This page 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. |
The article Arithon has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
DanielRigal (
talk)
17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I really appreciate it. I'm still around, but not editing as much and avoiding those that regularly harass me. I've been meaning to change the template at the top of my user and talk pages. Done now.
Much appreciated. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, WLU. Mind weighing in on the Proposing some adjustments to the Intro discussion, since it is partly about one of the edits you made? Flyer22 ( talk) 10:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
A goup of IP and others playing WP:Ownership and reverting every time edits and removing tags.Can you take a look at Ehsan Mehmood Khan and talk page and give your review please?.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.189.137 ( talk) 12:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
To User:WLU, in appreciation for erudite and measured editing in particularly difficult and fraught areas. Important, and appreciated. Herostratus ( talk) 10:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
Radvo proposed the AntonyHCole recommendation because of the lack of trust among editors and because the topic is so controversial. Cole's recommendation reads:
WLU offers::
Radvo's initial reaction to WLU's proposal:
Radvo thinks the history and the delicacy of the topic suggests that WP:BRD will be too chaotic. There is not enough trust in the group. Radvo strongly opposes ULU's# 1. All major edits and redactions must first be posted to and discussed for 2 days on the TALK page. Faster if every one is consulted. Consensus must be worked on.
For the Rind article itself I would go with the [WP:MEDRS] recommendation. For the controversy part, use "reliable standard".
Radvo agrees with WLU's 3 and 4. How about one verticle Wikipedia screen worth of text is the maximum; if I cannot see all the words of my edit in the verticle Wikipedia screen, it is too long. Is that still too much? Radvo ( talk) 15:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Rind et al. controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
How's it going, vandal? You have a coffee stain and cigarette burn on your page. Aren't you more of a Book of All Knowledge? Even in the old rating system you would be a Coffee Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Pencil, Sticky Note and Bookmark. Slight Smile 19:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you not remove my comments in their entirety? My comments were not all "soapboxing." And if I was soapboxing, then so was Jokestress with her claim that the article is owned and corrupted by six editors -- six editors who are doing a fantastic job keeping the real corruptness out of that article. She gets to make wild claims like that and I don't get to respond? Responding on her talk page is not the place (she'd remove or ignore my statements anyway). My comments were a direct response to the criticism she and Cataconia made about the state of the article. Cataconia's claims that were similar to Jokestress's got removed. So why does Jokestress's get to stay? Because hers are shorter? I believe that my comments should be added back, even if censored. You have my permission to redact any part of my comments that are too soapboxy and border too much on personal attacks. I just ask that you don't remove my comments altogether. Combine them under Cataconia's and Jokestress's comments. I was asking solid questions that I believe everyone there wants answers to. 72.159.131.3 ( talk) 19:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say it is "common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject..". I'd have deleted Pottinger's cats's rant on Talk:Megavitamin therapy but you and NoInformation have responded so I'm asking if you would mind if I deleted it along with your responses. I believe this editor is simply using our talk pages as a free web page to post his personal beliefs. Colin° Talk 08:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Shirley Ardell Mason, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,WLU,I need your assistance relating article Muhammad Iqbal,please take a look at article and its talk page,it seems to me that edtitor Omer123hussain's editings are not justifing the rules of wikipedia?.I try to explain to him in edit summary,but he is experienced as he claims to be,while he do not want to understand what the meaning of knighthood is, and repeadedly placing the templete cn and asking source for holiday in Pakistan,while link itself is source.Now I see everywhere templetes cn are decorated.He also does not going to accept reliable sources.In this stage for me is very terrible and difficult to expand and improve the article.You know the rules,please access and assess the edits and work.Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Have no fear. I wouldn't get near it with a ten foot pole. I don't care who's right. From the very little I saw of it, it looked like one of those melee combats in the video game Fate where thirty enemies attack you at once and you die of confusion. I think it might be a good idea to call in arbitration if you haven't.
I had no idea that a consensus of editors could be involved in developing an article. Isn't that a kind of POV? -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't give a shit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU. I believe I am almost done with the text for the ISSTD article. Can you let me know if anything I messed up anything or am including anything I shouldn't or just basic errors like that? I'm still trying to find sources for more about the 90s repressed/false memory stuff, if I can't I'm just going to remove that for now. Thanks again for all of your help. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 03:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
<ref name = authorpage>[[#Author|Author]], 20XX, p. [book link ##].</ref>
==References==
Okay. I don't know how I didn't see that before I replied, oops. Anyway, I think I've fixed everything, thanks for your patience, let me know. :) Forgotten Faces ( talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Sir. I am the main author of the article Sodium hyaluronate. Last year 2011 You noted successfully that: "(cur | prev) 14:27, 4 July 2011 WLU (talk | contribs) (24,777 bytes) (reads like it was written by someone who spoke English as a second language. Fixes)". Really it is thouth!!! I am Greek, and English is my 2nd language. Please if you have the time, correct my English in this article. Best regards. Dr. Harry Gouvas, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Greece Harrygouvas ( talk) 06:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
With this edit, you misspelled the last name of Social Psychologist WP:Carol Tavris by adding a "t" to the end of her last name. The WP:Link does not work now as originally intended. In the same paragraph, you twice correctly spelled the last name of Carol Tavris. I assume good faith and that, at your convenience, you will correct the small mistake you introduced with your edit, so interested readers at the Rind et al. controversy can conveniently link to Carol Tavris. -- Radvo ( talk) 06:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
please adopt me!--ethen bowen 00:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethen12 ( talk • contribs)
There is an ANI discussion going on about Ethan12, and you are invited to take part. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU. I am working on the dissociative disorder not otherwise specified article. I see that some articles quote the entire DSM criteria in the article for mental illnesses - but have seen on the DID page that that is copyright infringement. Is this correct? It seems hard to describe the diagnosis in depth without quoting it directly. I can read around and look for examples, but DDNOS isn't like DID where there are only a few set presentations and you can name the defining features easily (amnesia and alters). Let me know the best route, thanks. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
What I mean by wastebasket is if someone has mixed dissociative symptoms they get lumped in there instead of a more specific category that would describe each presentation of DDNOS (and given its own name). It's like Pervasive Developmental Disorder NOS - basically means developmental problems but we don't know why and the presentation is unusual. Ideally a NOS diagnosis is used early to give some idea of psychopathology (like DDNOS is often diagnosed before DID as a precaution/until there is more information) and for really unique cases. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 16:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe the DSM-5 will call it "unspecified dissociative disorder" - not that that is any better. They should really re-name Depersonalization Disorder to Depersonalization and Derealization D/o (or similar) - that would at least fix one type of DDNOS. It is not so easy to differentiate depersonalization from derealization in the first place and is largely perspective (indeed, this is a perceptual disorder). Getting off topic though! Sorry WLU, will take it somewhere else. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU - I'm not doubting you at all but was wondering if you have access to Kihlstrom article in full? I would like to read it just for my own knowledge and possible future use. Thanks Forgotten Faces ( talk) 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Should this not be posted to the article talk page as well? — danhash ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
For some reason there seems to be an interest in changing the Wiki site for JRI to be almost exclusively about one of our programs, the Trauma Center. There is commentary from Joe Spinazzola the ED of the Trauma Center, requesting that whoever is doing this please stop. I would ask the same. The Trauma Center is a wonderful program, deserving of its own Wiki page, as is Bessel van der Kolk, its founder.
But people searching for other JRI information--residential schools, group homes, home based services, AIDS services, etc, ought to be able to find that information on the JRI Wiki page, too.
I have briefly addressed this in my latest update, adding links to the Trauma Center at JRI-- Andy.pond0 ( talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)-- Andy.pond0 ( talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
If I can be helpful, email me at -- Andy.pond0 ( talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)<e-mail redacted> Thanks new to the Wiki editing game, hope I have not violated protocol.
"I've reviewed every single edit made and all are quite solid in my opinion" ?!?!?
Are you kidding? You do understand that you aren't the ultimate judge of what consensus is, right? Just because you present yourself as some sort of middle ground it doesn't mean whatever you decide goes should automatically immediately happen to the article. If I think we need to discuss these changes, and I bring up on the talk page reasons why I think the version you reverted to had problems, do you not think it's worth discussing first?
