Hi Whatamidoing
Your comment about references in the 'Astrodatabank' query was of interest to me because I have had almost every reference I have provided for that biography subject to the same degree of intense examination and speculation. If you can find the time, it would be really helpful if you would drop by the biography page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer) - I'm not asking you to read through all the discussion (which would be a lot to ask), but just to maybe read the page itself and leave an opinion on whether the tag, which says that the article is in need of further citation and reference, can be removed. In my opinion it is pretty much referenced to death now, and all the sources are fully reliable, so I cannot understand why the editors - those who have raised issues in the 'Astrodatabank' query - are insisting that the 'needs citation' tag - plus two other tags - must remain on the page. I have a different view to those editors but there are three of them, only one of me. Another voice will help a lot, and if you too disagree with me, well, then I will just have to accept that there is a consensus of opinion and drop my request for the tags to be removed, as flogins a dead horse. In any event, some movement would be beneficial. Thanks (hope you don't mind me asking) Clooneymark ( talk) 10:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
"Neutral" on Wikipedia means something more like "follows the sources" rather than "doesn't take sides". If the sources are gushing about something, then Wikipedia should reflect that. For example, if the typical physics textbook got all starry-eyed about Newton's First Law, saying that it is the fundamental principle of matter and motion, without which nothing in the universe could exist, the most important concept described in the history of humanity—then Wikipedia can say that, too, and without trying to tone down the language to be "neutral". While it's more common for editors to show bias by overstating a source, it's just as possible to show bias by understating a source. "Encyclopedic tone" hasn't meant "the most boring writing style possible" since 1911 (when Encyclopedia Brittanica published an encyclopedia with a famously interesting writing style).
In the instant case, it's important to notice the difference between "Some astrologer says it is valuable" and "It is valuable". The first says only that somebody recommends it; the second implies that everyone does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I wasn't able to tell you this before but you were brilliant. Your help was fantastic, thanks! You restored my faifth in Wikipedia. There's some interesting psychology going on here sometimes. I've changed my username so I'm not quite so much 'out there' in future. Also - your advice: absoltutely right. I was too close to see it, but I'll watch for that in future. Cheers for taking the time and trouble to help sort that one out Zac Δ talk 00:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble to give an opinion on the problem I raised on the Village Pump page. Ansotu ( talk) 15:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello ! I was so happy with your participation in PocketBook article. Ronz again deleted Bookland.net now from "Services:" in infobox claiming it is advertising. Bookland.net is visited by 200,000 people monthly. Do you think it is notable or any guidelines are not OK ? He is experienced user, I don't want to lose a dispute in noticeboard. Should I create Wiki article on it? Any other recommendations are highly welcome.-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 04:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your work on WP:COI and thought you might be interested in looking at the help guide we've made up in the #wikipedi-en-help channel, WP:PSCOI. If you get a chance, let me know what you think. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for your input and advice at WT:RFC.
I'm still pondering whether I want to go ahead with the RfC, especially whether to actually file it under the article category. The reason is that in my experience, a great many of the group you politely refer to as "subject-matter experts" usually turn out to be article owners who have made up and stick to their own (incorrect) ideas about style (and content, for that matter).
I firmly believe that I have all the compelling arguments I need, but all the best arguments in the world are not enough to convince a typical nay-sayer.
So I'm still not sure how or whether to proceed. Trying and failing with something that should be completely uncontroversial and straighforward just because some people refuse to get the point is the single most frustrating experience on Wikipedia.
... Hm, reading the above, this has got precious little to do with you or the helpful advice you gave me. I guess I just needed a shoulder to cry on. -- 195.14.220.119 ( talk) 13:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The GA status of Getty Villa is so complicated that even I can't see a clear path toward resolution. On June 13 Amadscientist started an "Individual reassessment" of the article. He then amended the article history template to delist it. An hour later, he then added an new GA reassessment template. He then deleted the article history template entirely. Aside from his technical struggles, he never notified either the prior reviewer or the nominator of his concerns to give us a chance to address his concerns. I have now addressed his comments in Talk:Getty Villa/GA4. Judging by his questions and comments in the reviews of Getty Villa and Getty Foundation it is clear that he does not understand how footnotes are supposed to work (they can be in the middle of a sentence if they source the first half of a sentence) or how quotations with square brackets work (words can be edited to make the quoting sentence grammatically correct). In March after quick-failing Getty Villa, he quick-failed The Incredible Melting Man, and the nominator sought a Community Reassessment. In an earlier Community Reassessment of Incredible Melting Man, Amadscientist [1] did not take part, the consensus was that he quick-fails more than most, and the article was listed as GA. How can we clarify whether Getty Villa is a GA, and what can I do to get it back to GA if it has in fact been delisted? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 20:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Only Amadscientis...speaks for Amadscientist. I neither agree with or disagree with anything written here, but I do take the words of WhatamIdoing to heart as stated and should not be seen as an ebdorsement of any member or any policy or interpretation of policy and guide line.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No, the CSD tags say that an appeal is not binding, otherwise there would be no point in a speedy tag. I've just deleted again, since for legal reasons, a copyright infringement can't be allowed to stay. Also, as would be expected for copied text, it reads like an advertisement (also not permitted). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey sweetie - LTNS. Instead of cleaning out my garage, I decided to write an article. Consistent with this "misbehavior" motif I selected for myself today, I then decided it would be very fitting to dump on the nicest, busiest, most generous person I could think of ... and you immediately came to mind.
From then on, it was really easy for me to just post you here and ask if you'd mind scanning basaloid squamous cell lung carcinoma, removing the "New" tag, and doing whatever else you really dont have time to do for me.
I'd ask Doc James or Axl or someone else to do it, but then I wouldn't be able to just pay them off with a big *SMOOOOCH* ... well, at least not without SOME damage to (what remains of) my hard-earned "rep" for manly manliness :-)~ LOL!
Thanking you in advance, wishing you the best, and thinking I need to take a serious break, I remain
Your #1 Wikifan: Cliff Knickerbocker, M.S. ([[User talk:Uploadvirus|talk]]) ( talk) 21:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You might be interested in whether "death" should be include in the lede sentence of the abortion article. Of course the article is not a medical article because abortion is a much broader topic. There was a consensus lede sentence that for at least 5 years that some editors would like to change. I hope you will drop by abortion and the talk page. 71.3.237.145 ( talk) 00:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically Late termination of pregnancy typically with pre procedural feticide but this is just my interpretation of the literature and not something we consider here in Canada as except if the mothers life is at risk they are considered by the profession to be unethical. Now even if one does not use this technical definition by far the majority of abortions still occur before viability. Whether or not human cells are able to think has a great determination for example with "brain dead" organ transplantation here in the West. The same rational is applied to abortion. Thus the separation of terms in the view of the medical profession with before and after viability. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Given the mountains of objective evidence (from WP:MEDRS and other WP:RS) that a non-living fetus is properly called a dead fetus, argumentation to the contrary is tortured POV pushing:
71.3.237.145 ( talk) 13:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What is one to do with all those shenanigans on Talk:Vertebral artery dissection? JFW | T@lk 19:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no stomach for that kind of thing. I'd prefer to write articles, not do battle with armies of strawmen. JFW | T@lk 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This might be relevant - DigitalC ( talk) 06:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you have been involved in a discussion about the example of Eskimo/Inuit on Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. I have simply removed this example from that page, and so resolved the issue. Debresser ( talk) 11:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right of course. Malleus Fatuorum wasn't even cautioned for that attack. I think a wider discussion regarding civility on the project should happen somewhere. Some potential talking points: (1) It's easier and less controversial for administrators to civility block newbie editors than experienced editors, (2) Too many people ascribe attacks on behavior as being acceptable, as it's commenting on behavior, and supposedly not the person, (3) Past civility issues often seem to have no bearing on current problems with a given editor. There's plenty of other potential talking points. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Insofar as civility can be improved, I think we need to look at more imaginative solutions than blocking. In general, my experience has been that Wikipedians respond to operant conditioning. If they receive positive reinforcement (in terms of attention, even negative attention) for doing something, they'll keep doing it. If they're looking for attention and don't get it, then they'll either fade away or modify their behavior. So I think the best approach is to model civility (as best one can), and at the same time studiously ignore people who are making asses of themselves.
