even if that support is in and of itself not proof. At the time of the speech, Hammond's comments were considered remarkable and important. Even though he has backed away from them somewhat, he has stopped short of disavowing the speech. The speech is one of the few examples of "establishment" support for such claims. Clearly I need to find a better way of including it if it's to be included at all. I'll check back with you if I find anything that stands up to scrutiny and I won't include it without talking to you first.
I see you have also made some edits to Ralph Rene. His is another article that often gets tipped over towards out and out ridicule of the man. Please help me prevent that article from tipping in that direction in the future if you can. It's easy for some Skeptics to justify savaging elderly or recently deceased conspiracy theorists, but I don't think that serves the Wikipedia purpose any more than an overly indulgent article would. As a "rational skeptic" myself , I feel we have a duty to accurately represent what these folks believed, why they are notable, support for their positions and reasonable criticisms of their theories and/or the support for them. A well-sourced article can speak for itself and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
On another matter, I see you have an interest in moral panics. Would you consider taking a look at the following article: Gerald Robinson (priest)?
As a folklorist and someone with ties to the Toledo are, I followed this case with interest. At first it was fairly obvious that the priest was the object of a witch hunt. However, Toledo is an odd place. Over the past ten years there have been a number of very public Catholic Pedophile cases and when Robinson was arrested, the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, assigned a reporter whose editorial stance seemed highly antagonistic towards The Church. His reporting gradually focused more and more on increasingly bizarre and tangential accusations of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Most of what he wrote about never made it into the trial but it did have the intended effect of whipping a certain sector of the community into a frenzy. Even so, most people in Toledo were shocked that he was convicted and don't believe the accusations. Locally, the case has been compared to that of the West Memphis 3. The reporter for The Blade apparently already had a book deal in hand before the case was decided and it appears to me (in my humble opinion) that it may have colored his reporting significantly.
All I ask is that you look the article over and decide if there should be a separate article on the crime itself and one for his Bio. That is often what editors do when the crime itself has fantastic elements such as satanism alleged. This way the bio of living persons standards can be applied to the bio article and the crime article can contain all the crazy stuff. If you decide that two articles aren't justified, please just look over the article and see if you can't bring a little balance to it. As it stands now, it reads like this "Evil Satanist priest kills nun and now is properly rotting in jail". I recognize that the man was convicted of the murder and that belongs in his bio. He may even be guilty of the crime. The thing is, the satanism stuff is almost all coming from one reporter. The jury didn't convict him of being a satanist or for being part of a vast satanic conspiracy, ya know? They only convicted him of murder.
If you don't have time for this, I understand. I merely thought you might be of some assistance given your recent edits. Thanks for reading and have a great weekend! LiPollis ( talk) 03:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your comment here was at the very least BITEy. I see no sign of trolling in the guy's posts. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to have a look at that article. the two books you linked to are in fact, about the case. The second book you linked to by David Yonke will not likely be a good source NPOV facts. He's the reporter from the Toledo Blade. His writing leans in favor of Satanic Ritual Abuse and satanic conspiracies. However, his book is likely to contain more direct information on the trial since he covered that beat. The first book looks to be a typical lurid true crime book cranked out to coincide with the release of Yonke's book. The author, John Glatt, is as true-crime writer who pumps books like this on a regular basis. He doesn't usual have any direct involvement in the cases he writes about.
The most helpful comment you have made is to point out that the article really ought to be renamed. Your proposed name sounds fine to me and I would support your making the change. That would solve the immediate problem of the POV issues in a BLP article. Going ahead with the name change would put the focus on the crime itself and make it much easier to introduce facts about the case. In the event that you want to do some reading, Court TV's article is a good place to start. It's a good representation of the lurid nature of the reporting on the crime and the case at is progressed. Here's the link: Killer Clergy.
Thanks again for everything. I'm not a Wiki novice but I've not had a lot of time to edit in the past year. I've gotten a little rusty. Also, when an article is just thoroughly troubled, it's often hard to know where to begin! Thanks again. LiPollis ( talk) 18:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'll remember it next time, and avoid wasting my time on debates where people have made up their minds and are not planning on changing any time soon. I've started this one though, so I'll see it through to the now somewhat inevitable result. Thanks. Alan16 talk 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
WLU,
I am interested to hear the reasons that led you to think that the connection between interest (emotion) and attention is an example of Non sequitur (logic). Diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Attention&diff=prev&oldid=278541451
I might as well misunderstood the revert you made.
Perhaps you think there is a connection, but you didn't like the way it was illustrated in the text you reverted? In that case, for the purpose of better illustrating the connection perhaps you might want to formulate something like this: "This however does not happen unrelated to emotions and their intensity levels. The more one finds oneself intensively interested in particular content of another person's conversation, while at the same time one finds the third persons conversations' contents much less interesting, the more - if not entirely exclusively - one finds one's own attention getting concentrated on one conversation only, or - in the other case - the more one can find one's own attention being shared among other, not so interesting conversations, or other not so interesting aspects of one's environment at the time, and/or withdrawn and directed instead at one's own thoughts/memories/plans/etc, not paying attention to what's being said." I wonder if such formulation makes sense to you, or it should be re-formulated furtherly yet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.237.17 ( talk) 10:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask you if you would like to look and give your opinion on the new Articles for deletion proposal for FreeOrion. I wrote a new version article and I would like to ask you if you could vote on it FreeOrion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeOrion (3rd nomination). Thank you! Peer-LAN ( talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, lurking as usual, check your email, maybe it will help a bit. To others lurking, this email has absolutely nothing to do with the project in anyway. I hope you enjoy it ;), -- CrohnieGal Talk 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white ( talk • contribs)
Hi. I was interested that you removed the external link on the Hypnosis page to hypnosisandsuggestion.org. As far as I can tell it meets the external link guidelines and provides referenced information that contains too much detail to be easily incorporated into the main page. Any chance you could have another look? MatWhalley ( talk) 11:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Frederick_Crews.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast ( talk) 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Minuscules are also codices. Mojority of codices are written in minuscule hand. I do not understand this edit. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I didn't realize someone had a nice explanation already summarized. -- MartinezMD ( talk) 23:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
...nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis...