Apply some common sense here and show some basic respect. Now that the problem editors are banned we should have a more fruitful conversation. Certainly some of the changes will be approved if they get a fair hearing. Certain other ones I oppose quite strongly, and just ignoring me isn't any better than what Tylas and TomCloyd were doing. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
You've helped me learn really fast, and I really look forward to continued collaboration on the DID article. :) Forgotten Faces ( talk) 12:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
I notice this uni course hasn't appointed an online ambassador (whatever that is) for this semester. Interested? March 5 to June 1, 20 students-- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Acupuncture". Thank you. -- Famousdog ( talk) 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Think you could probably do with one of these for your efforts in the ongoing User:Dickmojo business. Keep your chin up. Famousdog ( talk) 13:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hi WLU. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Section: User:Dickmojo on Acunpuncture — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there-- I have some concerns that you began negatively editing the biography about me here during a content dispute at the paraphilia article. [4] The negative content you added has also been added by an editor with whom you often collaborate and agree [5] [6] [7], though it was later removed by others per WP:UNDUE and other guidelines. The same editor removed my academic credentials using a different account [8] and removed my primary occupation, among other negative changes, [9] despite that information being easily sourced (e.g. [10]). In the interest of transparency, can you elaborate on that edit, its timing, and how that material came to your attention? My bio has been edited in a manner I consider punitive by other editors who have disagreed with me here or elsewhere. Many have been blocked. In the interest of NPOV, I have published a couple of responses I'd like to bring to your attention that I believe merit inclusion if we are to have such a one-sided attack included:
Also in the interest of transparency, would you be willing to discuss your personal and/or professional connection to sex and sexuality issues? While you are under no obligation to do so, I find that most people who share your point of view have connections to the topic, and that some have a significant conflict of interest, like the WP:SPA editor with whom you have been working. I agree with your statements about transparency in general and back-channel communication in particular, especially if there is a professional connection to a topic. Thanks. Jokestress ( talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know one get both blocked or banned for TE, but unless you have some really good proof of someone being guilty of it, making these kind of accusations is just not helpful. I'm sorry they give you such a hard time on the acupuncture page. You're doing a very good job, there. Cheers, -- Mallexikon ( talk) 06:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Aquatic ape hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elaine Morgan ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You've turned it from a descriptive title into an almost meaningless title. -- Mindjuicer ( talk) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Your username suggests you have an official connection with Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada. Your idiosyncratic communication style and edit patterns also suggest a connection with this school and the province in which it is located. I am happy to provide diffs off-wiki if you wish. I have concerns that your username suggests you are an official representative of that institution, and as such, it may violate our username policy. Accounts that purport to represent an entire group or company are not permitted. Can you expand on how you are personally or professionally connected with this school, and if you are connected, will you consider changing your username? I prefer to conduct these discussions on-wiki, but I am happy to take this off-wiki in the interest of your privacy. Jokestress ( talk) 09:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Giving MEDRS teeth, similar to BLP. Also, the discussion Sandy links to at the end of her opening comment. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 01:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I've filed an ANI report on Kuliukas. Please feel free to expand or clarify if you wish. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 17:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
What's the deal with you and User:Bittergrey? Is s/he actually involved in the BLP dispute or just wikistalking you? Something that needs to be dealt with at AN/I? It seems personal and obsessive. I also checked his tp archives and found a lot of strange responses to what seem to be innocuous posts from you (e.g. about being the "better wikipedian"). Noformation Talk 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
I just wanted to say thanks for the great cleanup you have recently done at Omega-3 fatty acid. The thoughtful trimming was certainly needed. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC) -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi, I noticed your work at Anya. Please note that MOS:DABNAME means that anthroponymy and disambiguation pages should be kept separate. It might be worth creating a separate page Anya (disambiguation), although that is pretty marginal, as the only other meanings are eponymous media/works which could be listed as fictional characters or "Usage in media" on a name page. Dictionary definitions for foreign languages should probably not be listed, see WP:DICDEF, unless they explain the meaning of given names in other languages. Fancy a little more work on the same page?
Please consider joining WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy if you like this sort of work! – Fayenatic L (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be a number of editors on the Aquatic apes page which suggest possible meatpuppetry or sock puppetry. New or recently active SPA accounts on the page such as User:Yloopx and User:Chakazul IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Open to commenting on the above? 31.193.138.200 ( talk) 00:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Good morning sweetie. I am just popping in for now. I just got a new computer and only have part of it together. I still need my files, email and other things transfered to this one from the one that broke. I just thought I'd let you know I am still alive and kicking. :) I don't know when I'll be back in full swing. I just got a lot of sadness the last time I was active here and have enjoyed less drama I guess. You take care and I'll let you know when my email is back and working. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU, long time no talk :)
I just finished a massive draft on our own very topical subject of paid editing on Wikipedia. I would love your careful eyes to check it for neutrality, formatting, organization, reference detail, etc. I hope you can take a quick look. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 12:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your quick resolution of the problems at Doula by fixing it to look like an article! (Check typo in edit notice: should be conceived.) Johnuniq ( talk) 06:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU. Are you aware of Wikipedia:HighBeam? Sign-up page is Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. And Raul has just opened Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 19:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you WLU, but when you can, please take a look at Sanford, Florida, recent edits. One editor has included information on a recent problem in Sanford involving the overprescription of opioid drugs by a CVS pharmacy that was sanctioned by the DEA. However, I'm not quite sure if this information should be included in a section on the '21st Century' of Sanford. (As a reference point, one of the most infamous crimes in Florida history---the Gainesville murders---has not been included in the Wiki '20th century' section for Gainesville). Additionally, the editor has left out other historic/notable events reflecting Sanford's '21st century.' Thus, I'm not quite sure how to proceed here. Thanks Ronsword ( talk) 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello WLU. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Much better! -- PaulWicks ( talk) 07:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BitterGrey ( talk) 19:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on the Quran article. I originally came to the same conclusion you did and nominated the article for deletion. One of the original authors deleted my nomination. I've never been involved in the article deletion process and would appreciate your advice on how to move the process forward if the same thing happens again. Polyquest ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
Hi. When you recently edited Common Eland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trot ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WLU. Thank you. BitterGrey ( talk) 06:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Interesting article you linked to on Jimbo's page. Evidently our early hominin ancestors were eating crocodile. Now, judging by the size of the bone they illustrate (a phalanx) they seem to have been feasting on one which was probably as large as they were. Now, pure OR this, but somehow I think that any 'aquatic ape' meeting a crocodile that big would get non-aquatic rather rapidly if it had any sense (on a personal level, I mean, not on in evolutionary terms ;-) ). I suspect that they either hunted crocs on land, or more likely scavenged them. When consuming aquatic animals, one has to also consider that they may sometimes wish to consume you. ;-) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU, thanks for all those edits you made in the article Common Eland. I think the article should be named Common eland, but there is a redirect that is a problem.-- Sainsf <^> (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Ref your edit comment on [14], quite. Don't suppose you have the energy to do the same with some of the other unreadable sections? -- BozMo talk 06:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to The Perth Group. You changed my mind. SpectraValor ( talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Please watch out for the 3 reverts rule. I think this long-standing edit war between you and BitterGrey should be brought before a third party. So, have you already tried dispute resolution for the article? I have also informed BitterGrey of this opportunity. De728631 ( talk) 21:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. BitterGrey ( talk) 22:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, WLU! The page has been moved successfully to Common eland. I am no end obliged for your great work in the article. To increase it from a stub to this stage has taken a long time. Do not you think it is ready to be a GA nominee?-- Sainsf <^> (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Paraphilic infantilism. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I really bungled that SPI. I was trying to clear the backlog, and moved ten times too fast. I'm going back now to review other cases, this really upsets me that I botched this so bad. The accounts aren't related upon further inspection, and for some reason, I don't think I ever went back through your edit history. Somehow, with multiple tabs open I must have confused this case and another. Sincere apologies. NativeForeigner Talk 18:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Where the Lilies Bloom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William A. Graham ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You promised to have another go at this 2 1/5 years ago. I made a few comments on the Talk page Neil Raden ( talk) 22:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley". Thank you. -- Neil Raden ( talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC) in a new section on each user's talk page.