A secondary question has to do with burnout. If you take a snapshot of people who behave like irredeemable jerks at present, a lot them used to be more polite (not all of them, of course). In the end, one's patience isn't infinite, and it's hard to be as polite to the 100th spammer, or agenda account, as to the first. Moreover, as you allude to, uncivil behavior sometimes works, at least in a pragmatic and short-term sense, in dealing with the various nuisances besetting this project, although I agree it's probably maladaptive in the long term. On the other hand, if we had mechanisms in place for quickly, firmly, and civilly showing the door to spammers and POV-pushers, I think that would go a long way both in reducing the burnout that leads to incivility and in reducing the practical payoffs of uncivil behavior. MastCell Talk 18:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I ran across this incident today; an IP posts this to Δ's talk page. Oh but not to worry, it's not a personal attack. See, it's only a complaint, and sheer exasperation, and the IP was only commenting on behavior. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#QuackGuru Ocaasi t | c 20:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Your username: What am I doing? Yes, what are you doing? Rather, does it refer to something? See also: my reply to an ongoing discussion, that you have commented on. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. ( talk) 21:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I recently posted to Wikipedia talk:Further reading, and I want to get more people discussing what I said here. As you are mentioned in that section as someone active on that talk page, I thought I'd ask what you think. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have some information. You are invited to comment at the relevant thread. Thank you. CycloneGU ( talk) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I just wanted to show my appreciation to you for all your work explaining how the Article Feedback Tool works to people who have questions and concerns. It's really reduced my workload. So, thanks!
Jorm (WMF) (
talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The only reference, bodhi.name, is a reliable source how? Perhaps you didn't read the drivel they have there, which is exactly the kind that make the object of attention from QuackWatch. Here's an exceprt:
"As a new epoch begins in the life of Humanity, people start investigating enlightened perceptions and their components, characteristics and laws, bring into the light the joyful wishes aimed to change constituents of perceptions and create optimum technologies for these changes. In the process of investigating materials the scientists of the past discovered new substances with unique and incomprehensible characteristics. Likewise in this process, while practicing replacement of negative emotions with enlightened perceptions, the new enlightened perceptions appear with such striking qualities that are impossible to see even in the boldest of dreams. The era of enlightened perceptions engineering begins forming a conglomerate called the “man”. A man starts a new and unique journey, the peculiarity of this journey consists of in the fact, that it’s not a notorious “journey of the mind” usually implying a certain emotional or intellectual process severed from the physical reality and senses, which means the physical body and common chores. A man goes on a journey as a whole entirety. He is not a dreamer that turns over philosophical terms in his mind and experiences a huge number of negative emotions and he has no enlightened perceptions, feels sick and gets worse and worse. His physical body is also a unity of perceptions, we call them “feelings”, and these perceptions can also be replaced directly by effort (e.g. apathy to activeness, from “feeling not well” to “feeling great”), his physical body begins to transform and improve as negative emotions are disappearing from the set of perceptions and enlightened perceptions taking their place.
At this moment (year 2005) there are very few of such travellers, only about 20 (I mean “snouts”), but in the year 2000, when I started my activity, there were no snouts at all. It makes me feel sure there will be more and more of them as money, cars, education, relations or inheritance are not needed to make the journey. It is enough to know that this journey is possible (the task is solved by this book) as well as the fact that you are alive and have the aspiration to be happy, to experience enlightened perceptions and overpower distresses. This is why I am confident the number of snouts will grow every year and the time will come when there will be snouts by the hundreds and thousands. Therefore I have had the most intensive anticipation while realizing my joyful wishes of accomplishing “snout-projects”, when I develop the infrastructure for the snout-culture, get books translated into other languages, be supportive with the “snouts” practices and help them become with time the experts in this field and be enlightened perceptions educators who can assist the beginners independently. All my time and finances are aimed for this and I enjoy it.
The minimum task for “snouts” consists of first mastering the art of lucid dreaming and out-of-body experiences and then of learning to keep the conscious clear throughout the process of passing away (when the body is going to die), in between the physical death of the body and the birth of the new and after the reincarnation to recall your practice in the “new life” and to continue from the level you have gone through in your past life. I am sure that to gain this experience it is necessary to get rid of distresses and achieve continuous enlightened perceptions of preferably ecstatic quality. Mankind has already had some similar limited experience (e.g. Dalai-Lama the 14th, Karmapa the 17th, and hundreds of other less famous Tibetan monks, “tulku”, known as people who transferred their consciousness to the new body with some larger or smaller gaps in their self-consciousness and capability to recall their past lives and past experiences)."
Snouts, huh? FuFoFuEd ( talk) 20:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that you originally uploaded the image file entitled "Article title versus first sentence.jpg", which is referenced in Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). The file is now empty and no images appear in these articles. I was considering replacing it myself, but I'm new at this and I wouldn't want to accidently cause additional problems. I suspect that you'd be the one best suited to re-create the image as it did initially (or as you now feel it should) appear. I did also see a message on Commons, as I was looking at this, regarding a problem generating thumbnails of uploaded/updated files, but I wouldn't suspect that would apply in this case. It doesn't look like the image file was erased or anything; at least the wrapper info, CCSA3.0 license, description, and everything else appear to still be intact, save for the fact that the jpg is empty/gone. I am also just a little curious why you would use a Share-Alike license rather than a Public Domain permission; I haven't uploaded anything to Commons so I haven't had to make that decision yet; but just curious why you'd choose one v. other or if it's just a default option thing. ttfn -- Who R you? ( talk) 04:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You're obviously seeing something different than I; here are screenshots of what I am seeing for this image (but only this image). Very strange. Just thought I'd let you know. As for the license, I now understand; I had thought the screenshot would technically be your work and the Wikipedia would be public domain; but of course you're right, Wiki work is GFDL/Share-Alike and screenshot is a capture of work by others which must be licensed as such, as you've obviously correctly done and which I hope I have as well. Thanks for the education! – Who R you? ( talk) 20:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
┌─────────────────┘
Yeah, image compression algorithms definitely aren't my thing; but no doubt someone with an image crunching background could write a simple enough scanner to check the color palette of the image. If memory serves (which more and more these days it doesn't necessarily; but if it does) the Cyan-Magenta-Yellow-Black -vs- the Red-Green-Blue palette selection is just a flag set at such&such a bit location in the image header record. I thought I saw talk of an image group/lab/support/something somewhere, probably in Commons, who are probably capable of writing a quick scanner to flag all the CMYK J-Pegs in Commons. I guess we should all be using PNGs but, of course, they aren't quite as universal as jpgs but I don't know what would still be around that doesn't support png. I guess maybe if someone in Africa or China is using a 15-year old computer running IE6 (tongue-in-cheek assuming that's how long ago microsoft created png), and I have no idea how long (or if) all other platforms like Mac fully support viewing/creating/editing microsoft's portable network graphic format. I know in recent times I have run into the odd occasion where I had to convert something from a png to a jpg in order to satisfy something that couldn't handle png; so I guess until it's ubiquitous, jpgs still the best option (still better quality than gif for a lot of/most things like screenshots and photos). Ya like how subtle I am about showing off that I once knew something almost useful about this kinda stuff? :) Once upon a time not many people knew this kind of stuff and they used to pay people that did.
Meanwhile I guess us IE users either have to finally dump ms (not that I'd mind on a lot of levels), or just follow-up if we see a missing image. But it was interesting to learn why that happened; apparently the saying's still true that one can learn something new every day.
—
Who R you? (
talk) 05:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to say thanks for your comments in response to my query at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_8#open_wikis. The feedback was very useful to help crystalise my thoughts about how to take this forward. AndrewRT( Talk) 17:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think a more up to date source (2011 vs 2007) is here. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 18:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Syphilis is currently being reviwed for GA by me. As you have contributed major to it i want you to participate in current going reviewing and debate thanks. Sehmeet singh Talk 13:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, maybe I need to get you to review my next GA candidate; you seem like an easy reviewer. Or is it just much harder to get delisted? I have seen much better articles fail GA, and others get delisted. Did you actually look at my candidates and think they are representative of good articles? Would you pass them? I think you have to grade articles so that any GA article has a similar level of quality, no? I am not sure I understand what you want me to do to verify the sources, with the templates and all, but I have not been allowed to use those same sources in the past in a failed GA review. BTW, I also see reviewers complain about reference formatting as well, even down to consistent date formatting across refs. BollyJeff || talk 01:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
after the removal of the social media links at British Red Cross, I have restored them, as I believe that is not the correct interpretation of WP:EL which says "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided" (emphasis mine). This preceeds the section you quoted, and reading around it, these links are permitted provided they are the official source of information for the organisation. That is also why the {{Twitter}} and {{Facebook}} templates are allowed to stay.