I'll comment; in the future, do ask at WP:PWNB. It's not only admins who can help with this. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the warning you issued to User:212.88.54.20 was part of a content dispute. Please be careful to only assign vandalism templates (you used {{ uw-vandalism1}}) when there is actually WP:Vandalism - good-faith edits, even if they harm the encyclopedia, are not vandalism. -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think your thoughts might be very useful at Talk:Internet homicide#Name. I thought of you because 1, you are uninvolved and 2, you are extremely policy driven which in this case might be well served. If you are interested pop over. If not, as usual, just ignore. :)
On a different note, I hope you are well. Things here are about the same but I see a neurosurgeon this week and I have high hopes that I will get some simple help with things. I know, I am opening the door to being let down, depressed and frustrated. I'll email when and if I learn anything new. You take care, I'm off to go lie down again. My heating pad is my best friend these days. Thanks, and be well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've made the case here indicating some of the imbalance I'm seeing in the Aquatic ape hypothesis article. Can you do a considered response? It strikes me that the arguments for AAH are excluded, while many of the counter arguments we're quoting are really quite feeble - or down-right wrong. I can provide more examples than what I've done so far, but here's another - Morgan makes a powerful claim (that we don't include) "Only two kinds of environment are known to be conducive to nakedness in mammals - a totally subterranean one, like that of the naked Somalian mole-rat, and an aquatic one" - and the article pretends to counter it with "most similarly-sized aquatic mammals have dense, insulating fur ... swim very well". We can't solve this argument, but neither should we be erecting (or allowing others to erect) straw-man arguments that bear no relation to the theory. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Mediation's been started on a Mediation Cabal case where you have been listed. I'd appreciate it if you and the parties involved show up and we can solve this issue. Concrete 22:22, 10 May 2009 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi! they are deleting your uploads on commons, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Pitch drop experiment images. / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU -
I was surprised to see that you added this extrenal link, because I've seen you remove so many EL's or replace them with DMOZ links, especially when the EL's have advertising as that one does. I've removed it because it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:EL, in that it contains nothing that could not be in the article, if the article were of top quality. As a footnote, that source is not reliable, though the sources mentioned on the page at that link might be reliable. To be clear, I am not in the least supporting the idea of past life regression as science, it's not. This is only about the use of the EL. I have no doubt that your attention will improve the article. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
[1] This is a nobel topic but look at this stub! I don't even know where to start with this one since it is developed on supposed testimonials. Add to that the comments that the diet helps people like me live a normal life just pushed me over the edge that I cannot edit it any further do to my own restrictions about editing articles I have a strong POV about. Would you mind taking a peek? Personally I would like to see it speedy deleted and a new article if someone desires to do so. I've never done a delete request so I don't know what to do, I do know how to delete though I suspect that would be greatly frowned on. ;) Don't worry, kidding. Anyways I would love your opinion on what to do and how to it. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but the quality of an article is under threat. If you have time can you take a look at RFC nr 3 in the talkpage of the bates method article. See : [ [3]] . It is about mention objective results presented by ophthalmology about the Woods results. These results represent perfectly why the Batesmethod / NVI is controversial. It presents negative, positive and neutral results. The scientific reference which confirms the BM / NVI is controversial : [ [4]]. These Woods results have been presented for a while but aren now removed !!! Please comment if you agree or do not agree by providing your arguments on which it is based. See also the listed arguments at this moment. Appreciate your objective comment. regards, Seeyou ( talk) 11:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference. Material has been restored to the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
In addition to all of the publication histories, sections on literary significance and images of first editions from my own collection, I did a lot of work on the Christie pages to standardise the lay-outs and bring them in line as much as possible and in keeping with the Wikinovels template, especially with the page for "And Then There Were None" as the world and his dog seems to go to that page (ignoring the ones for works like "Poems" - can't think why!) and then make "helpful" changes. The end result has been a right mongerel of a page, in addition to the almost daily vandalism that the page suffers. I agree to an extent with your comments on the IMDB links for some of the films/tv series and I suppose there is no harm in deleting those links where there is a seperate page for film but not all of the films do have such a page and I think those should stay. I do disagree with you about the link for Burgh Island. Rarely has a book been written whose locale has so obviously been transferred to the written page and its importance is stressed in books such as the "The Readers Companion" that I quoted yesterday. It would be advertising if I had any link with island or lived in Devon (and I am the only person on this site who linked the two pages) but I live in Essex and have never even stepped foot in Devon in my life and know of no one who has any connections there! To not draw the reader's attention to the existance of the island would be to delete a crucial piece of information on the book.-- Jtomlin1uk ( talk) 09:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
[6], [7] & [8] Kind of an unusual way of thinking of 3RR to me but anyways I thought you would be interested that he is off the month block and this is unfortunately the way things have been going.
Just curious but have you been watching the latest Giano soap at his page, administrator board and the arbitrators board? If you want difs let me know but to me from just watching all of this and a few other political BS the voting for arbs is going to be a priority. I think for the health of the project there needs to be some big changes in the sitting arbitrators to end the clicks and the poitical garbage. I just know we need to get some new arbs there to help the arbs who are trying so hard to be fair, transparant and for the good of the community. I hope you are well. -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC) If you decide to check out the arb board, the Matthew Hoffman case is also a joke.