Since you love to disparage Wiley's lack of qualifications (after 15 years) how about Odd Dahl (1899-1994), a Norwegian adventurer who had no formal scientific training but later made great contributions to research on atomic energy. He read physics while a member of Roald Amundsen's expedition to the Arctic. During the 1930s, Odd Dahl joined the staff of the Carnegie Institution in Washington as a member of the team developing the Van de Graff generator and later led Norway's atomic energy program. Wise up, lots of credentialed peoples are idiots. Being non-credentialed and notable is quite an achievement except to small-minded editors Neil Raden ( talk) 20:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
WLU, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd appreciate your input over at Gulf War syndrome. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have time, it would be useful to get more editors involved in the Gulf War Syndrome page again. It's just me and the ip editor having an edit war at the moment. He/she has asked Doc James to come in again, and if you could also take a look it would be useful. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 23:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to offer my assistance as far as editing, writing, documentation and verification of the Gulf War syndrome wiki. I spoke with Doc James last year about it as well and at the time he stated my input is welcome. I have been a bit busy, and personally the entire topic is a bit overwhelming. I was not only at Khamisiyah for the entire operation, I served as Executive Director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc, from 1996-97. I testified before the Presidential Advisory Committee on Persian Gulf Veterans Health as noted in the References, www.gulflink.osd.mil/gwvi/app-h Also, I testified before House Veterans Affairs Committee, Health and Benefits on three occasions, commdocs.house.gov/committees/vets/hvr061997.000/hvr061997_0x commdocs.house.gov/committees/vets/hvr021197.000/hvr021197_0x I also served as advisor to the Kansas Veterans Commission and worked on the study titled: Prevalence and Patterns of Gulf War Illness in Kansas Veterans: Association of Symptoms with Characteristics of Person, Place, and Time of Military Service aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/152/10/992 I continue to be quite active in advising, advocating and monitoring past, current and future research and am considered by many to be an expert, have been quoted in Associated Press, Washington Post, NY Times, CBS Evening News as well and many other sources. Gulfvet91 ( talk) 08:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)gulfvet91
I finally answered your question... -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 16:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 19:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC) && 19:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Pierre Charles Alexandre Louis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Organ ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you make of this edit? Like I told Herostratus, "I've already replied on the talk page. Judging by the user's 'first' edit, and ones soon after it, I don't believe that this user is new to Wikipedia. I also don't know if I yet have any reason to be suspicious of him on child/underage teenager sexual abuse topics, but you know how these type of things begin. He's made a valid point about not all child pornography being sexual abuse, but you and I know that the sources are not usually talking about postpubescents or teenagers who sext each other or any of the examples he mentioned." Flyer22 ( talk) 09:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Snow pea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spring ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
So, have you washed your hands of DID? Should others be scrutinising the recent rewrite? (Just trying to prioritise my time.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 05:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, WLU, how are you, I don't see you much active here, may be busy in real life. I need your assistance for this. I know a bit, but some times I confuse, adding the names with out an article on wiki page ( WP:redlink) in the WP lists is legitimate or not?, while some red links have reliable sources. Previously I have removed many red links from multiple lists along with sources. I want to be sure that I was right in this regard, and would continue to do that?. Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Author/WLU
My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Asthma. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain ( talk) 17:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
COIN only needs one user name and one article in the heading to address multiple user names and multiple articles in the discussion. I picked those [16] because they seemed to be the primary ones. You can add more articles, but at this point we should take things one step at a time so that the effort doesn't get overwhelmed. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, somewhere along the other edits you have all mention of this. Regarding the fibrocystic condition and other benign BC I am fairly convinced that there is a real case here. The evidence is old and may appear underpowered by recent standards. From older publications, the times when iodine deficiency was endemic in Germany it seems plausible - although impossible to prove as usually only thyroid problems as surrogate and not evidence for iodine deficiency were reported. There are several plausible mechanisms of action (compensatory rise of TSH with direct effect on the mammary gland and/or TRH mediated hyperprolactinemia). Both iodine and levothyroxine treatments have been shown effective against benign breast disease although the level of evidence leaves much to be desired. I have not looked into iodine and breast cancer risk since a few years, did you? Richiez ( talk) 16:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
For your edits to Venowave. As you probably saw here, [17] I wondered if it was notable. Do you think the sources are secondary enough to be considered independent? The CTVNews is the only one I saw that might be independent/secondary. I don't think notability is established by the article. Biosthmors ( talk) 17:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Which bit do I add my comments or endorsements to? I don't know if my brief futile interaction with Bittergrey counts as "trying and failing to resolve the dispute" or is minimal enough to be an "outside view". Colin° Talk 10:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Sædon talk 10:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to Body integrity identity disorder. Unfortunately I reverted your changes because they lost some of the reference quoting that I had carefully added. I see your motivation in your edits but I view the value of precise references to be more important. You also made some changes that were obviously beneficial. I had reincorporated them. Some of the changes you made to the references I don't understand. Why were you using just an initial for first names? I really hope this isn't some guideline somewhere that I'm unaware of. If so, could you link to it? Hopefully we can agree on some of your other changes too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Quinn ( talk • contribs) 08:34, August 8, 2012
How are these for over use of quotes: Golf Ball, I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It! etc. MathewTownsend ( talk) 17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I think you mentioned this book. Looks very good in terms of summing up the situation, from my point of view. MathewTownsend ( talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer_review#Dissociative_identity_disorder - do you want to start addressing the issues? MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
| last =
and | year =
. Add {{sfn|Author|Year|p = page}} (as {{sfn|McNally|2005|p = 45}} and it should render as [1] in the text and 1. ^ McNally 2005, p. 45. in the footnotes (and the author and year hyperlink to the appropriate link in the references section). The only thing to be careful about is the |last =
and | year =
have to exactly match the first two parameters in the {{
sfn}} template. Anyway, not a big deal, but like {{
cite pmid}} I see it as extremely handy when applicable.
WLU
(t)
(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex
16:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
that shows the sfn errors.
MathewTownsend (
talk)
16:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
So when you look at SRA right now, the references section is full of red, broken references? That's not good...might be worth mentioning at template talk:sfn. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe you've been dealing with this person at Gulf War syndrome: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus. -- Amble ( talk) 15:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Thought I was just reverting that one edit; didn't mean to remove your citation. Also, I move that long post from the peer review to the article talk page. (don't want to drive away reviews with too long page.) MathewTownsend ( talk) 00:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
See this article: Review of Sybil Exposed in Psychiatric Times?
This article is commentary, but nonetheless makes some interesting points about the ISSTD guidelines and also the DSM-5 work committee (Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic, and Dissociative Disorders Work Group for DSM-5). It suggests the work group members may have some conflicts of interest and some belong to ISSTD.
It notes the small readership of the Journal of Trauma & Dissociation has such a low score of importance to the scientific community per the EigenfactorTM metrics which offers quantitative measure of "a journal’s total importance to the scientific community", and opines that in such a "narrowly focused journal, these focused topics might risk being caught in an echo chamber of concurring opinion to the exclusion of broader attention."
Regarding the Guidelines, it says, "To say that "almost all practitioners" use standard diagnostic interviews that "often" do not ask about posttraumatic symptoms or psychological trauma is a surprising statement to make without offering a supporting citation."
It comments on the great divide between those who treat DID and others, suggesting the lack of research stems from a lack of interest in the field, and won't end soon.
Nothing to use as a source but food for thought. Kind of explains why we'll get nowhere soon in the DID article.
MathewTownsend ( talk) 20:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20/Op-ed - our favorite editor attributes WP problems to:
The next editor says: "I'm sorry, but what?"