Hope that helps, OwainDavies ( about)( talk) edited at 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned by the time that we are both expending on high school notability. You have spent a lot of effort working your way around Wikipedia guidelines and I have spent a lot of effort following you around and reverting you! Though we may have a philosophical difference, in practice it is only just possible to get a playing card between the effect of our differing positions. I take the pragmatic position that since 99% of high schools have sources available (whether on Google or not) to meet WP:GNG treating them all as de facto notable (note I don't use the loaded term 'inherently notable') saves the Community spending an inordinate amount of time chasing them all through AfD in order to weed out the very few that may not be notable. This pragmatic approach is not unique to high schools. It is taken, for example, on:
None of these would get deleted at AfD even without a sniff of sources (note I am not justifying these merely exemplifying them). It is also not helpful inaccurately characterising supporters of high school notability as 'teenagers' or a 'minority'. Also, the various attempts at a school notability haven't foundered on this issue. What happened was that any standard that we suggested was considered too restrictive by schools inclusionists and too permissive by schools deletionists and it only takes 2 or 3 determined editors to scupper any standard.
Your concern appears to be that taking high schools as notable might allow home schools or small all-through private schools, for whom there are little or no reliable sources, to survive. In fact, this is not the issue. The problem, with the lack of an agreed standard, is with Indian, Pakistani, Filipino and Bangladeshi high schools where major public schools are continuously put forward for deletion. This is due to the generally woeful standard of writing and that there is only a very limited amount of reliable sources on the Internet. To avoid systemic bias it has to be argued that reliable sources probably exist but that ample time needs to be given to allow local sources to be researched (at local libraries and the like).
My offer of a compromise is that if you will row back from knocking the de facto notability of high schools, I will support you in getting deleted such schools as home schools, tiny private all-though schools for which we know reliable sources won't exist. That way we can both concentrate our efforts in doing some of the much-needed work of article writing and improvement. TerriersFan ( talk) 19:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Template:Third-party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 23:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I quoted a statement from WP:TITLECHANGES that has been in there since at least May 2010. I did add wording to WP:NDESC yesterday that was a clarifying paraphrase of this statement, but that's not what I quoted in my statement. Please acknowledge at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests.
Please retract the accusation you made of me: " make a significant change to a policy and then quote it as if it had always been part of the policy."
I would NEVER do that! WP:AGF, please! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
Just want you to know that I admire your integrity and appreciate the help you've given as an uninvolved editor Zac Δ talk 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hey, you may hate these things, I don't know. If so delete it, but wanted to show my thanks.
Zac
Δ talk 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the help with the Vermillion Literary Project Magazine. Wanted to know if you can see my user pages? I am working on another article, Lifelines, a literary journal out of Dartmouth. Hope I have done this right so far.... Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 18:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm contacting you because you participated in the proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles a few months ago; and particularly because you had some interesting ideas on how to implement the trial. I have set up a discussion page for various aspects of implementing the trial at WP:ACTRIAL. Please feel free to join the discussion if you are interested. I am not initially contacting a large number of users (in an attempt to keep the discussions contained and manageable), but feel free to invite any other users who might be helpful. Thanks. —SW— spout 00:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I was just Wikisurfing and I found your username. I have to say, It's awesome! Mike 2 8 9 18:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in your opinion on a question that came to mind after reading the following sentence.
Is a peer-reviewed journal article about a scientific experiment by the author, considered a first-party source or a third-party source? My thinking is that it is a third-party source because the peer-reviewed journal where it is published is a third-party source. If instead the experiment was reported only on the website of the experimenter, then it would be a first-party source. Regards, Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW are you satisfied with the title of the essay Party and person? Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this contribution is starting to come close to failing to meeting the spirit of WP:AGF even if it may meet the letter. Please do not ascribe motivations to me, or any editor, particularly since the ascribed motivation is incorrect. TerriersFan ( talk) 22:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Your name came up in the history of Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and your talk page is full of all sorts of grammar fun. The essay Wikipedia:Video links could use a copy edit to improve its readability. No worries if you are too busy, but it would be awesome if you had 10 minutes for it. Cptnono ( talk) 07:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to a drop a note saying that despite a vocal minority of complainers, there are long time editors like myself who really appreciate the efforts being made to launch this tool. It's not perfect, but rarely is the most viable product released in a perfect state. I've made a few comments on the Media Wiki page (as an IP since I don't particularly care to create another Wiki account) voicing my support and trying to point out to the objectors that there are sound market research principles behind your methodology. I do hope that you have the support of the WMF to give this project the time it needs to iron out the bugs. Agne Cheese/ Wine 19:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
As I know you like contributing to policy issues, there is currently a long and important thread on Jimbo's talk page that might be right up your (High) street. This may finally be the opportunity we are hoping for to get any ambiguities cleared up regarding any perceived interpretations of (non)notability. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking time to explain to me why I am not invited to vote on this issue.
Had I known prior to seeing the notice yesterday, I would have worked like a dog much earlier to meet the eligibility requirements.
It seemed a bit abrupt to me that the referendum was announced such a short time before the voting date cutoff.
Admittedly, perhaps my sense of such timing is simply out of whack with some standard procedure.
I only hope at this point that enough others share my pain concerning even the serious consideration of this action.
Thank you for reading my rant on it. I can now at least take solace in knowing that someone read it and even bothered to send me a comment. Such a compliment is becoming rarer and rarer these days.
Oh, by the way, I just read an earlier paragraph on your page. I now surmise you are in favor of such censoring,
so let me point out that I'm neither young nor single, just white, (whatever that has to do with anything).
Do you really think this is only young white men wanting to push porn and violence? Please!
This reveals far too much about your personal bias of who's trying to do what to whom.
I assumed all readers had the ability to make suggestions for editing articles individually if they had the gumption to get involved.
Readers censoring all of Wikipedia with mere a click of the mouse to accommodate their 'taste' smacks of caving in to Political Correctness, to me a dirty-word expression for insidiously turning information.. its very content, into Pablum and everyone into a 'Hey, don't look at me!' innocent bystander.
What's controversial? Where does it end? Where do you judge it to become silly?
Are you in favor of removable paragraphs, even entries, if they offend? Who dictates what varieties of what topics of material might need filters built and installed for them?
Can I assume for a moment that you're not a Fundamentalist who believes the world was created 6,000 years ago, like many, many here in the U.S. do?
Do you believe a mother should have a button to click on the home computer to filter out any possibility of her kids reading the entry Darwinism?
Do only young white males think like I do? You make me laugh.
No images of Christian crosses, but Maltese crosses are OK? Sexual matters? Which ones? Animal kingdom, too?, AIDS? How about Homosexuality? Segregation? Maybe someone wants to wipe from view any and all articles about communism? Capitalism? Anything at all about Islam? Karl Marx? Ayn Rand?
It rather defeats the purpose of a group of individuals getting together to decide how to honestly, intelligently and correctly present the facts on any given topic, doesn't it?