I'm off work 'till monday, but I'll have a look then. If I forget please remind me. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You are currently close to violating WP:3RR on Talk:Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. Please stop. Do not edit other people's talk contributions at all. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you cut back Body Memory recently. There is a related page, Somatic Psychology [9] that also contains some unverified material and some waffle. I eliminated many of the most obvious examples a while ago, but perhaps if you have any time, you could also take a look. Cheers MatthewTStone ( talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks WLU i wanted to add diffs, some people were asking the blocking admin for them and i was seeing not them. I won't add comment there now. One thing i disagree with you, is , i am not sure i am so restrained!! Some times i am making some exasparated edit summaries but who does not w/ Guido, it is very hard. RetroS1mone talk 01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to pop in and see if you saw Guido's user page, and obviously you have. Thank you for your kind comment above about me. :) The thing is, the reasons I hold back on editing things that are obviously are very strong opinions for me, do to my poor health problems, is what I see happening with Guido. I totally understand that he wants the info to be there so others don't have to 'suffer' like he is, which is the problem with editing a page you are so totally emotionally involved in. There is a lot of information I'd love to put into the Crohn's disease article so that others don't have to have the problems that I have now because of not being diagnosed in time to prevent all the damage I now have. He could edit in other areas but of course he is here for specific reasons, to make sure the articles are true and correct to his prospective. These two don't work very well to edit an article, emotional, and RL living with the pain and loss of losing control over one's only body. I really wish I could get him to understand that he is too emotional to be editing the articles he has chosen but he doesn't seem to see things the way I do. I am sorry but I can't help feeling some kind of a understanding though in what he says. I just wish he would do it differently. I find the way he interprets policies kind of different then the rest of us which I see as part of the problems he has too. I was floored by the interpretations of the 3rr rules he stated for example. I am saddened by all of this though but I know the project isn't helped like this and his health is more important then the project. I know I have to step away from here at times do to I don't allow this place to be stressful for me. I am here to help and to find something to do with myself to keep my brain busy on other things, does this make sense? Oh well, thanks, talk to you soon.-- CrohnieGal Talk 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete, justice has been served. Horray! WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Boy I do like the attitude of the two of you, thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am not going to argue about your recent changes in Weightlifting, but I do believe that the sentence you removed commenting the coin is very valid for Wikipedia. It gives, from another angle, the importance of the sport. Since you left the image of the coin and changed its comment, I will leave it as it is. I just wanted to point out that the comment "... it is not valid for Wikipedia at all ..." I do not agree with it.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 03:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know whether you see Child-on-child sexual abuse as a fringe topic in any way, or if you share my concerns about sourcing bias (selection and use) and the volatility/indefinite nature of the lead. forestPIG (grunt) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You might (maybe) be interested in GDBs most recent edit to his user page, and my follow up on his talk. It probably isn't interesting though... Verbal chat 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
If you've an interest in User:Guido den Broeder, see here. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
G'day WLU
I wasn't aware of the DMOZ guidelines. Thanks for highlighting the finer points. As a newcomer here I've done a lot of looking around and given consideration to how others have gone about their entries. TBH haven't seen the 'DMOZ' at all. In this instance then the Open Resource needs to be clarified as the entry point to External Links with all new readers and us with our learner plates on?
I'm here to learn WLU and have to say the Wiki rules are complex. I appreciate that this is the way its done but its not very user friendly and its a great way to share valuable information across the world. Thanks again & Merry Christmas Zippomk2 ( talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU - I noticed a recent edit to Motivation for rape and checked it out. In reviewing the page history, I found that the same edit had been done previously and apparently reverted, and now being done again. It seems to me unlikely that it's supported by the sources. I was going to revert it, but I noticed you had edited the article so I thought I'd check it with you first, since I have not read all the sources used on that page. What do you think, should it be changed back? -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 07:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You have mail! :) No rush as usual. I hope you are well, happy editing, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
[12]I thought you would be interested. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU and assorted watchers, I saw GDB move his experiment to a new page, so I've tagged it for deletion above. We should probably move forward with the ANI soon too. Does that need any further work? Thanks, Verbal chat 13:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Along with Verbal to this. Let the games begin? I sure hope not but I thought you should know if you weren't aware.-- CrohnieGal Talk 14:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You are currently close to breaking WP:3RR on Chronic fatigue syndrome, with 3 reverts in a couple of hours. Please consider other ways of editing than reverting everything you don't agree with. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to re-review, but isn't it not 3rr if I revert to "various" versions? - no, sorry, quite wrong. *Any* revert counts. And yes, I have noticed the discussion is closed - this is just for info. Be aware of [13], though it doesn't help in this case William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
[14] Since you have been gathering difs it might be useful for you here plus save you sometime that can be used to work on articles. I haven't commented yet. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Will do (sorry, been busy with pre-Christmas work). Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 14:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Enjoy your break! Sorry for kicking off a lot of work for you just as I had to leave my PC for 24hrs - I didn't think a simple MfD with clear policy support would lead to ANI and the ban quite so quickly (if I was into conspiracy theories I might think someone pushed it fast to try to derail your efforts). If I can help you on any articles that need attention just let me know. Remember to take Christmas off! Yours, Verbal chat 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi... in response to your comment on Jimbo's talkpage, I don't see any need to keep compiling diffs and stuff for an AN posting (kudos for blanking it, too). Guido is gone, he's unlikely to ever be back, it's not really fair I think to keep on at him. If he ever comes back then dig it up again, sure, but he's already been banned so I don't think we need to keep waving the pitchforks, y'know? Personally, I'd add a {{ db-user}} to the page, but that's your call. // roux 17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through the old talk page of Broeder, and I gotta say, you gave him a lot of chances. You were civil to him repeatedly. I still don't know if I fully support the commnity ban, because I don't understand everything that happened, but I think you treated Broeder better than most editors would. travb ( talk) 20:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you were not notified I thought I would bring this to your attentions. This is to notify you of a conversation on the ANI board that might be of interest to you. Hope you are well. -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice work!! You beat me to the punch as I was looking for those sources. Just one small thing - two of the links to the IPF World Championships (Denmark and Canada), don't work. Just a heads up! -- Yankees76 ( talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm really stressed out right now, I'm probably too unstalbe to be editing Wikipedia right now. I'm just upset because an article I spent two hours making ogt deleted. I feel like killing myself. Sorry if I put htat speedy tsg up and offended you. I'm done with wikipedia anyway. Mrld ( talk) 01:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you changed the references in Watchmen to include citation templates. However, it is proper proceedure on Wikipedia to add references in the style established in the article. You're not supposed to completely change the reference style. Cite templates haven't been used in the article since they are needlessly complex. You also did a fair bit of overlinking; be careful not to link words unless it is necessary for context. I've reverted your changes for the time being. See Wikipedia:Citation templates and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. If you have any questions, let me know. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I added a second paragraph to my user page. If you feel like it and wouldn't mind would you do a copy edit for me? I mean I don't know this stuff too well and did my best to update what going on since I've been grouchy lately. I know you can't know exactly what is going on but you can get an idea from what I have written. I just want to make sure it reads ok esp. since I am really bad with run-on sentences. Thanks, and remember there is never any pressure from me about things. Just so you know, I got testy yesterday, which you know I don't usually do, but I did apologize this morning which was accepted by the editor. I am glad the editor understood and everything seems to be ok. We have never run into each other before so being grumpy in my responses were not to cool to me. Oh well, I guess it's true, I'm only human after all! :) Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Over in the watchmen article, I've been trying to count all opinions from the various discussion threads on R's journal, but Preppy is a little focused on the specific "need a vote" [18] thread. My own fault for creating it, I guess. Would you mind making a yea or nay in that thread, if you want the journal included? -- Bertrc ( talk) 08:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought this might be of interest to you. It's being put together now and since it is new and since you have sort of dealt with this I thought you might be interested in a link to it.
On a different note, I like what you are doing with my page. I put the disclosure on my talk page so that if anyone questioned your editing of my page you could show it was with my knowledge. :) I will have to look closely at what you have done when you are finished because I have a real problem with coding and the such. I have absolutely no idea how to do a lot of the ocding stuff. You can say I am one of those dummies when it comes to learning how to use code which is a big drawback at times. So thanks again, I look forward to watching what else you have in mind to do. What can I say, I am easily ammused. Oh and I got a laugh at being order to come fix dinner, I left the computer under the same circumstances.HA! -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
How do you go about listing a picture for deletion that is an obvious copy from the web? I stumbled across this today. Here's the picture on another website: [19] and here's the Wikipedia image that was just uploaded the other day. [20]. It's the exact same image. -- Yankees76 ( talk) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
A lot of water under the bridge, but I appreciated the link you provided (somewhere!) to the Sept 08 discusion on naming. A great discussion chaired by you but a pity it did not reach a 'logical' conclusion, and seems to have got lost somewhere!. You made i think a good summary point that both CFS and ME fall on a continuum of similar conditions, even if diagnosis for one may exclude the other, and i think you got high consensus for that. However it was also clear that neither the description/crieria for CFS or ME described the continuum in full. Clearly there is no official name for this yet and time and research should eventually clarify it. In the meantime use of the terms ME/CFS or if you prefer CFS/ME has it seems been adopted elsewhere as more inclusive. That is the way the three editors including myself ( none of whom contributed to the recent discussion) saw it when we spent many months subdividing the Article. With a further qualification that all edits should specify which criteria was used in patient selections, so as not to confuse the readers. The fact that some researchers and editors want to use the term CFS as a continuum descriptor IMHO is only heaping another layer of confusion upon readers. I personally prefer CFS and ME to be covered in the same Article, (as above) much the same as sudden onset vs delayed, post viral vs psychiatric etc. But think it inaccurate and retrograde to use CFS as a blanket title and descriptor for a range of conditions, only one of which its definition describes, until there is unanimous agreement for that in the literature. Thanks Jagra ( talk) 03:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
What do you think? Worth an article? I don't know if you have a COI, feel free to email me from my talk page. dougweller ( talk) 09:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Mattmr. 71.194.32.252 ( talk) 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi WLU, FYI some editors at Chronic fatigue syndrome have talked about banning me. That is a later step in a dispute process, but it can start with a request for comment about me and i think comments are good. I sent some of the editors the guidelines for Rfc [21]. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there you've got mail! Warning, I'm in a bad mood so it's a bit testy what I need to chat about. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the controversy will always be there with that article by the nature of the topic. There are some articles that are so contentious that every word is argued over. I think the exact wording in the quotes will be helpful when the next person comes along to challenge. I am a big reader of biographies, and 1/3 of the text in one in print can be the reference and endnote sections. No one is expected to read all of them in a book, and no one is expected to in an article. But, when you are a serious researcher looking for an exact source, and an exact quote, I am glad they are there, and are complete. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
WLU, I wonder if I could get you to watchlist this page for a few weeks -- and then (really) to do nothing about it, except to glance over the talk page comments every couple of days, to be sort of an extended part of my memory? I'm starting to think about what it would take for an involuntary topic ban for a user that is having trouble with the difference between WP:V and Truth™, but I don't have time or energy to deal with it right now, and I don't want to make hasty decisions.
In the nature of fair warning: Nearly every editor has a very strong, deeply personal POV. Most have some level of conflict of interest (e.g., one of them is named in the article, another is a real-world friend...) There's usually a fair bit of yelling on the page, and a good deal of edit warring. This request is sort of like asking a friend to help you muck out the basement after a flood, and I know you're busy, so if you're not up to it, that's just fine. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) (who will watch this page for a few days)
Thanks for cleaning up after me--and I think you know that "misspelling" wasn't the right word: it was a leftover from the Dutch article. ;) Drmies ( talk) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#CFS.2FME_text_under_header
You were involved in the whole naming thing, so I think it's fair to give you a chance to comment on it. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sort of ;) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
No harm intended. I'm no expert on WP:BLP, just so you know. My reason for doing that little edit was that I was worried that mentioning the harassment in the lead paragraph, so prominently, gave that one fact undue weight and made it possible that it could result in a WP:BLP challenge - thus putting the whole page in jeopardy. I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seemed to be the type of assertion that someone could argue is libelous... and some of her associates do come to Wikipedia. Really, just seeing the "she harasses people on the internet" in the first paragraph made my alarm bells go off.