This is more than you and I can handle. MathewTownsend ( talk) 21:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope you will spare a time to take a look once again. Justice007 ( talk) 23:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kevin Gregson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sault Ste. Marie ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I think others like Casliber (who is a psychiatrist) would join in editing if the long, tendentious and repetitious screeds ended and editors followed the talk page guidelines. I think the peer reviewer dropped the article because of the chaos. MathewTownsend ( talk) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It might be just be me, but would you please refrain from adding "comments" on DRN filings that you're not a party to in the Opening comments section? It's been my understanding that those sections are reserved for parties to the case. Thank you Hasteur ( talk) 18:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur ( talk) 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Interesting that the principles of Attachment theory, originally conceived by John Bowlby and used liberally in psychotherapy and in the explanation of many mental disorders, has received significant attention by researchers. Note my recent addition to the article, which seems to have stuck:
From the article's abstract:
The theory can afford valuable insight not only into the developmental nature of common psychiatric disorders, but also into the development of the therapeutic relationship. This article gives an overview of (a) the current conceptualisations of attachment and the measurement of attachment for clinical research purposes and (b) the application of attachment theory to different psychopathologies.
The article specifically considers depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, stress-related disorders, personality disorders, and eating disorders. No mention is made of DID despite the dependence of the traumagenic model (as put forth by ISSTD) on attachment theory, etc. and not a split between clinical and research
(There is a second article, which I haven't found: "My second article (Ma, 2007) will look at some of the applications of attachment theory in the everyday clinical setting." i.e. attachment theory as it relates to the relationship between therapist and patient. This may provide insights into the sociocongitive model, specifically the therapist-induced version.)
MathewTownsend ( talk) 09:03, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
Well, that explanation for the DID bubble isn't entirely true. Insurance companies in the olden days paid for open ended psychological treatment à la Freudian style. Insurance companies mostly gave up all coverage for psychotherapy, or limited it drastically for everyone. If you have Schizophrenia you don't get psychotherapy, you get a 15 minute appointment with a psychiatrist for meds every few months. That's far more lucrative for psychiatrists than listening to the same patient for a hour one or more times a week. But I know psychotherapists with thriving private practices who treat patients with these sorts of problems. And if you get good at writing justifications to insurance companies, some will pay for extended treatment. Today it's a question of accepting patients who can either pay or have really good insurance. (Also, you can get your patient on Medicaid if you can show they're mentally disabled enough by Medicaid criteria, like not being able to hold a job or fulfill the tasks of daily living. Then Medicaid will pay, but not much though.)
That second article you found explains it. Some people do have attachment disorders and a good therapist can become an attachment figure. That's powerful stuff that people who need that sort of thing will pay for.
The traumagenic model isn't testable because there are no operational definitions, no definitions of the terminology that have any validity or reliability, etc. No acceptable definition of personality or dissociation! And basically, other diagnoses like Borderline personality disorder cover the objectively verified symptoms. What may force the hand of the DSM people is that the manual definitions have to become more data driven, moving toward a continuum format rather than a categorical one. That's what's giving DSM-V fits. But some ISSTD members are on the committee, so as you say, they may have to die out. MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.
If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.
If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲 水 09:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur ( talk) 19:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
re DID, since I don't have your sources. MathewTownsend ( talk) 18:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you own the 2012 version? The online version is missing some important stuff, like the 4,500 alters! Looks like a good book. MathewTownsend ( talk) 18:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This organisation been discussed a few times on WT:MED but in case you haven't noticed, can I point out m:Wikimedia Medicine and the current discussion at the top of User talk:Iridescent? One concern raised is the potential for undue influence from pharmaceutical companies and quackery, so I was wondering if you might be interested in commenting, or at least keeping an eye on things. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 03:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Firewall english cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I was starting to worry. Good to see you popping up on my watchlist again. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 22:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Kluft has been described to me as an attention-seeker who might sensationalize certain things, but I have absolutely no reason to doubt him on the high populations he describes. The answer to how such groups function is simple. Not all of these people are using the body ("fronting"). They may observe what's going on, offering opinions and advice, or be completely unconcerned with the outside world as their occupations are internal. Many multiples have a subjective world of their own which can amount to a secondary universe (like a conworld) which they experience as quite real. -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 18:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jet lag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatigue ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 16:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
If I were you, I think I would edit/refactor parts of that last comment on Men's Rights Movement talk. The whole suite of articles are under article probation, and I think it is worth being extra careful not to break them, even if it is meant in part as a over-the-top joke. -- Slp1 ( talk) 19:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what achievable policy change would deal with civil POV-pushing? I think you've dealt with much more of it than I have. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 10:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I feel very discouraged and disheartened at wikipedia by you and the other people who are probably no one in particulars friends showing up right when people start seeing how ridiculous things are over on that article. I mean, we are debating about this for 2 weeks and no one seems to care. And then, some kid shows up, who agrees with me. And the next day, three other people, who are established editors that have obviously been here a long time (like no one in particular) show up and defend no one in particular's view. That makes me very, very disheartened as a new editor here. And there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. So NOT in the spirit of wikipedia's egalitarian and non-cronyist and non-dogmatic philosophy.
(I'm sure there's some WP:wikipedia-is-not-egalitarian rule that you, like no one in particular, can pull out of thin air, but you, nonetheless, know what sort of philosophy I am talking about) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article. | ” |
PS: and I also thought there was consensus. Although they were months ago, many people had commented on the citation style and thought footnotes were better. Charles35 ( talk) 02:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Things seem to be going ok at present. Do you agree? I have more material now. Can add if you want to embark an an improvement drive! Best wishes, MathewTownsend ( talk) 02:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Any chance you could do the same at green tea extract? :) 148.177.1.210 ( talk) 19:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green tea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
WLU, you have been editing Wikipedia for years now. Don't you think it's time you shared your real name and identity with the Wikipedia community? What do you have to hide? Dark windows of the soul ( talk) 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thanks for your kind words! Jytdog ( talk) 17:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey WLU. We seem to be clashing heads over the slactivism thing. I made a recent edit saying "sorry, your last revert violated rule x, y, and z". Biosthmors pointed out to me the issue with that. I shouldn't have said that so definitively. My bad! I should have said something more like, "in my opinion, it violates x, y, and z". If you have a different interpretation of that rule, I'd like to hear it. Charles35 ( talk) 19:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breast cancer awareness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stigma ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If you have the time and inclination, with Hunting hypothesis and a new article, Gathering hypothesis - we have a new student editor from the American Psychological Association Wikipedia initiative who needs help. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You are probably already aware of this, but anyways. It's here. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is " "Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC) AwesomeThanks for taking the trouble to explain the basics to Nernst at Wikipedia:BLPN#Andrew_Wakefield. I, like everyone else I suppose, assumed he understood WP:PSTS. Would you like a free T-shirt? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 20:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
povplease stop following me around and just let me be. bca has serious pov problems. this has been the issue from the beginning. look at the talk page. almost every section is about pov concerns. theres nothing about that list that has requirements set by you. for example, "nationalist issues" and "Marginal or idiosyncratic scientific speculation" do not meet your requirements that you so falsely impose as if you own wikipedia. if you constantly look at my recent contributions, please stop it and leave me alone. bca has pov issues. accept it. since the pov issues are related to you, you arent really at liberty to say that the article doesnt have pov issues, or to decide when the issues are gone and when to take down the templates. leave that to those with the concerns. you dont own wikipedia, so stop strutting around reverting whatever you like when you like and coming up with these bogus justifications. Charles35 ( talk) 17:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 11Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breast cancer awareness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inner circle ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC) compromise?WLU, can you please be reasonable? Look, I am real tired of this wikidrama and the way this has become a battleground. Can you please compromise and work reasonably and cooperatively? I do not mean to be personally attacking or anything of the sort. I am just so sick and tired of putting up with and engaging in wikidrama. Some of the recent edits that have been made here are very clearly against the policies, such as:
I would really appreciate it. Charles35 ( talk) 00:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I have literally 50 times the edits you do. I am also quite invested in wikipedia, perhaps 50 times more than you. And your French is pardoned. See my most recent note on the BCA talk page, the shaming comments about appearance is valid.