Mykstor ( talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
For your thorough explanation. And I apologize if WTF's answers made me cross the line, I tried, as hard as I could, not to (and not to overreact). But as I've said, I was appalled by such replies (go away from this wiki, and the obsessive use of the f word). -- Vlad| -> 05:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I realize now that the user was still working on it, but bear it mind there are many pages that are created and an hour later it's still only contains "born in New Zealand..." so I assumed that the article was either created as a test or an A7. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the beliefs you have laid out are fairly well reflected in my edit Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable. Care to take a look? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
Although I've edited wikipedia for years, I still have no clue as to how to give a standard warning that a particular article likely violates NPOV. Please, where is the wikipedia advice page which shows me how to add that to the top of an article or other statements such as the claim that the article may have original research in it etc. Thanks. Loki0115 ( talk) 17:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
. Don't forget to start a discussion on the talk page to explain your concerns, if you add that one to an article. We had a problem with people adding the template merely because they personally disagreed with the articles (e.g., a person who believes in homeopathy being unhappy because an article didn't say that homeopathy worked), so we've made discussion a rule for that particular template.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
If I may make a point. I recently deleted some very seriously biased pro-cooking "data" which was contradicted by other studies showing the exact opposite. Ryulong is perhaps right. I should have also prrovided refs showing such, even though they are easily accessible online. I will do so now. As for the Margaret Mead assertion by Ryulong, that has nothing whatsoever to do with cooking, but Ryulong is trying to promote an anti-raw assertion here, of course, which, again, has nothing whatsoever to do with Margaret Mead, solely in order to make a biased attack on me. I will add the necessary refs. Loki0115 ( talk) 21:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not provide pro-raw info. I simply deleted some extremely questionable pro-cooking claims, such as the decidedly scientifically-unsupported notion that cooking allowed humans to proliferate. I showed that the ref in question did not actually back up that notion, that it, instead supported the notion that the discovery of fossil fuels allowed humans to proliferate, not cooking per se, and pointed out that other data showed that human populations remained stable during the palaeolithic era. In short, I am not against solid data about cooking, I just don't want blanket pro-cooking statements which have already been debunked elsewhere in scientific circles. Loki0115 ( talk) 07:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The trouble is that including all views can make an article really longwinded and unclear. For example, your suggestion would involve first citing studies which show that cooking makes meat easier to digest, followed by studies showing that cooking makes meat more difficult to digest. That way, everybody gets confused, when, in reality, the issue of raw/cooked meat being more/less digestible hasn't really been sorted out yet for any definitive claim to be made as yet. Plus, it makes the article needlessly longer than it should be, also, the article isn't really about cooked food or raw food, it is about the control of fire. So any pro-cooking info really belongs in the cooking wikipedia page. Loki0115 ( talk) 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota ( talk) 00:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota ( talk) 00:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently you edited the Wikipedia article on Polycystic ovary syndrome, on august 11. It is a tragedy since the only likely CURE for PCOS has been wiped off the net by you. If PCOS is dominantly inherited (as you have edited with a 2001 dated reference) then the human race is doomed! On the other hand, since 2007 (after reading the American journal of Nutrition article on trans fats and PCOS) I have put numerous infertility patients on a trans fat free diet (absolutely no trans fats - believe me it is very difficult in todays world) and ALL of them have documented sonographic improvement and several of them (about 30%) have conceived. You can try this out with anyone known to you who has PCOS and see the response yourself. Your grounds for deleting my contribution was that the relevant reference was about 'ovulatory' infertility and not PCOS. Any doctor treating infertility will tell you that PCOS is the largest cause of 'ovulatory' infertility!
If you own a trans fat related business, perhaps you could be forgiven, otherwise you have done the human race a gross injustice. Fullwill ( talk) 14:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC) |
I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity. |
My76Strat ( talk) 02:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoghtful comments at User_talk:Ottawahitech#Recruiting_professionals. Do you already know about the info at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=wikipedia? Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing,
You and I spoke briefly on an issue I was having with Vincristine, Vinblastine and Mustargen drugboxes. It's not happening anymore, and what you thought was happening is right. I'd attempted to install Chrome on my computer, it wasn't successful, however, Chrome left residual registry keys and they were causing my browsers to display incorrectly (happened with a few other applications at work, but never happened at home ). I cleaned my registry out of any mention of "Chrome" and now the drug boxes are displaying normally.
I wanted to ask you about the data within them. YOu stated that they can't have any breaks in them. They're not links of any kind, so what would the problem be ? @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons► Markab-@ 23:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have belatedly responded to your reply at [3] Regards. Eldumpo ( talk) 16:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thank you for your feedback on Transnasal esophagoscopy. I have reviewed the article and the editorial guidelines and agree that there was too much directly sourced material. I have removed the article, which I was the sole contributor to, for a complete rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weintraub.a ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. Debresser ( talk) 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits to the username policy. Changes to police require discussion. Mlpearc Public If you reply here, please leave a {{ Talkback}} on my talk. 18:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The Executive Director's Barnstar | |
Hello Whatamidoing! Congratulations on being awarded the Executive Director's Barnstar, which was created for me by my colleague Frank Schulenburg, and which I award occasionally to editors who are making a major contribution to the Wikimedia projects. You've been nominated by User:Jorm (WMF) and User:Moonriddengirl, because, they tell me, you're a "consistently sane and friendly voice" "who does amazing work all around the project." Reading your talk page and edit history, it's obvious that you're a stellar Wikipedian: clear, constructive, prolific and knowledgeable. Thank you, and congratulations! If you, or anyone reading this, would like to nominate someone else for this award, please feel free to do that on my talk page. Sue Gardner ( talk) 03:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
Sent you a quick one. Courcelles 22:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
When asking people to come participate in a discussion it's important to make the request as neutral as possible to avoid violating WP:CANVASS. Your request here seems to do the opposite, asking for people who already have particular views to comment. [4] Could you please review the guideline and revise your request to make it less pointed? Will Beback talk 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing, please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Infobox_statements. Best, -- J N 466 22:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment and edit on IVRA. I had not known when it is appropriate to remove the newpage tag and the sheer number of guidance articles is slightly overwhelming. ~ Wafflephile ( talk) 16:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I just came across
Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. That is a great essay, and I'm glad you're around to defend it. In fact, it just inspired me to go the article
Dalvik (software) and add the statement "It is the software that runs the apps on Android phones" as the second sentence in the article. (It wasn't made clear anywhere else!). Any time you need moral support for the cause, I'm on your side.
--
Qwerty0 (
talk) 11:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You left a comment at the infobox debate but I wasnt sure if you had a strong enough opinion to leave a !vote as to whether the articles in question are better served with or without the infobox. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate please do not add machine translated content to this wikipedia as you did with above article. If you are unable to properly translate it then leave it to be translated by someone else or deleted when the time comes. Thank you-- Jac16888 Talk 23:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
WAID, if you were to take a look at Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation, you will see that it is filled with over 400 articles by people who created an extremely poor machine translated article and left it for some else to fix "eventually". But that is not exactly happening, because often fixing a bad machine translation is an extremely difficult thing to do, I would argue its more difficult than actually translating in the first place. You are not helping by adding machine translation, and its possible for anyone to determine the subject by using google translate to look at the article themeselves, since its linked to in the {{ notenglish}} template-- Jac16888 Talk 09:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Was wondering what you think of this contributions. Do we normally consider random thesis reliable? I ask because this guys is spending hours every day adding links to here. What do you think - do we have a spammer more interested in the site or are this of great interest to us? Asking for a second opinion here. Moxy ( talk) 03:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I know this would be trollbait, but it would be interesting to see a list of the forms of advocacy that are not permitted by consensus to be in articles. Would it be strictly legal (as in pedophilia or would it include cultural taboos as well? patsw ( talk) 17:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Some time ago, I came across numerous edits by 1 or 2 people who mainly wanted to change words which used British spelling over to the American version. I recall trying to re-edit them back , but this was foiled repeatedly so I gave up. Now, I know that wikipedia policy is that pages based on the american sphere of influence are supposed to have american spelling while wikipedia pages focused on anything to do with the British sphere of influence(commonwealth etc.) but what is the policy on wikipedia pages which have no such influence, such as, say, pages on Roman or Kazakhstan culture or whatever? I am also wondering if it would be OK for me to frequently alter spellings of words to the British version on pages which have nothing to do with the US or the UK? Loki0115 ( talk) 07:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
As you appear well-versed in psychology perhaps you can comment on the "Blocks should not be punitive" issue at WT:BLOCK. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 23:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Verifiablity and plagiarism are the hammer and anvil of astute wikilawyers. For now it's in my user space. I think the language used may be a little too caustic. The problem is real though and not addressed by any other essay. I invite you to edit it if you fell so inclined, or at least provide some feedback on it if you so please. Thanks, Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 03:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I seem to recall that you were trying to develop Gaussgauss ( talk · contribs). This editor has again assumed an accusatory tone on Talk:Diabetic ketoacidosis ( diff), now with the added ingredient of pulling rank (see for yourself). I have responded to the talkpage post and on the user's talkpage. Could you possibly have a look? JFW | T@lk 22:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello WhatamIdoing! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
WhatamIdoing: I think we both have the same goals on the Layout MOS talk page, but I feel like we've started off on the wrong foot. My goal is very simple: I just want to make FNNR clearer so novices can get a better understanding of notes/citations. That is all. I'm not trying to create any new policy, or impose my personal preferences, or push any agenda. I'm perfectly satisfied with the fact that FNNR endorses many different ways to do refs/notes. I get the impression that other editors in the past have tried to impose a particular "standard practice", and you had to spend a lot of time fighting the good fight to keep the MOS sane and sensible (if you did, I thank you). But you may be jumping to the assumption that I am one of those editors. I'm not. My only goal is to provide clear guidance to novices. If that guidance ends up being "there are twenty ways to do it, and none is recommended" that is fine by me: I just want that stated in a clearer fashion. Does that make sense? -- Noleander ( talk) 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that teenage pregnancy is a formal "universally held definition" referring to pregnancy by women under the age of 20. Teenage refers to ages with the suffix -teen, however this is something only recognized in the English language. Furthermore, women can become child bearing prior to 13 which voids even the English language based argument. While it is a universally held definition that each water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, the statement "pregnancy prior to 20th birthday is teenage pregnancy" is not. To be considered "universally held" it must be truly universal like mathematical proof and science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As you were one of the people asking for per-article dashboards – the index on the AFT table I have been insistingly asking the toolserver folks for since August has eventually been released, so I started playing with this data, here's a first stab:
Cheers, -- DarTar ( talk) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Right on with this one [5]. You're absolutely correct. Dayewalker ( talk) 04:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Sorry this is so long after the event, but I want to thank WhatamIdoing for her patient, complete and so very helpful advice on my lame efforts editing parts of Talk:Breast Cancer. She thoroughly deserves a Barnstar/Burger/Furry kitten or whatever she fancies as appreciation for her hard and useful work. Treagle ( talk) 17:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hey WhatamIdoing. Brandon Harris, Howie Fung, Fabrice Florin and I will be holding a second Office Hours session on IRC in #wikimedia office on Thursday, 3 November at 24:00 UTC. This unusually late time is aimed at permitting East Coast editors, who would normally be at work, to attend. We will be discussing the new Article Feedback Tool designs; if you have any questions about Office Hours, or how to get on IRC, feel free to leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there; thank you for your suggestions thus far, and your contributions to discussions about the existing AFT over the past year :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 19:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI, There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural#RfC management, RfC bot tags. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
=== RFC Proposal re first sentence
The proposal is in two parts...