Personally, I think it might be wise to re-write the entire article in a traditional journalistic voice - e.g., instead of saying "Posting under the screen name 'Curio', Napolis began a pattern of harassment against those she believed were involved in the conspiracy", I'd re-write it as "an article in (insert source here) asserted that Napolis, posting under the screen-name 'Curio', began a pattern of harassment against those she believed were involved in the conspiracy". That way Wikipedia's only reporting assertions, not making them. That seems to work for journalists.
In fact, might it also be good to re-structure the article to a sequential account of her notable activities? I don't think we'd normally have an article on the average internet stalker (else they'd number in the millions). Maybe the article should establish her importance, and then place the more recent craziness further on, to give it its proper weight.
Anyway, I dunno. I'd like to see the article remain, even though I think she's only borderline notable. And while I'm no expert, I'd think it'll be very difficult to make an article on her withstand BLP challenges, since there aren't many positive things that could be said. So, that's the only reason I got involved.
AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting article, I read the "Michael Aquino response" too. I wonder whether investigators have gone back and looked at her work as a child abuse investigator and a licensed MFT in light of her delusions, which I think would be quite warranted. Also, the fact that she was apparently able to keep her delusions in check so long as she was on probation, and started up again once it was over suggests a certain shrewdness to her illness! Шизомби ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering why it was removed:
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS/ME): The Facts, Frankie Campling, Michael Sharpe, 2000, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780192630490 -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 15:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi - a little confused by your message... not sure if you realised that my last revision was simply some text next to the Open Directory Project link to state that it is what it is: a list of CFS-related organisations - I didn't think it was as clear as it could be. There's nothing against Wikipedia:MEDMOS#External_links there (in fact the policy encourages such a link), nor am I promoting anything, nor any of the other things you've told me to stop doing. I realise you've taken on a lot of the overseeing of this article, and that editing has to be tight where there is controversy, so I can understand your heavy-handedness - but I think saving such messages for those trying to push a particular POV or interest into the article would be a good idea. Apologies if this seems like a rant, it certainly isn't meant as such - I appreciate your work on this article, and I'm reasonably new to this. Always curious when I seem to have trod on a toe. - Bobathon ( talk) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
...or should I take this to AN/I? For what it's worth I accept your "I told you so" and am humbled for it. Padillah ( talk) 14:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have it but it is a pdf file. How could I attach that to an e-mail to you? Ward20 ( talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey WLU, it sounds like life is working you hard. Heh, wikipedia is actually me escape from the grind. Ah well, I don't suppose you want to come back and voice an opinion on including Rorschach's journal in the Watchmen? [22] I thought I had a massaged earlier versions into a good edit [23] but I am getting tired of it. Heck, I'd even appreciate it if you let me know if you think I am being a poor wiki-editor for pushing this. I hope things perk up. -- Bertrc ( talk) 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've replied to your problem on the Help_talk:Template#Help_with_infobox_publisher page Ronhjones ( talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I just want to pop in to say hi, it's been awhile and I didn't want you to think you were free of me! :) How's it going? Are you able to edit more often or are you still on a short leash? Well anyways, hope you are well. It's so cold here, but saying that I am in FL so things are as bad as it is in other places. Take care, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you have contributed to either or both of the aforementioned articles. If you have any thoughts about whether or not and/or how to merge the pages, please respond at the discussion page of negative pressure wound therapy. Thank you, Where next Columbus? ( talk) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi WLU,
I think you misunderstood what the following was about:
This isn't so much about SRA, but rather a before and after time line of when the "general public" started taking the sexual abuse of minors seriously. It didn't necessarily have to be the McMartin preschool case, and easily could have been a different one. McMartin just happened to be the first that generated a HUGE amount of media attention. Most likely, this was due to the then-recent discovery that AIDS isn't limited to homosexuals, and could infect anyone. Unfortunately for naturism, many Americans feel nudity and sex go hand-in-hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RGNU ( talk • contribs)
What do you mean by hardblock? Extending his 1-year ban to indefinite? Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you reported this user for vandalism and was surprised to see that he/she appears to have marked as resolved their own case here. Please also note that the photograph he has been trying to use for mouth breathing and is now on his talk page is actually the son of a fellow editor who has been trolled by this user. Titch Tucker ( talk) 15:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet. I have never edited using any other account (though I have been looking at wikipedia for some time). I consider false sockpuppet accusations a kind of personal attack. Henry James Fan ( talk) 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres. |
As you have shown an interest in Steven Erikson we thought you might like to take an interest in this well established WikiProject. |
You might like to take an extra interest in our Fantasy task force |
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Alan16 ( talk) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC) |
Friend of yours? PelleSmith ( talk) 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I just reread the Crohn's disease article and I have to admit I am disappointed. I think there is a lot of garbage now in it but need a POV check from you. If you have time can you take a look? I think if you read the lead you will see what I am talking about. Thanks in advance. It's been awhile so I hope you are well and busy with fun things! :) -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I was up by Disney myself about a year ago for the weekend with my family. My mom owns a timeshare near there. But I don't do Disney anymore, no patience with lines for a 3 sec ride. :)