WLU
(t)
(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex
11:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
|
This page 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. |
The article Arithon has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
DanielRigal (
talk)
17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I really appreciate it. I'm still around, but not editing as much and avoiding those that regularly harass me. I've been meaning to change the template at the top of my user and talk pages. Done now.
Much appreciated. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, WLU. Mind weighing in on the Proposing some adjustments to the Intro discussion, since it is partly about one of the edits you made? Flyer22 ( talk) 10:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
A goup of IP and others playing WP:Ownership and reverting every time edits and removing tags.Can you take a look at Ehsan Mehmood Khan and talk page and give your review please?.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.189.137 ( talk) 12:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
To User:WLU, in appreciation for erudite and measured editing in particularly difficult and fraught areas. Important, and appreciated. Herostratus ( talk) 10:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
Radvo proposed the AntonyHCole recommendation because of the lack of trust among editors and because the topic is so controversial. Cole's recommendation reads:
WLU offers::
Radvo's initial reaction to WLU's proposal:
Radvo thinks the history and the delicacy of the topic suggests that WP:BRD will be too chaotic. There is not enough trust in the group. Radvo strongly opposes ULU's# 1. All major edits and redactions must first be posted to and discussed for 2 days on the TALK page. Faster if every one is consulted. Consensus must be worked on.
For the Rind article itself I would go with the [WP:MEDRS] recommendation. For the controversy part, use "reliable standard".
Radvo agrees with WLU's 3 and 4. How about one verticle Wikipedia screen worth of text is the maximum; if I cannot see all the words of my edit in the verticle Wikipedia screen, it is too long. Is that still too much? Radvo ( talk) 15:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Rind et al. controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
How's it going, vandal? You have a coffee stain and cigarette burn on your page. Aren't you more of a Book of All Knowledge? Even in the old rating system you would be a Coffee Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Pencil, Sticky Note and Bookmark. Slight Smile 19:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you not remove my comments in their entirety? My comments were not all "soapboxing." And if I was soapboxing, then so was Jokestress with her claim that the article is owned and corrupted by six editors -- six editors who are doing a fantastic job keeping the real corruptness out of that article. She gets to make wild claims like that and I don't get to respond? Responding on her talk page is not the place (she'd remove or ignore my statements anyway). My comments were a direct response to the criticism she and Cataconia made about the state of the article. Cataconia's claims that were similar to Jokestress's got removed. So why does Jokestress's get to stay? Because hers are shorter? I believe that my comments should be added back, even if censored. You have my permission to redact any part of my comments that are too soapboxy and border too much on personal attacks. I just ask that you don't remove my comments altogether. Combine them under Cataconia's and Jokestress's comments. I was asking solid questions that I believe everyone there wants answers to. 72.159.131.3 ( talk) 19:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say it is "common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject..". I'd have deleted Pottinger's cats's rant on Talk:Megavitamin therapy but you and NoInformation have responded so I'm asking if you would mind if I deleted it along with your responses. I believe this editor is simply using our talk pages as a free web page to post his personal beliefs. Colin° Talk 08:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Shirley Ardell Mason, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,WLU,I need your assistance relating article Muhammad Iqbal,please take a look at article and its talk page,it seems to me that edtitor Omer123hussain's editings are not justifing the rules of wikipedia?.I try to explain to him in edit summary,but he is experienced as he claims to be,while he do not want to understand what the meaning of knighthood is, and repeadedly placing the templete cn and asking source for holiday in Pakistan,while link itself is source.Now I see everywhere templetes cn are decorated.He also does not going to accept reliable sources.In this stage for me is very terrible and difficult to expand and improve the article.You know the rules,please access and assess the edits and work.Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Have no fear. I wouldn't get near it with a ten foot pole. I don't care who's right. From the very little I saw of it, it looked like one of those melee combats in the video game Fate where thirty enemies attack you at once and you die of confusion. I think it might be a good idea to call in arbitration if you haven't.
I had no idea that a consensus of editors could be involved in developing an article. Isn't that a kind of POV? -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't give a shit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU. I believe I am almost done with the text for the ISSTD article. Can you let me know if anything I messed up anything or am including anything I shouldn't or just basic errors like that? I'm still trying to find sources for more about the 90s repressed/false memory stuff, if I can't I'm just going to remove that for now. Thanks again for all of your help. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 03:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
<ref name = authorpage>[[#Author|Author]], 20XX, p. [book link ##].</ref>
==References==
Okay. I don't know how I didn't see that before I replied, oops. Anyway, I think I've fixed everything, thanks for your patience, let me know. :) Forgotten Faces ( talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Sir. I am the main author of the article Sodium hyaluronate. Last year 2011 You noted successfully that: "(cur | prev) 14:27, 4 July 2011 WLU (talk | contribs) (24,777 bytes) (reads like it was written by someone who spoke English as a second language. Fixes)". Really it is thouth!!! I am Greek, and English is my 2nd language. Please if you have the time, correct my English in this article. Best regards. Dr. Harry Gouvas, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Greece Harrygouvas ( talk) 06:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
With this edit, you misspelled the last name of Social Psychologist WP:Carol Tavris by adding a "t" to the end of her last name. The WP:Link does not work now as originally intended. In the same paragraph, you twice correctly spelled the last name of Carol Tavris. I assume good faith and that, at your convenience, you will correct the small mistake you introduced with your edit, so interested readers at the Rind et al. controversy can conveniently link to Carol Tavris. -- Radvo ( talk) 06:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
please adopt me!--ethen bowen 00:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethen12 ( talk • contribs)
There is an ANI discussion going on about Ethan12, and you are invited to take part. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU. I am working on the dissociative disorder not otherwise specified article. I see that some articles quote the entire DSM criteria in the article for mental illnesses - but have seen on the DID page that that is copyright infringement. Is this correct? It seems hard to describe the diagnosis in depth without quoting it directly. I can read around and look for examples, but DDNOS isn't like DID where there are only a few set presentations and you can name the defining features easily (amnesia and alters). Let me know the best route, thanks. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
What I mean by wastebasket is if someone has mixed dissociative symptoms they get lumped in there instead of a more specific category that would describe each presentation of DDNOS (and given its own name). It's like Pervasive Developmental Disorder NOS - basically means developmental problems but we don't know why and the presentation is unusual. Ideally a NOS diagnosis is used early to give some idea of psychopathology (like DDNOS is often diagnosed before DID as a precaution/until there is more information) and for really unique cases. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 16:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe the DSM-5 will call it "unspecified dissociative disorder" - not that that is any better. They should really re-name Depersonalization Disorder to Depersonalization and Derealization D/o (or similar) - that would at least fix one type of DDNOS. It is not so easy to differentiate depersonalization from derealization in the first place and is largely perspective (indeed, this is a perceptual disorder). Getting off topic though! Sorry WLU, will take it somewhere else. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU - I'm not doubting you at all but was wondering if you have access to Kihlstrom article in full? I would like to read it just for my own knowledge and possible future use. Thanks Forgotten Faces ( talk) 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Should this not be posted to the article talk page as well? — danhash ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
For some reason there seems to be an interest in changing the Wiki site for JRI to be almost exclusively about one of our programs, the Trauma Center. There is commentary from Joe Spinazzola the ED of the Trauma Center, requesting that whoever is doing this please stop. I would ask the same. The Trauma Center is a wonderful program, deserving of its own Wiki page, as is Bessel van der Kolk, its founder.
But people searching for other JRI information--residential schools, group homes, home based services, AIDS services, etc, ought to be able to find that information on the JRI Wiki page, too.
I have briefly addressed this in my latest update, adding links to the Trauma Center at JRI-- Andy.pond0 ( talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)-- Andy.pond0 ( talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
If I can be helpful, email me at -- Andy.pond0 ( talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)<e-mail redacted> Thanks new to the Wiki editing game, hope I have not violated protocol.
"I've reviewed every single edit made and all are quite solid in my opinion" ?!?!?
Are you kidding? You do understand that you aren't the ultimate judge of what consensus is, right? Just because you present yourself as some sort of middle ground it doesn't mean whatever you decide goes should automatically immediately happen to the article. If I think we need to discuss these changes, and I bring up on the talk page reasons why I think the version you reverted to had problems, do you not think it's worth discussing first?