{ |
Hi! Recently a user asked me to see why was this done. I tried to explained him to be WP:BOLD, since i am feeling a little uncomfortable reverting it. He said that the user is not banned, so the revert should had been not done. Kindly see if the edit was done in mistake. Thanks. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please remind me where that guideline is that you directed me to the other day? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for commenting on the shared IP talk page proposal. I put up a comment at the bottom there to try and reach a compromise decision about how often to archive. Feel free to comment. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. With regard to this question, it might cut down extraneous argument if we were comparing (car + nude person) with (car +clothed person). -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 17:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
As our primary/secondary/tertiary expert, and somone who is wise wrt sourcing issues, I think you may have something useful to say at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Secondary sources verses a paper by the Institute of Medicine. Colin° Talk 15:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have recently accidentally reverted this edit of yours:
m Talk:Vitamin D; 17:20 . . (+95) . . WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) (Reference formatting) [rollback]
so sorry! Gandydancer ( talk) 18:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hiya!
Just dropping you a note to let you know that I really am working on it. I am a bit slow but reliable. I'll let you know here as well as on the technical props page when I have a definitive either working or not result. So far I have a button that does nothing and a desperate need for more tea!
fg
t
c 10:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. As far as I can tell this works. I can't figure out how to make event listeners work if the script is imported so unfortunately you'll have to add this directly to your common javascript. Just paste all of it into the page as it is and save. When you visit the search results page you'll see a button top right of the list. Click and wait. It is not super fast (depends a little on your PC) so be patient (it's still faster than doing it by hand!). It will hide all the entries that have been patrolled. Drop me a message if it fails or you need help with it in any way.
importScript("User:Fred Gandt/getUnpatrolledOfAlexNewArtBotResultsPages.js");
fg t c 06:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've replaced the text in the code pane above to save space. It seems to be working ok. Give it a whirl and let me know if anything isn't right. Sorry the first one was a failure. I didn't mean to waste your time. I may post updates to you if I find anything wrong with it before you do. fg t c 20:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
FG- anything I need to do to get this working on the NewArt results? For instance, User:AlexNewArtBot/ArchitectureSearchResult. I'm coming here with my botwriter hat on, not as a page patroller- in other words, let me know if I need to add any hooks to the search result pages. (I'll watch this page for a while) tedder ( talk) 22:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Redundant
Simply changing the recognition condition for the button creation function (how many tions?) will set it up to work on any page with the same html structure of results. If there is possible wider use for this script than for one set of results I can rewrite it to add a button to all (how many are there? OMG!! I just looked. Lummy that's a lot of search results.) results pages. I thought this medical results page was just a one off thing. With regard to hooks: Element id's are always useful (cuts down on the sheer number of nextSiblings etc.) but where there's a will there's a way and I wouldn't want to cause a fuss. I need to twiddle with the script above to solve an issue I wasn't expecting so while I'm at it I'll set it up to function on any of your search results pages. I'm a bit too tired to think clearly about it right now though. Thanks for your interest fg t c 23:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the " - Patrol" link showing up for you? It should appear at the end of the result entry if that entry is unpatrolled. fg t c 16:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hiya. It's unlikely going to get any more accurate (at least for a while). I will however continue to work on making it more efficient. In other words, as it stands it's as good as completed. Any further changes will not change how it looks or appears to behave (except for possibly being a bit quicker). I did check it using IE and didn't even get a button. It may be my IE settings or it may be a general IE incompatibility. I really cannot abide that browser and refuse to bend over backward to pander to its idiosyncrasies. The script works in Chrome so should be fine in Safari. I'd be surprised if it didn't work with Firefox but am not going to download and install it just to find out (I'm a bit grumpy about cross platform compatibility since standards exist that if followed would guarantee compatibility without developers having to... seriously, I should stop now. I have). So go ahead and use it and tell others (if they're interested) where it is. Let me know if it breaks or has bugs etc. I'l be quietly tweaking off and on for a few more days but you shouldn't even notice (other than possible speed changes or if I make a mistake (which does happen (quite often))). f g 21:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hiya! I have not quite but very nearly finished the update. It is working but I like to twiddle to optimize. It's slightly faster. It's more efficient insofar that it makes fewer requests of MWF servers and databases (that was the whole point of the redesign). I'd appreciate if you could try it out and see if it works ok for you too. As far as I can tell it's accurate (within acceptable tolerances).
importScript("User:Fred_Gandt/test.js");
//importScript("User:Fred Gandt/getUnpatrolledOfAlexNewArtBotResultsPages.js");
Make sure (if you test it) that you comment out the other as above. Once I'm sure it's behaving I'll replace the original with the new code so no one will have to change anything (that's the usefulness of importing). Thanks! f g 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
All swapped over now so use the long named script. There'll be no more changes to the import link to worry about. I may still fix it up a bit later but basically it's all done. f g 04:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, Thanks for getting in touch with me and sharing the editing info about which I knew nothing. I'm a fairly eclectic reader and originally got interested in editing by seeing a notice on the Osama bin Laden article that requested an edit of a section for improved readability. I played with the idea of making the articles related to various aspects of Islam more NPOV. I'm a native English speaker, a non-Muslim, and my professional background gives me a mindset of "withhold judgment." I'm not sure what I could do, and I know I have a lot to learn, but I think I have something to offer. I've been extremely frustrated. I would really like to work with a group of people rather than in such an isolated manner. Again, thanks! Tina Carmaskid ( talk) 20:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi and a question. I think the Vermillion Literary Project Magazine article ought to be listed as such, seeing how the Project it is affiliated is a seperate entity. I'm working on improving the article, and also want to put an image up too. Thoughts? Thanks! Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 22:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a poll Talk:Usage share of operating systems#Is there a consensus to include the median line. You might want to comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (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 " Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers". Thank you. -- Jdm64 ( talk) 00:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am a Wikipedian and researcher from Carnegie Mellon University, working with Professors Robert E. Kraut and Aniket Kittur. We’ve published many scholarly papers on Wikipedia and are partnering with the Wikimedia Foundation on several new projects.