Well I saw you did the external links again to remove the excess. I didn't get that far before I got sick. I am battling with the flu, yuck. Anyways, what do you think of my changes? I am really trying to be a lot more bolder than I have been. I am going to try to work another article, Diane Downs when I am feeling better. It needs a lot of work too and is also the target of vandals so it should be intersting to say the least. Well have a good trip and hope to see you on the flip side. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, a few days back (after spotting Mormon sex in chains case wrongly, though amusingly, placed in Category:Abduction claims), I eventually found my way to Talk:Alien abduction, where I read the discussion that led to renaming the article. If I had taken part in the discussion, I would have supported the name that you suggested, Alien abduction phenomenon -- and I still think that is preferable. I was planning to reopen that issue, in connection with renaming the poorly-named Category:Abduction phenomenon, which still retains the now-discarded prior name for the article. But another editor preempted my plans and opened a CFD to rename the category. It occurred to me that you might like to join the discussion. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi WLU with regards to the removal of the following text from ther above page:
Am sorry you have overstepped the mark! These organisations relevant. If you check the page as it stands the remaining organisations are USA based. So I have undone the edit and dispute your claim to remove them as unber the WP EL. These medical conditions are not the sole domain of the USA, in fact are unfirtuantely world wide. WIKI is NOT the sole domain of the USA either. I have family in Ohio and NY so am not anti USA at all, as you see I'm UK born, now residing in Australia and I have Crohns...Kind Regards Zippomk2 ( talk) 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't agree with your arbitray decision on exclusion and to leave the External Links, see below;
The links I inserted are no different to the remaining two in anyway shape or form. Except they are US based, which is you re read my post above is what I was and still am getting at. I will as you suggest and I was going to anyway refer all 5 (five) for the Open Data Project as the remaining two are also an External Link and fall into Wiki Criteria as such. Zippomk2 ( talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed the above article for deletion, because I have taken the info, and it has been split into three other articles. Founding Races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series - Foreign Races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series - Human Races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series.
The idea is that rather than having 4 pages open to read about the Tiste Andii for example, you'll now only need one. It isn't finished yet, but the page I proposed for deletion is now no longer needed. Thanks, Alan16 talk 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Undent. Honestly, I think at least the Malazan Empire could be a standalone page with a {{ main}}. Look how long the tables of contents are - it's a section in and of itself. I don't really have time to look into it today (and I don't really check my watchlist anymore) but I'll try to get around to reviewing the current pages. I may also end up reverting in some cases, but I'll try to convince you to do it instead. Have a look at WP:LENGTH though - if any of your articles are brushing against the higher values, consider re-splitting them and just using {{ main}} templates to link appropriately. So long as each page covers a substantive volume of text in appropriate detail, there's no need to reduce the number of pages that exist. For instance, I would think Malazan Empire and The Bridgeburners are sufficiently lengthy (or potentially so) to exist as standalone articles. I would also suggest not using a lot of section titles, because of what it does to the table of contents (and with very little value added to most readers, I would think).
The other issue to consider is updating the {{ MBF}} template - it's at (or should be at) the foot of all the MBF pages. It can be edited like any other page, it's just a matter of finding it. It should also be kept up to date with the page changes, though I can do that if you'd like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I can only defend it as based on my judgement; if you look at the last version, read it with an eye towards detail. Remember that this is not encyclopedia malazica, it's a general purpose encyclopedia written for the world at large. We have a template {{ In-universe}}, and were I not to merge it, I probably would have thought it deserved that tag. How much of the information can stand alone, can be read without having to read a large number of other pages on the Malazan world? How much of it makes sense without the larger context? How much of it is original research and inference? Is it necessary to have the names of all the members of T'orrud Cabal? Is it encyclopedic to have such a detailed description, lifted probably from a single page or even paragraph within the book, of the "crooked aisles" of Lakefront when Lakefront is undefined? The consecration of K'rul's belfry when K'rul is undefined? I'm not trying to be pedantic or lecture (though I'm probably succeeding, which I can't seem to help), I'm trying to give a sense of some of the background that informed that particular edit. Most of these pages are actually on the fence, if not far into the territory of speedy deletion candidates, because they lack real-world context that is our standard of notability. Have a look at WP:FICTION too - a significant portion of the community would clearly and happily see most of these pages deleted, and I can't really argue with them because they pretty clearly fail WP:N. It's only my love of the series that keeps me from deleting them (and the screams of many fans who would doubtless vandalize my talk page into oblivion), and the only way I can see to help preserve them not only from deletion but from cruftland is to roll the smaller pages into the larger ones, while trying to keep it to the essential details. If you are unsure about the edit still, could I suggest you look into a third opinion? In large part, my decision was a judgement call based on experience, and I'm pretty sure a 3O would back that up - at some point all long-term editors have to strike a balance between the topics they love and the detail they'd like to give it, and the realistic demands of wikipedia if it wants to be an encyclopedia that is taken seriously.
Um, yeah. WP:TLDR may apply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 02:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
You uploaded the banner to Wikipedia so I assumed it was free use - like the Erikson picture. If you want me to remove, just say so.
Also, I have an E-Mail stating that the author (Aiden Moher - a guy who writes a blog on fantasy novels) releases it under the GFDL. And the rational was okay I thought. After all there is no way it could be used for profit, and if it was to be used on a large scale, then it would be of a lower quality. Alan16 talk 11:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we have a hardcore POV pusher on this article. The article seems to have largely been reverted back to an old version from before ResearchEditor was banned with no edit comment, and the talk page was attempted to be "archived" by wiping out all of the discussion completely. Once he was caught he started with personal insults and making clims that his own personal experiences of having multiple personalities prove the condition is real and yada yada yada. Not sure if we have a sock or just a bad editor reverting back to an old, POV-pushing version quite aggressively. DreamGuy ( talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
WLU, thank you for your edits on Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The article flows a lot better after your edits. -- Dan Dassow ( talk) 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please except this to you to show how much I appreciate your friendship and time you have spent helping me to become a better Wikipedian. Thank you very much for being my friend and always having a helping hand for me when I need it.