Apply some common sense here and show some basic respect. Now that the problem editors are banned we should have a more fruitful conversation. Certainly some of the changes will be approved if they get a fair hearing. Certain other ones I oppose quite strongly, and just ignoring me isn't any better than what Tylas and TomCloyd were doing. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
You've helped me learn really fast, and I really look forward to continued collaboration on the DID article. :) Forgotten Faces ( talk) 12:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
I notice this uni course hasn't appointed an online ambassador (whatever that is) for this semester. Interested? March 5 to June 1, 20 students-- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Acupuncture". Thank you. -- Famousdog ( talk) 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Think you could probably do with one of these for your efforts in the ongoing User:Dickmojo business. Keep your chin up. Famousdog ( talk) 13:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hi WLU. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Section: User:Dickmojo on Acunpuncture — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there-- I have some concerns that you began negatively editing the biography about me here during a content dispute at the paraphilia article. [4] The negative content you added has also been added by an editor with whom you often collaborate and agree [5] [6] [7], though it was later removed by others per WP:UNDUE and other guidelines. The same editor removed my academic credentials using a different account [8] and removed my primary occupation, among other negative changes, [9] despite that information being easily sourced (e.g. [10]). In the interest of transparency, can you elaborate on that edit, its timing, and how that material came to your attention? My bio has been edited in a manner I consider punitive by other editors who have disagreed with me here or elsewhere. Many have been blocked. In the interest of NPOV, I have published a couple of responses I'd like to bring to your attention that I believe merit inclusion if we are to have such a one-sided attack included:
Also in the interest of transparency, would you be willing to discuss your personal and/or professional connection to sex and sexuality issues? While you are under no obligation to do so, I find that most people who share your point of view have connections to the topic, and that some have a significant conflict of interest, like the WP:SPA editor with whom you have been working. I agree with your statements about transparency in general and back-channel communication in particular, especially if there is a professional connection to a topic. Thanks. Jokestress ( talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know one get both blocked or banned for TE, but unless you have some really good proof of someone being guilty of it, making these kind of accusations is just not helpful. I'm sorry they give you such a hard time on the acupuncture page. You're doing a very good job, there. Cheers, -- Mallexikon ( talk) 06:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Aquatic ape hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elaine Morgan ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You've turned it from a descriptive title into an almost meaningless title. -- Mindjuicer ( talk) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Your username suggests you have an official connection with Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada. Your idiosyncratic communication style and edit patterns also suggest a connection with this school and the province in which it is located. I am happy to provide diffs off-wiki if you wish. I have concerns that your username suggests you are an official representative of that institution, and as such, it may violate our username policy. Accounts that purport to represent an entire group or company are not permitted. Can you expand on how you are personally or professionally connected with this school, and if you are connected, will you consider changing your username? I prefer to conduct these discussions on-wiki, but I am happy to take this off-wiki in the interest of your privacy. Jokestress ( talk) 09:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Giving MEDRS teeth, similar to BLP. Also, the discussion Sandy links to at the end of her opening comment. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 01:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I've filed an ANI report on Kuliukas. Please feel free to expand or clarify if you wish. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 17:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
What's the deal with you and User:Bittergrey? Is s/he actually involved in the BLP dispute or just wikistalking you? Something that needs to be dealt with at AN/I? It seems personal and obsessive. I also checked his tp archives and found a lot of strange responses to what seem to be innocuous posts from you (e.g. about being the "better wikipedian"). Noformation Talk 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
I just wanted to say thanks for the great cleanup you have recently done at Omega-3 fatty acid. The thoughtful trimming was certainly needed. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC) -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi, I noticed your work at Anya. Please note that MOS:DABNAME means that anthroponymy and disambiguation pages should be kept separate. It might be worth creating a separate page Anya (disambiguation), although that is pretty marginal, as the only other meanings are eponymous media/works which could be listed as fictional characters or "Usage in media" on a name page. Dictionary definitions for foreign languages should probably not be listed, see WP:DICDEF, unless they explain the meaning of given names in other languages. Fancy a little more work on the same page?
Please consider joining WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy if you like this sort of work! – Fayenatic L (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be a number of editors on the Aquatic apes page which suggest possible meatpuppetry or sock puppetry. New or recently active SPA accounts on the page such as User:Yloopx and User:Chakazul IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Open to commenting on the above? 31.193.138.200 ( talk) 00:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Good morning sweetie. I am just popping in for now. I just got a new computer and only have part of it together. I still need my files, email and other things transfered to this one from the one that broke. I just thought I'd let you know I am still alive and kicking. :) I don't know when I'll be back in full swing. I just got a lot of sadness the last time I was active here and have enjoyed less drama I guess. You take care and I'll let you know when my email is back and working. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU, long time no talk :)
I just finished a massive draft on our own very topical subject of paid editing on Wikipedia. I would love your careful eyes to check it for neutrality, formatting, organization, reference detail, etc. I hope you can take a quick look. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 12:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your quick resolution of the problems at Doula by fixing it to look like an article! (Check typo in edit notice: should be conceived.) Johnuniq ( talk) 06:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU. Are you aware of Wikipedia:HighBeam? Sign-up page is Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. And Raul has just opened Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 19:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you WLU, but when you can, please take a look at Sanford, Florida, recent edits. One editor has included information on a recent problem in Sanford involving the overprescription of opioid drugs by a CVS pharmacy that was sanctioned by the DEA. However, I'm not quite sure if this information should be included in a section on the '21st Century' of Sanford. (As a reference point, one of the most infamous crimes in Florida history---the Gainesville murders---has not been included in the Wiki '20th century' section for Gainesville). Additionally, the editor has left out other historic/notable events reflecting Sanford's '21st century.' Thus, I'm not quite sure how to proceed here. Thanks Ronsword ( talk) 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello WLU. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Much better! -- PaulWicks ( talk) 07:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BitterGrey ( talk) 19:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on the Quran article. I originally came to the same conclusion you did and nominated the article for deletion. One of the original authors deleted my nomination. I've never been involved in the article deletion process and would appreciate your advice on how to move the process forward if the same thing happens again. Polyquest ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
Hi. When you recently edited Common Eland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trot ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WLU. Thank you. BitterGrey ( talk) 06:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Interesting article you linked to on Jimbo's page. Evidently our early hominin ancestors were eating crocodile. Now, judging by the size of the bone they illustrate (a phalanx) they seem to have been feasting on one which was probably as large as they were. Now, pure OR this, but somehow I think that any 'aquatic ape' meeting a crocodile that big would get non-aquatic rather rapidly if it had any sense (on a personal level, I mean, not on in evolutionary terms ;-) ). I suspect that they either hunted crocs on land, or more likely scavenged them. When consuming aquatic animals, one has to also consider that they may sometimes wish to consume you. ;-) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU, thanks for all those edits you made in the article Common Eland. I think the article should be named Common eland, but there is a redirect that is a problem.-- Sainsf <^> (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Ref your edit comment on [14], quite. Don't suppose you have the energy to do the same with some of the other unreadable sections? -- BozMo talk 06:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to The Perth Group. You changed my mind. SpectraValor ( talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Please watch out for the 3 reverts rule. I think this long-standing edit war between you and BitterGrey should be brought before a third party. So, have you already tried dispute resolution for the article? I have also informed BitterGrey of this opportunity. De728631 ( talk) 21:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. BitterGrey ( talk) 22:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, WLU! The page has been moved successfully to Common eland. I am no end obliged for your great work in the article. To increase it from a stub to this stage has taken a long time. Do not you think it is ready to be a GA nominee?-- Sainsf <^> (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Paraphilic infantilism. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I really bungled that SPI. I was trying to clear the backlog, and moved ten times too fast. I'm going back now to review other cases, this really upsets me that I botched this so bad. The accounts aren't related upon further inspection, and for some reason, I don't think I ever went back through your edit history. Somehow, with multiple tabs open I must have confused this case and another. Sincere apologies. NativeForeigner Talk 18:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Where the Lilies Bloom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William A. Graham ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You promised to have another go at this 2 1/5 years ago. I made a few comments on the Talk page Neil Raden ( talk) 22:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley". Thank you. -- Neil Raden ( talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC) in a new section on each user's talk page.