I have been analyzing collaboration in Wikipedia, especially Collaborations of the Week/Month. My analysis of seven years of archival Wikipedia data shows that Collaborations of the Week/Month substantially increase the amount and nature of project members’ contributions, with long lasting effects. We would like to talk to Wikipedians to better understand the processes that that produce this behavior change.
We’ve identified you as a particularly good candidate to speak with because of your involvement with the WikiProject Medicine' Collaborations, which is one of those we’ve been investigating. It would really help us if you would be willing to have a short talk with us, less than 30 minutes of your time. We can talk via skype or instant messenger or other means if you’d prefer. Do you have time at any point during this week to chat? If so, please send an email to haiyiz@cs.cmu.edu or drop a line on my talk page.
Thanks! ( This my personal website) Haiyizhu ( talk) 02:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: Please see my 19:41 post on the talk page of that hockey player. As I wrote there, I could use some help shoehorning this into little-finger-out, proper form for an AfD. Greg L ( talk) 19:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply at WT:MED. I have responded there, but I find your blanket response a bit glib, and I would prefer an actual assessment of the changes that have been made.
When edits are made to an article about a controversial procedure by somebody who actually undertakes that procedure for money, I don't think there needs to be promotion of that individual's individual practice or publications for there to be the potential for COI. Jheald ( talk) 10:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
As advised by ItsZippy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, applied to Mediation Cabal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 00:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, perhaps you have an idea where to place this -- "Among younger African-American women, we estimate that up to 68% of basal-like breast cancer could be prevented by promoting breastfeeding and reducing abdominal adiposity." ? PMID 17578664. -- Richiez ( talk) 00:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear WhatamIdoing: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, thehistorian10, at their talk page. MedcabBot ( talk) 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding to the discussion at Vitamin D. I've learned not to try to form coherent opinions after spending a few hours relearning antibiotics and TB. The Haz talk 04:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Not sure exactly what you were looking for, but here is the table of contents from that surgery book I've got my hands on:
Unit I 1 Concepts Basic to Perioperative Nursing 2 Patient and Enviromental Safety 3 Surgical Modalities 4. Infection Prevention and Control 5. Positioning the Patient for Surgery 6. Sutures, Needles, and Instruments 7. Anesthesia 8. Postoperative Patient Care and Pain Management 9. Wound Healing, Dressings, and Drains 10. Patient Education and Discharge Planning Unit II 11. Gastrointestinal Surgery 12. Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract, Pancreas, and Spleen 13. Repair of Hernias 14. Gynecologic Surgery and Cesarean Birth 15. Genitourinary Surgery 16. Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery 17. Breast Surgery 18. Ophthalmic Surgery 19. Otologic Surgery 20. Rhinologic and Sinus Surgery 21. Laryngologic and Head and Neck Surgery 22. Orthopedic Surgery 23. Neurosurgery 24. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 25. Thoracic Surgery 26. Vascular Surgery 27. Cardiac Surgery Unit III 28. Ambulatory Surgery 29. Pediatric Surgery 30. Geriatric Surgery 31. Trauma Surgery 32. Complementary and Alternative Therapy.
I'm not exactly sure what you'd like out of these. I have zero medical background at all. The books basically ended up in boxes shipped to me and I was asked to hold onto them until my boss finds someone who wants them.--v/r - T P 16:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The book talks about pressure put on the patient's body including from the surgury itself but also from instruments, drills, the bed and attachments, bandages, ect. It describes factors such as duration and intensity and the limit of how much pressure the tissue can withstand (32mm Hg). Then it describes intrinsic factors such as the length of the procedure, position of the devices, and physiological changes.
The book discusses three forces: shear, friction, and maceration. Shear forces are the folding of tissue then the skeleton moves. Friction is the tissue rubbing against each other. Maceration is when moisture on the skin causes it to be more vulnerable to pressure, friction, and shear.
The book then discusses stress on the musculoskeletal system and nervous system. Then it gets into something called Peripheral Neuropathies (?) and Upper Extremity Neuropathies (?) and Lower Extremity Neuropathies. I dont really get this part but I think it has something to do with the position of nerves in the body in relation to placement of the legs and arms.
It then discusses how anesthesia changes the body's vascular system and how vessels dilate causing a drop in blood pressure. It discusses the pooling of blood and compression in the vessels (?).
It discusses how in all types of positions (except Fowler, sitting, and reverse Trendelenburg), the abdominal viscera (?) are pushed toward the diaphragm putting stress on the respiratory system.
It then discusses nursing considerations such as planning, implementation, and evaluation. This part discusses beds, matresses, and gel packs (pressure-reduction considerations).
Then it gets into the actual positions. All of these also discuss transferring the patient and anesthesia.
Hope this helps.--v/r -
T
P 18:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please point me to some pages that will give me the full back story on the image filter? So far I've got the Harris report and Meta:Controversial content/Brainstorming Will that do it? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 19:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to post something on the project medicine forum [6], but for some reason the second half of my text is not appearing. It is visible if I go into edit mode, but not showing in the preview or in the published draft. Any suggestions? Puhlaa ( talk) 23:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Best regards! Puhlaa ( talk) 01:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. If you think there's a problem with controversial image use on Wikipedia, would you mind telling me what you think it is here? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You have made disruptive personal comments and several false accusations here [7]. Please retract and address the subject or further action will be taken thx ... talknic ( talk) 10:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Ive done some research and found that hrafn has been raving against sources contrary to his personal beliefs for some time. And has been twisting WP policy to force his view. See this small sample of discussions (if you can call them that):
--- SmittysmithIII ( talk) 22:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I just realized that I overlooked somehow a perfectly lovely note from you. I hope you remember what I'm talking about. Anyway, just wanted to let you know it was appreciated, if belatedly! I know I'm not always the most cuddly editor around, but I do think it's important to recognize the good-faith efforts of new editors. Best, Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There has been a bunch of editors adding external links to Mount Sinai web site. User:Cardioeditor is only one. I assume that they are linked.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I would be interested to know what you make of this: User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I. Colin° Talk 23:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. I can't remember where the last debate was. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
whatamIdoing- thanks for the message. I'm a new user, would be grateful for any tips on best practice for the link added. OncologyMD9 ( talk) 20:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)OncologyMD9
I noticed this: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Page_name. I looked back at your talkpage and note that you haven't been keen to become an admin. Being an admin doesn't mean that you have to do anything. It means you are trusted with extra tools so that you can do things like page moves yourself as and when you need to. It was the page move tool that I wanted. I got fed up with asking other people to make what were obvious moves, but were protected because of some prior move. You have plenty of experience, are widely trusted and respected, and are level headed, so there shouldn't be a problem with an RfA. I'd be happy to nominate you if you'd allow me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard ( talk) 08:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing-
Thanks for your recent Helpful tips, I added some information under the Percutaneous Aortic Valve Replacement section of this page as you suggested. When you have a chance, please let me know if a link to the page should be provided in this section as well. THANKS Cardioeditor ( talk) 16:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Cardioeditor
HOW Can this be modified/edited to include this information about such a first-time historic implantation event? Can you please advise or add this to the article in the best manner-Maybe a link would work best.Thanks in advance for your help Cardioeditor ( talk) 14:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Cardioeditor
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bed blocking. Since you had some involvement with the Bed blocking redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
err… I don't want to bring this up in article talk, but it would probably be wise to quietly edit out the with the trait in question bit of this post. I'm assuming it was unintentional (because you're the last person I would expect to indulge in that kind of thing) but implying that someone has a paraphilia of this sort is really dicey. best it just fades away… -- Ludwigs2 23:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comprehensive responses at my questions regarding the new TOS. It didn't occur to me that trademarks can sometimes be "organically produced" and can become used more widely than initially intended-- my presumption was that, as you said, some group is designated to create official logos and so, it would be easy to create an exhaustive list and add to it as needed. I can see why The Foundation would want to cover these cases as well, and so I now understand why the TOS is worded as it is. Thanks again for your clarification-- hopefully you haven't given Geoff too much more work to do. I'm sure he's busy enough as it is. :) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Your concern for policy is commendable but please guard your comments and do more research before unilaterally sending out critical blanket comments. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Are there refs to support this?