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
I award this Barnstar to WLU for the kindness, friendship and help. Thanks for always being there for me! -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)-- |
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/conditions/digestive/crohns-disease/surgery/intestinal-transplant Is this a WP:RS? It has information that I have read about. I have read that this surgery was done once and with success out of the USA. I don't remember all of the details, sorry, but I know I was very intrigued esp. since I am close to having problems with Short bowel syndrome do to multiple surgeries. I just can't tell if this site is reliable for the information given. It kind of looks like a sales site when looking through it but I need an opinion about this one. My POV is definitely getting in my way on this one. Though I like the idea of this surgery being able to help, I am not sure it really can be done on a regular basis to help CD patients. I could go on but it's not necessary since you know me well enough to know my POV about this. Your opinion would help, as usual take your time. Thanks again! Also, sorry for taking too long to show my appreciations for all of your help. I hope you enjoy the barnstar, you really deserve it and more with all you have done to help me. -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Incase you haven't seen this I thought you would be interested. Hope you are well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Undent. I just checked Guido's talk page history, and it looks pretty much like bullshit. If the best he can manage is one person letting me know, and one person telling me something I was already aware of, it's not much of an issue. I do think it's something to be aware of, but not paranoid of. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you've been around a while, so I guess you know where to shove put this:
All the best, I hope it's the right one. Verbal chat 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What do you mean that the previous RFCU turned up unflagged accounts? Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You changed the pedophilia in books article. I've not read the book myself, but I have read reviews that say it is Eli (a girl) who is the pedophile's object, not the boy Oscar. Are these reviews incorrect? 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Tony
Eli is a castrated boy (actually a step beyond castration because his penis was removed, not just his testicles). The book portray's Oscar's initial perception of Eli as being a girl, but later it is revealed that he/she/it is a eunuch.
Autism therapies #Educational interventions is supposed to be listed roughly in order of most-to-least proven. I agree that this is hard (there obviously isn't universal agreement on that order) but I thought it better than alphabetic. Currently the article doesn't list DIR/Floortime mostly because nobody has taken the time to write a reasonable short summary of it. It's a tricky business, as Myers et al. 2007 ( PMID 17967921), our most reliable source on autism therapies, doesn't mention DIR/Floortime, Greenspan et al. 2008 ( PMID 18381546) complained about this omission, neither I nor anybody else has taken the time to wade through this tricky topic. Eubulides ( talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Please be fare and leave more than one reference website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.93.111 ( talk) 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not need to make a case. Spend 5 seconds on the website, and you will see. GenXGlow has also made significant contributions within the glowsticking youtube community. see: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=GenXGlowDotCom&view=videos&query=glowsticking
Please stop wasting my time, I do not have much time for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.93.111 ( talk) 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone watch this page? Check out the contributions of Neil Brick on Citizendium - [26]. Anyone who knew ResearchEditor should check out some talk page contributions too, they're pretty similar... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments, yes you can indeed remove Talk Page material if it does not pertain to improving the article. Article Talk Pages are not forums or message boards, and thus, using them for general discussion of the article's topic is not permitted. You say that some of the material has "merit". In terms of a discussion about the magazine, yes, but in terms of Talk Page guidelines, it has none, since there is no discussion about improving the article in that thread. If, however, you can point where there is mention of improving the article in that section, I'll hold off from removing it again. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I thought I'd read something like that before, but I wasn't certain. Alan16 talk 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I'm actually in agreement with you regarding Satanic Panics. O'Brien has pointed to Hammond's speech as proof that she's not nuts. If I can find a reference from a decent source, I'll use that instead. I feel it's important when editing articles about such fringe figures to include material that is supportive of their claims even if that support is in and of itself not proof. At the time of the speech, Hammond's comments were considered remarkable and important. Even though he has backed away from them somewhat, he has stopped short of disavowing the speech. The speech is one of the few examples of "establishment" support for such claims. Clearly I need to find a better way of including it if it's to be included at all. I'll check back with you if I find anything that stands up to scrutiny and I won't include it without talking to you first.
I see you have also made some edits to Ralph Rene. His is another article that often gets tipped over towards out and out ridicule of the man. Please help me prevent that article from tipping in that direction in the future if you can. It's easy for some Skeptics to justify savaging elderly or recently deceased conspiracy theorists, but I don't think that serves the Wikipedia purpose any more than an overly indulgent article would. As a "rational skeptic" myself , I feel we have a duty to accurately represent what these folks believed, why they are notable, support for their positions and reasonable criticisms of their theories and/or the support for them. A well-sourced article can speak for itself and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
On another matter, I see you have an interest in moral panics. Would you consider taking a look at the following article: Gerald Robinson (priest)?
As a folklorist and someone with ties to the Toledo are, I followed this case with interest. At first it was fairly obvious that the priest was the object of a witch hunt. However, Toledo is an odd place. Over the past ten years there have been a number of very public Catholic Pedophile cases and when Robinson was arrested, the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, assigned a reporter whose editorial stance seemed highly antagonistic towards The Church. His reporting gradually focused more and more on increasingly bizarre and tangential accusations of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Most of what he wrote about never made it into the trial but it did have the intended effect of whipping a certain sector of the community into a frenzy. Even so, most people in Toledo were shocked that he was convicted and don't believe the accusations. Locally, the case has been compared to that of the West Memphis 3. The reporter for The Blade apparently already had a book deal in hand before the case was decided and it appears to me (in my humble opinion) that it may have colored his reporting significantly.