Since you love to disparage Wiley's lack of qualifications (after 15 years) how about Odd Dahl (1899-1994), a Norwegian adventurer who had no formal scientific training but later made great contributions to research on atomic energy. He read physics while a member of Roald Amundsen's expedition to the Arctic. During the 1930s, Odd Dahl joined the staff of the Carnegie Institution in Washington as a member of the team developing the Van de Graff generator and later led Norway's atomic energy program. Wise up, lots of credentialed peoples are idiots. Being non-credentialed and notable is quite an achievement except to small-minded editors Neil Raden ( talk) 20:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
WLU, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd appreciate your input over at Gulf War syndrome. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have time, it would be useful to get more editors involved in the Gulf War Syndrome page again. It's just me and the ip editor having an edit war at the moment. He/she has asked Doc James to come in again, and if you could also take a look it would be useful. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 23:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to offer my assistance as far as editing, writing, documentation and verification of the Gulf War syndrome wiki. I spoke with Doc James last year about it as well and at the time he stated my input is welcome. I have been a bit busy, and personally the entire topic is a bit overwhelming. I was not only at Khamisiyah for the entire operation, I served as Executive Director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc, from 1996-97. I testified before the Presidential Advisory Committee on Persian Gulf Veterans Health as noted in the References, www.gulflink.osd.mil/gwvi/app-h Also, I testified before House Veterans Affairs Committee, Health and Benefits on three occasions, commdocs.house.gov/committees/vets/hvr061997.000/hvr061997_0x commdocs.house.gov/committees/vets/hvr021197.000/hvr021197_0x I also served as advisor to the Kansas Veterans Commission and worked on the study titled: Prevalence and Patterns of Gulf War Illness in Kansas Veterans: Association of Symptoms with Characteristics of Person, Place, and Time of Military Service aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/152/10/992 I continue to be quite active in advising, advocating and monitoring past, current and future research and am considered by many to be an expert, have been quoted in Associated Press, Washington Post, NY Times, CBS Evening News as well and many other sources. Gulfvet91 ( talk) 08:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)gulfvet91
I finally answered your question... -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 16:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 19:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC) && 19:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Pierre Charles Alexandre Louis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Organ ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you make of this edit? Like I told Herostratus, "I've already replied on the talk page. Judging by the user's 'first' edit, and ones soon after it, I don't believe that this user is new to Wikipedia. I also don't know if I yet have any reason to be suspicious of him on child/underage teenager sexual abuse topics, but you know how these type of things begin. He's made a valid point about not all child pornography being sexual abuse, but you and I know that the sources are not usually talking about postpubescents or teenagers who sext each other or any of the examples he mentioned." Flyer22 ( talk) 09:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Snow pea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spring ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
So, have you washed your hands of DID? Should others be scrutinising the recent rewrite? (Just trying to prioritise my time.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 05:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, WLU, how are you, I don't see you much active here, may be busy in real life. I need your assistance for this. I know a bit, but some times I confuse, adding the names with out an article on wiki page ( WP:redlink) in the WP lists is legitimate or not?, while some red links have reliable sources. Previously I have removed many red links from multiple lists along with sources. I want to be sure that I was right in this regard, and would continue to do that?. Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Author/WLU
My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Asthma. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain ( talk) 17:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
COIN only needs one user name and one article in the heading to address multiple user names and multiple articles in the discussion. I picked those [16] because they seemed to be the primary ones. You can add more articles, but at this point we should take things one step at a time so that the effort doesn't get overwhelmed. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, somewhere along the other edits you have all mention of this. Regarding the fibrocystic condition and other benign BC I am fairly convinced that there is a real case here. The evidence is old and may appear underpowered by recent standards. From older publications, the times when iodine deficiency was endemic in Germany it seems plausible - although impossible to prove as usually only thyroid problems as surrogate and not evidence for iodine deficiency were reported. There are several plausible mechanisms of action (compensatory rise of TSH with direct effect on the mammary gland and/or TRH mediated hyperprolactinemia). Both iodine and levothyroxine treatments have been shown effective against benign breast disease although the level of evidence leaves much to be desired. I have not looked into iodine and breast cancer risk since a few years, did you? Richiez ( talk) 16:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
For your edits to Venowave. As you probably saw here, [17] I wondered if it was notable. Do you think the sources are secondary enough to be considered independent? The CTVNews is the only one I saw that might be independent/secondary. I don't think notability is established by the article. Biosthmors ( talk) 17:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Which bit do I add my comments or endorsements to? I don't know if my brief futile interaction with Bittergrey counts as "trying and failing to resolve the dispute" or is minimal enough to be an "outside view". Colin° Talk 10:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Sædon talk 10:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to Body integrity identity disorder. Unfortunately I reverted your changes because they lost some of the reference quoting that I had carefully added. I see your motivation in your edits but I view the value of precise references to be more important. You also made some changes that were obviously beneficial. I had reincorporated them. Some of the changes you made to the references I don't understand. Why were you using just an initial for first names? I really hope this isn't some guideline somewhere that I'm unaware of. If so, could you link to it? Hopefully we can agree on some of your other changes too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Quinn ( talk • contribs) 08:34, August 8, 2012
How are these for over use of quotes: Golf Ball, I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It! etc. MathewTownsend ( talk) 17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I think you mentioned this book. Looks very good in terms of summing up the situation, from my point of view. MathewTownsend ( talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer_review#Dissociative_identity_disorder - do you want to start addressing the issues? MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
| last =
and | year =
. Add {{sfn|Author|Year|p = page}} (as {{sfn|McNally|2005|p = 45}} and it should render as [1] in the text and 1. ^ McNally 2005, p. 45. in the footnotes (and the author and year hyperlink to the appropriate link in the references section). The only thing to be careful about is the |last =
and | year =
have to exactly match the first two parameters in the {{
sfn}} template. Anyway, not a big deal, but like {{
cite pmid}} I see it as extremely handy when applicable.
WLU
(t)
(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex
16:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
that shows the sfn errors.
MathewTownsend (
talk)
16:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
So when you look at SRA right now, the references section is full of red, broken references? That's not good...might be worth mentioning at template talk:sfn. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe you've been dealing with this person at Gulf War syndrome: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus. -- Amble ( talk) 15:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Thought I was just reverting that one edit; didn't mean to remove your citation. Also, I move that long post from the peer review to the article talk page. (don't want to drive away reviews with too long page.) MathewTownsend ( talk) 00:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
See this article: Review of Sybil Exposed in Psychiatric Times?
This article is commentary, but nonetheless makes some interesting points about the ISSTD guidelines and also the DSM-5 work committee (Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic, and Dissociative Disorders Work Group for DSM-5). It suggests the work group members may have some conflicts of interest and some belong to ISSTD.
It notes the small readership of the Journal of Trauma & Dissociation has such a low score of importance to the scientific community per the EigenfactorTM metrics which offers quantitative measure of "a journal’s total importance to the scientific community", and opines that in such a "narrowly focused journal, these focused topics might risk being caught in an echo chamber of concurring opinion to the exclusion of broader attention."
Regarding the Guidelines, it says, "To say that "almost all practitioners" use standard diagnostic interviews that "often" do not ask about posttraumatic symptoms or psychological trauma is a surprising statement to make without offering a supporting citation."
It comments on the great divide between those who treat DID and others, suggesting the lack of research stems from a lack of interest in the field, and won't end soon.
Nothing to use as a source but food for thought. Kind of explains why we'll get nowhere soon in the DID article.
MathewTownsend ( talk) 20:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20/Op-ed - our favorite editor attributes WP problems to:
The next editor says: "I'm sorry, but what?"