Palliative care is often confused with hospice and therefore only involved when people approach end of life. Like hospice care, palliative care attempts to help the person cope with the immediate needs and to increase the person's comfort. Unlike hospice care, palliative care does not require people to stop treatment aimed at prolonging their lives or curing the cancer.
Specifically the "often confused" part Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw this and knew I had to respond somewhere. I chose your talk page. Feel free to move it:
Someone else already called WP:UNCIVIL on this so I don't need too. What's remarkable is the charge of WP:WIKILAWYERING to your common-sense distinction between WP:WEIGHT (or WP:UNDUE) and WP:N. Compounding that error is the bizarre creative twist that all the tests of WP:N and its children spill into article content because of the "do not directly limit the content" phrase in the text of the guideline.
The reason for that phrase is that the content is limited because editors cannot omit the stuff that allows other editors to evaluate its notability. That is the total extent of the indirect limitation of content. Does this need to be brought up in WT:N? patsw ( talk) 16:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for dropping a thank you note to one of my students. It is unlikely they'll return to editing, but such messages make it more likely :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for your great comments on the Terms of Use draft--you've been nearly tireless at explaining points that people have questioned, with clarity and admirable patience! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi –
Can someone please help me. I am trying to figure out why Ameya Pawar has not gone live yet. Please advise. Thank you.
rideittowin 17:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rideittowin ( talk • contribs)
Hi. I've gone ahead and expanding this article. Would you mind giving it a copyedit? I might like to send this to DYK.--v/r - T P 17:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reviewing the article! I think that it greatly benefited from the GA review as we were able to iron out some kinks. I agree that the article hasn't yet meet GA criteria. When I have the time, I might do additional work on it (I still think the chart is an eyesore). Bejinhan talks 13:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.
I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:
// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left addOnloadHook(function () { addPortletLink( "p-tb", // toolbox portlet "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage, "Reflinks" // link label )});
onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. So long! -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 03:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Breeding for drought stress tolerance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breeding ( 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) 10:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been trying to discuss [ "Change of policy towards Dutch ..."] and wonder how this "village pump"-thing is supposed to work. Is there anybody of notice who decides to close a discussion, promote it to a serious policy- proposal, flush it down the history (as has happened here). Someone is allowed to tilt the discussion out of scope by adding a "subheading" to discuss the quality of a specific article. I see some things are done by bots. Guess someone operates them.
Isn't it time someone starts a villagepump policy policy discussion which stays on top until resolved? I think it's not in my way, being far to unnoticeable.
Sorry to bother you with this but saw no better chance. Victor50 ( talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
From what I can understand from your comment on the causes of hepatitis you appear to think that the list of causes I provided were not cited from reviews or similar secondary sources. This is incorrect: this can be confirmed from the references themselves.
It appears that you would prefer to see a single source for all the causes rather than the multiple sources I provided. Most textbooks of general medicine will list for example parasites as a cause at least in part because of their association with cirrhosis and liver cancer. They may be slightly less informative on the replication sites for (say) the Ebola fever virus which has the liver as its primary replication site but these can be found in infectious diseases/virology/microbiology textbooks. When I pointed this out I simply ended up in a row. For this reason it seemed sensible to provided multiple sources. There may perhaps be some diversity of opinion on this point.
As the record shows provision of suitable references by itself was not sufficient to prevent a minor edit war when these were then deleted without even being read - which seems (to me anyway) at least a little rude.
As to the importance of the infectious causes I think it is clear to say that virtually all if not all of the categories listed could be regarded as important. In medicine a cause is regarded - generally - as important if it is treatable. If a disease is untreatable the precise cause of the problem is usually not regarded as a priority: there are exceptions. Most of the infectious causes listed are thankfully treatable.
A secondary consideration in importance is the transmissibility of a disease. Tuberculosis is regarded as an important disease partly because of the difficulty treating it but also because of its transmissibility. Ebola is not very treatable but is an important cause because it is very easily spread to the health care staff treating the patient.
Other considerations in the importance of a disease include their likelihood of being confused with another disease. The causes of granulomatous hepatitis are among these. An inexperienced clinician may think of these as only being caused by tuberculosis when the actual list is much longer. Red faces soon follow when this is pointed out. Before dismissing this as nonsense I have seen this very error with my own eyes. I am sure I am not unique there.
Another consideration is the age profile of the patient. A number of conditions occur only in children. These are uncommon or rare in the population as a whole but worthy of serious consideration to those treating children. Parvovirus as a cause of hepatitis springs to mind here. Parvovirus and its relations infect only dividing cells. Children particularly smaller ones tend to have more dividing cells in their organs than do adults. For this reason it is thought parvovirus tends to be a cause of hepatitis in children rather than adults. There may well be other reasons but if there are I have not yet come across them. Numerically parvovirus as a cause of hepatitis in the population as a whole is a miniscule quantity. However in children with hepatitis without an obvious cause parvovirus is high on the list of differentitial diagnoses.
Importance is not even a matter of being listed in textbook as textbooks take different slants. A textbook of paediatrics will list different causes for many things than an adult textbook. A textbook on infectious diseases normally will give a much more extensive listing of infectious causes than a textbook on general medicine. Larger textbooks tend to give more causes than smaller ones.
For these reasons and others, while your comment on importance is of note, importance is not a simple issue.
You mentioned a list of drugs that can cause hepatitis. This is an extensive list. Your point as regards importance of the agents is again interesting. I do not pretend to any expertise in deciding which should or should not be included in such a list. Perhaps an appeal for an expert opinion on these matters is indicated. The current listing gives no indication which if any of these drugs are important causes of hepatitis. Suggestions as to its revision seem desirable for this reason.
I agree with you over the causes of fatigue - a veritable nightmare list of causes. I would argue that where there is a defined clinicopathological entity such as hepatitis the causes thereof listed may need to be/can be justified as being more extensive than in cases where there is no defined pathology such as fatigue. Perhaps you may have an opinion on this?
Finally a minor note not directly related to your comment. JWD has stated that cardiac failure does not cause hepatitis. This - as I have pointed out to him - is incorrect. That this condition does cause hepatitis is stated in the usual undergraduate textbooks of pathology as well as the references cited. The pathology cardiac failure induces is very similar to that produced by ischemic hepatitis which is a cause that was earlier included. DrMicro ( talk) 10:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Open the possibility to earmark donations to Wikipedia to specific languages.
Alternative: Have all (localized) Wikipedia's campaign for themselves.
(Arguments are given above and in my villagepump-proposal)
Victor50 ( talk) 10:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Whatamidoing
Your comment about references in the 'Astrodatabank' query was of interest to me because I have had almost every reference I have provided for that biography subject to the same degree of intense examination and speculation. If you can find the time, it would be really helpful if you would drop by the biography page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer) - I'm not asking you to read through all the discussion (which would be a lot to ask), but just to maybe read the page itself and leave an opinion on whether the tag, which says that the article is in need of further citation and reference, can be removed. In my opinion it is pretty much referenced to death now, and all the sources are fully reliable, so I cannot understand why the editors - those who have raised issues in the 'Astrodatabank' query - are insisting that the 'needs citation' tag - plus two other tags - must remain on the page. I have a different view to those editors but there are three of them, only one of me. Another voice will help a lot, and if you too disagree with me, well, then I will just have to accept that there is a consensus of opinion and drop my request for the tags to be removed, as flogins a dead horse. In any event, some movement would be beneficial. Thanks (hope you don't mind me asking) Clooneymark ( talk) 10:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
"Neutral" on Wikipedia means something more like "follows the sources" rather than "doesn't take sides". If the sources are gushing about something, then Wikipedia should reflect that. For example, if the typical physics textbook got all starry-eyed about Newton's First Law, saying that it is the fundamental principle of matter and motion, without which nothing in the universe could exist, the most important concept described in the history of humanity—then Wikipedia can say that, too, and without trying to tone down the language to be "neutral". While it's more common for editors to show bias by overstating a source, it's just as possible to show bias by understating a source. "Encyclopedic tone" hasn't meant "the most boring writing style possible" since 1911 (when Encyclopedia Brittanica published an encyclopedia with a famously interesting writing style).