All I ask is that you look the article over and decide if there should be a separate article on the crime itself and one for his Bio. That is often what editors do when the crime itself has fantastic elements such as satanism alleged. This way the bio of living persons standards can be applied to the bio article and the crime article can contain all the crazy stuff. If you decide that two articles aren't justified, please just look over the article and see if you can't bring a little balance to it. As it stands now, it reads like this "Evil Satanist priest kills nun and now is properly rotting in jail". I recognize that the man was convicted of the murder and that belongs in his bio. He may even be guilty of the crime. The thing is, the satanism stuff is almost all coming from one reporter. The jury didn't convict him of being a satanist or for being part of a vast satanic conspiracy, ya know? They only convicted him of murder.
If you don't have time for this, I understand. I merely thought you might be of some assistance given your recent edits. Thanks for reading and have a great weekend! LiPollis ( talk) 03:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your comment here was at the very least BITEy. I see no sign of trolling in the guy's posts. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to have a look at that article. the two books you linked to are in fact, about the case. The second book you linked to by David Yonke will not likely be a good source NPOV facts. He's the reporter from the Toledo Blade. His writing leans in favor of Satanic Ritual Abuse and satanic conspiracies. However, his book is likely to contain more direct information on the trial since he covered that beat. The first book looks to be a typical lurid true crime book cranked out to coincide with the release of Yonke's book. The author, John Glatt, is as true-crime writer who pumps books like this on a regular basis. He doesn't usual have any direct involvement in the cases he writes about.
The most helpful comment you have made is to point out that the article really ought to be renamed. Your proposed name sounds fine to me and I would support your making the change. That would solve the immediate problem of the POV issues in a BLP article. Going ahead with the name change would put the focus on the crime itself and make it much easier to introduce facts about the case. In the event that you want to do some reading, Court TV's article is a good place to start. It's a good representation of the lurid nature of the reporting on the crime and the case at is progressed. Here's the link: Killer Clergy.
Thanks again for everything. I'm not a Wiki novice but I've not had a lot of time to edit in the past year. I've gotten a little rusty. Also, when an article is just thoroughly troubled, it's often hard to know where to begin! Thanks again. LiPollis ( talk) 18:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'll remember it next time, and avoid wasting my time on debates where people have made up their minds and are not planning on changing any time soon. I've started this one though, so I'll see it through to the now somewhat inevitable result. Thanks. Alan16 talk 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
WLU,
I am interested to hear the reasons that led you to think that the connection between interest (emotion) and attention is an example of Non sequitur (logic). Diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Attention&diff=prev&oldid=278541451
I might as well misunderstood the revert you made.
Perhaps you think there is a connection, but you didn't like the way it was illustrated in the text you reverted? In that case, for the purpose of better illustrating the connection perhaps you might want to formulate something like this: "This however does not happen unrelated to emotions and their intensity levels. The more one finds oneself intensively interested in particular content of another person's conversation, while at the same time one finds the third persons conversations' contents much less interesting, the more - if not entirely exclusively - one finds one's own attention getting concentrated on one conversation only, or - in the other case - the more one can find one's own attention being shared among other, not so interesting conversations, or other not so interesting aspects of one's environment at the time, and/or withdrawn and directed instead at one's own thoughts/memories/plans/etc, not paying attention to what's being said." I wonder if such formulation makes sense to you, or it should be re-formulated furtherly yet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.237.17 ( talk) 10:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask you if you would like to look and give your opinion on the new Articles for deletion proposal for FreeOrion. I wrote a new version article and I would like to ask you if you could vote on it FreeOrion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeOrion (3rd nomination). Thank you! Peer-LAN ( talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, lurking as usual, check your email, maybe it will help a bit. To others lurking, this email has absolutely nothing to do with the project in anyway. I hope you enjoy it ;), -- CrohnieGal Talk 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white ( talk • contribs)
Hi. I was interested that you removed the external link on the Hypnosis page to hypnosisandsuggestion.org. As far as I can tell it meets the external link guidelines and provides referenced information that contains too much detail to be easily incorporated into the main page. Any chance you could have another look? MatWhalley ( talk) 11:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Frederick_Crews.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast ( talk) 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Minuscules are also codices. Mojority of codices are written in minuscule hand. I do not understand this edit. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I didn't realize someone had a nice explanation already summarized. -- MartinezMD ( talk) 23:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
...nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis...
I'll comment; in the future, do ask at WP:PWNB. It's not only admins who can help with this. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the warning you issued to User:212.88.54.20 was part of a content dispute. Please be careful to only assign vandalism templates (you used {{ uw-vandalism1}}) when there is actually WP:Vandalism - good-faith edits, even if they harm the encyclopedia, are not vandalism. -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think your thoughts might be very useful at Talk:Internet homicide#Name. I thought of you because 1, you are uninvolved and 2, you are extremely policy driven which in this case might be well served. If you are interested pop over. If not, as usual, just ignore. :)
On a different note, I hope you are well. Things here are about the same but I see a neurosurgeon this week and I have high hopes that I will get some simple help with things. I know, I am opening the door to being let down, depressed and frustrated. I'll email when and if I learn anything new. You take care, I'm off to go lie down again. My heating pad is my best friend these days. Thanks, and be well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've made the case here indicating some of the imbalance I'm seeing in the Aquatic ape hypothesis article. Can you do a considered response? It strikes me that the arguments for AAH are excluded, while many of the counter arguments we're quoting are really quite feeble - or down-right wrong. I can provide more examples than what I've done so far, but here's another - Morgan makes a powerful claim (that we don't include) "Only two kinds of environment are known to be conducive to nakedness in mammals - a totally subterranean one, like that of the naked Somalian mole-rat, and an aquatic one" - and the article pretends to counter it with "most similarly-sized aquatic mammals have dense, insulating fur ... swim very well". We can't solve this argument, but neither should we be erecting (or allowing others to erect) straw-man arguments that bear no relation to the theory. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Mediation's been started on a Mediation Cabal case where you have been listed. I'd appreciate it if you and the parties involved show up and we can solve this issue. Concrete 22:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)