This is more than you and I can handle. MathewTownsend ( talk) 21:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope you will spare a time to take a look once again. Justice007 ( talk) 23:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kevin Gregson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sault Ste. Marie ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I think others like Casliber (who is a psychiatrist) would join in editing if the long, tendentious and repetitious screeds ended and editors followed the talk page guidelines. I think the peer reviewer dropped the article because of the chaos. MathewTownsend ( talk) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It might be just be me, but would you please refrain from adding "comments" on DRN filings that you're not a party to in the Opening comments section? It's been my understanding that those sections are reserved for parties to the case. Thank you Hasteur ( talk) 18:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur ( talk) 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Interesting that the principles of Attachment theory, originally conceived by John Bowlby and used liberally in psychotherapy and in the explanation of many mental disorders, has received significant attention by researchers. Note my recent addition to the article, which seems to have stuck:
From the article's abstract:
The theory can afford valuable insight not only into the developmental nature of common psychiatric disorders, but also into the development of the therapeutic relationship. This article gives an overview of (a) the current conceptualisations of attachment and the measurement of attachment for clinical research purposes and (b) the application of attachment theory to different psychopathologies.
The article specifically considers depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, stress-related disorders, personality disorders, and eating disorders. No mention is made of DID despite the dependence of the traumagenic model (as put forth by ISSTD) on attachment theory, etc. and not a split between clinical and research
(There is a second article, which I haven't found: "My second article (Ma, 2007) will look at some of the applications of attachment theory in the everyday clinical setting." i.e. attachment theory as it relates to the relationship between therapist and patient. This may provide insights into the sociocongitive model, specifically the therapist-induced version.)
MathewTownsend ( talk) 09:03, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
Well, that explanation for the DID bubble isn't entirely true. Insurance companies in the olden days paid for open ended psychological treatment à la Freudian style. Insurance companies mostly gave up all coverage for psychotherapy, or limited it drastically for everyone. If you have Schizophrenia you don't get psychotherapy, you get a 15 minute appointment with a psychiatrist for meds every few months. That's far more lucrative for psychiatrists than listening to the same patient for a hour one or more times a week. But I know psychotherapists with thriving private practices who treat patients with these sorts of problems. And if you get good at writing justifications to insurance companies, some will pay for extended treatment. Today it's a question of accepting patients who can either pay or have really good insurance. (Also, you can get your patient on Medicaid if you can show they're mentally disabled enough by Medicaid criteria, like not being able to hold a job or fulfill the tasks of daily living. Then Medicaid will pay, but not much though.)
That second article you found explains it. Some people do have attachment disorders and a good therapist can become an attachment figure. That's powerful stuff that people who need that sort of thing will pay for.
The traumagenic model isn't testable because there are no operational definitions, no definitions of the terminology that have any validity or reliability, etc. No acceptable definition of personality or dissociation! And basically, other diagnoses like Borderline personality disorder cover the objectively verified symptoms. What may force the hand of the DSM people is that the manual definitions have to become more data driven, moving toward a continuum format rather than a categorical one. That's what's giving DSM-V fits. But some ISSTD members are on the committee, so as you say, they may have to die out. MathewTownsend ( talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi WLU. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.
If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.
If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲 水 09:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur ( talk) 19:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
re DID, since I don't have your sources. MathewTownsend ( talk) 18:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you own the 2012 version? The online version is missing some important stuff, like the 4,500 alters! Looks like a good book. MathewTownsend ( talk) 18:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This organisation been discussed a few times on WT:MED but in case you haven't noticed, can I point out m:Wikimedia Medicine and the current discussion at the top of User talk:Iridescent? One concern raised is the potential for undue influence from pharmaceutical companies and quackery, so I was wondering if you might be interested in commenting, or at least keeping an eye on things. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 03:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Firewall english cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I was starting to worry. Good to see you popping up on my watchlist again. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 22:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Kluft has been described to me as an attention-seeker who might sensationalize certain things, but I have absolutely no reason to doubt him on the high populations he describes. The answer to how such groups function is simple. Not all of these people are using the body ("fronting"). They may observe what's going on, offering opinions and advice, or be completely unconcerned with the outside world as their occupations are internal. Many multiples have a subjective world of their own which can amount to a secondary universe (like a conworld) which they experience as quite real. -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 18:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jet lag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatigue ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 16:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
If I were you, I think I would edit/refactor parts of that last comment on Men's Rights Movement talk. The whole suite of articles are under article probation, and I think it is worth being extra careful not to break them, even if it is meant in part as a over-the-top joke. -- Slp1 ( talk) 19:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what achievable policy change would deal with civil POV-pushing? I think you've dealt with much more of it than I have. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 10:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I feel very discouraged and disheartened at wikipedia by you and the other people who are probably no one in particulars friends showing up right when people start seeing how ridiculous things are over on that article. I mean, we are debating about this for 2 weeks and no one seems to care. And then, some kid shows up, who agrees with me. And the next day, three other people, who are established editors that have obviously been here a long time (like no one in particular) show up and defend no one in particular's view. That makes me very, very disheartened as a new editor here. And there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. So NOT in the spirit of wikipedia's egalitarian and non-cronyist and non-dogmatic philosophy.
(I'm sure there's some WP:wikipedia-is-not-egalitarian rule that you, like no one in particular, can pull out of thin air, but you, nonetheless, know what sort of philosophy I am talking about) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article. | ” |
PS: and I also thought there was consensus. Although they were months ago, many people had commented on the citation style and thought footnotes were better. Charles35 ( talk) 02:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Things seem to be going ok at present. Do you agree? I have more material now. Can add if you want to embark an an improvement drive! Best wishes, MathewTownsend ( talk) 02:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Any chance you could do the same at green tea extract? :) 148.177.1.210 ( talk) 19:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green tea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
WLU, you have been editing Wikipedia for years now. Don't you think it's time you shared your real name and identity with the Wikipedia community? What do you have to hide? Dark windows of the soul ( talk) 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thanks for your kind words! Jytdog ( talk) 17:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey WLU. We seem to be clashing heads over the slactivism thing. I made a recent edit saying "sorry, your last revert violated rule x, y, and z". Biosthmors pointed out to me the issue with that. I shouldn't have said that so definitively. My bad! I should have said something more like, "in my opinion, it violates x, y, and z". If you have a different interpretation of that rule, I'd like to hear it. Charles35 ( talk) 19:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breast cancer awareness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stigma ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If you have the time and inclination, with Hunting hypothesis and a new article, Gathering hypothesis - we have a new student editor from the American Psychological Association Wikipedia initiative who needs help. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You are probably already aware of this, but anyways. It's here. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is " "Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC) AwesomeThanks for taking the trouble to explain the basics to Nernst at Wikipedia:BLPN#Andrew_Wakefield. I, like everyone else I suppose, assumed he understood WP:PSTS. Would you like a free T-shirt? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 20:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
povplease stop following me around and just let me be. bca has serious pov problems. this has been the issue from the beginning. look at the talk page. almost every section is about pov concerns. theres nothing about that list that has requirements set by you. for example, "nationalist issues" and "Marginal or idiosyncratic scientific speculation" do not meet your requirements that you so falsely impose as if you own wikipedia. if you constantly look at my recent contributions, please stop it and leave me alone. bca has pov issues. accept it. since the pov issues are related to you, you arent really at liberty to say that the article doesnt have pov issues, or to decide when the issues are gone and when to take down the templates. leave that to those with the concerns. you dont own wikipedia, so stop strutting around reverting whatever you like when you like and coming up with these bogus justifications. Charles35 ( talk) 17:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 11Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breast cancer awareness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inner circle ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC) compromise?WLU, can you please be reasonable? Look, I am real tired of this wikidrama and the way this has become a battleground. Can you please compromise and work reasonably and cooperatively? I do not mean to be personally attacking or anything of the sort. I am just so sick and tired of putting up with and engaging in wikidrama. Some of the recent edits that have been made here are very clearly against the policies, such as:
I would really appreciate it. Charles35 ( talk) 00:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I have literally 50 times the edits you do. I am also quite invested in wikipedia, perhaps 50 times more than you. And your French is pardoned. See my most recent note on the BCA talk page, the shaming comments about appearance is valid.
WLU
(t)
(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex
11:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
|