In the instant case, it's important to notice the difference between "Some astrologer says it is valuable" and "It is valuable". The first says only that somebody recommends it; the second implies that everyone does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I wasn't able to tell you this before but you were brilliant. Your help was fantastic, thanks! You restored my faifth in Wikipedia. There's some interesting psychology going on here sometimes. I've changed my username so I'm not quite so much 'out there' in future. Also - your advice: absoltutely right. I was too close to see it, but I'll watch for that in future. Cheers for taking the time and trouble to help sort that one out Zac Δ talk 00:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble to give an opinion on the problem I raised on the Village Pump page. Ansotu ( talk) 15:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello ! I was so happy with your participation in PocketBook article. Ronz again deleted Bookland.net now from "Services:" in infobox claiming it is advertising. Bookland.net is visited by 200,000 people monthly. Do you think it is notable or any guidelines are not OK ? He is experienced user, I don't want to lose a dispute in noticeboard. Should I create Wiki article on it? Any other recommendations are highly welcome.-- Brainsteinko ( talk) 04:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your work on WP:COI and thought you might be interested in looking at the help guide we've made up in the #wikipedi-en-help channel, WP:PSCOI. If you get a chance, let me know what you think. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for your input and advice at WT:RFC.
I'm still pondering whether I want to go ahead with the RfC, especially whether to actually file it under the article category. The reason is that in my experience, a great many of the group you politely refer to as "subject-matter experts" usually turn out to be article owners who have made up and stick to their own (incorrect) ideas about style (and content, for that matter).
I firmly believe that I have all the compelling arguments I need, but all the best arguments in the world are not enough to convince a typical nay-sayer.
So I'm still not sure how or whether to proceed. Trying and failing with something that should be completely uncontroversial and straighforward just because some people refuse to get the point is the single most frustrating experience on Wikipedia.
... Hm, reading the above, this has got precious little to do with you or the helpful advice you gave me. I guess I just needed a shoulder to cry on. -- 195.14.220.119 ( talk) 13:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The GA status of Getty Villa is so complicated that even I can't see a clear path toward resolution. On June 13 Amadscientist started an "Individual reassessment" of the article. He then amended the article history template to delist it. An hour later, he then added an new GA reassessment template. He then deleted the article history template entirely. Aside from his technical struggles, he never notified either the prior reviewer or the nominator of his concerns to give us a chance to address his concerns. I have now addressed his comments in Talk:Getty Villa/GA4. Judging by his questions and comments in the reviews of Getty Villa and Getty Foundation it is clear that he does not understand how footnotes are supposed to work (they can be in the middle of a sentence if they source the first half of a sentence) or how quotations with square brackets work (words can be edited to make the quoting sentence grammatically correct). In March after quick-failing Getty Villa, he quick-failed The Incredible Melting Man, and the nominator sought a Community Reassessment. In an earlier Community Reassessment of Incredible Melting Man, Amadscientist [1] did not take part, the consensus was that he quick-fails more than most, and the article was listed as GA. How can we clarify whether Getty Villa is a GA, and what can I do to get it back to GA if it has in fact been delisted? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 20:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Only Amadscientis...speaks for Amadscientist. I neither agree with or disagree with anything written here, but I do take the words of WhatamIdoing to heart as stated and should not be seen as an ebdorsement of any member or any policy or interpretation of policy and guide line.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No, the CSD tags say that an appeal is not binding, otherwise there would be no point in a speedy tag. I've just deleted again, since for legal reasons, a copyright infringement can't be allowed to stay. Also, as would be expected for copied text, it reads like an advertisement (also not permitted). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey sweetie - LTNS. Instead of cleaning out my garage, I decided to write an article. Consistent with this "misbehavior" motif I selected for myself today, I then decided it would be very fitting to dump on the nicest, busiest, most generous person I could think of ... and you immediately came to mind.
From then on, it was really easy for me to just post you here and ask if you'd mind scanning basaloid squamous cell lung carcinoma, removing the "New" tag, and doing whatever else you really dont have time to do for me.
I'd ask Doc James or Axl or someone else to do it, but then I wouldn't be able to just pay them off with a big *SMOOOOCH* ... well, at least not without SOME damage to (what remains of) my hard-earned "rep" for manly manliness :-)~ LOL!
Thanking you in advance, wishing you the best, and thinking I need to take a serious break, I remain
Your #1 Wikifan: Cliff Knickerbocker, M.S. ([[User talk:Uploadvirus|talk]]) ( talk) 21:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You might be interested in whether "death" should be include in the lede sentence of the abortion article. Of course the article is not a medical article because abortion is a much broader topic. There was a consensus lede sentence that for at least 5 years that some editors would like to change. I hope you will drop by abortion and the talk page. 71.3.237.145 ( talk) 00:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically Late termination of pregnancy typically with pre procedural feticide but this is just my interpretation of the literature and not something we consider here in Canada as except if the mothers life is at risk they are considered by the profession to be unethical. Now even if one does not use this technical definition by far the majority of abortions still occur before viability. Whether or not human cells are able to think has a great determination for example with "brain dead" organ transplantation here in the West. The same rational is applied to abortion. Thus the separation of terms in the view of the medical profession with before and after viability. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Given the mountains of objective evidence (from WP:MEDRS and other WP:RS) that a non-living fetus is properly called a dead fetus, argumentation to the contrary is tortured POV pushing:
71.3.237.145 ( talk) 13:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What is one to do with all those shenanigans on Talk:Vertebral artery dissection? JFW | T@lk 19:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no stomach for that kind of thing. I'd prefer to write articles, not do battle with armies of strawmen. JFW | T@lk 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This might be relevant - DigitalC ( talk) 06:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you have been involved in a discussion about the example of Eskimo/Inuit on Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. I have simply removed this example from that page, and so resolved the issue. Debresser ( talk) 11:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right of course. Malleus Fatuorum wasn't even cautioned for that attack. I think a wider discussion regarding civility on the project should happen somewhere. Some potential talking points: (1) It's easier and less controversial for administrators to civility block newbie editors than experienced editors, (2) Too many people ascribe attacks on behavior as being acceptable, as it's commenting on behavior, and supposedly not the person, (3) Past civility issues often seem to have no bearing on current problems with a given editor. There's plenty of other potential talking points. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Insofar as civility can be improved, I think we need to look at more imaginative solutions than blocking. In general, my experience has been that Wikipedians respond to operant conditioning. If they receive positive reinforcement (in terms of attention, even negative attention) for doing something, they'll keep doing it. If they're looking for attention and don't get it, then they'll either fade away or modify their behavior. So I think the best approach is to model civility (as best one can), and at the same time studiously ignore people who are making asses of themselves.
A secondary question has to do with burnout. If you take a snapshot of people who behave like irredeemable jerks at present, a lot them used to be more polite (not all of them, of course). In the end, one's patience isn't infinite, and it's hard to be as polite to the 100th spammer, or agenda account, as to the first. Moreover, as you allude to, uncivil behavior sometimes works, at least in a pragmatic and short-term sense, in dealing with the various nuisances besetting this project, although I agree it's probably maladaptive in the long term. On the other hand, if we had mechanisms in place for quickly, firmly, and civilly showing the door to spammers and POV-pushers, I think that would go a long way both in reducing the burnout that leads to incivility and in reducing the practical payoffs of uncivil behavior. MastCell Talk 18:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I ran across this incident today; an IP posts this to Δ's talk page. Oh but not to worry, it's not a personal attack. See, it's only a complaint, and sheer exasperation, and the IP was only commenting on behavior. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#QuackGuru Ocaasi t | c 20:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Your username: What am I doing? Yes, what are you doing? Rather, does it refer to something? See also: my reply to an ongoing discussion, that you have commented on. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. ( talk) 21:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I recently posted to Wikipedia talk:Further reading, and I want to get more people discussing what I said here. As you are mentioned in that section as someone active on that talk page, I thought I'd ask what you think. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have some information. You are invited to comment at the relevant thread. Thank you. CycloneGU ( talk) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I just wanted to show my appreciation to you for all your work explaining how the Article Feedback Tool works to people who have questions and concerns. It's really reduced my workload. So, thanks!
Jorm (WMF) (
talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The only reference, bodhi.name, is a reliable source how? Perhaps you didn't read the drivel they have there, which is exactly the kind that make the object of attention from QuackWatch. Here's an exceprt:
"As a new epoch begins in the life of Humanity, people start investigating enlightened perceptions and their components, characteristics and laws, bring into the light the joyful wishes aimed to change constituents of perceptions and create optimum technologies for these changes. In the process of investigating materials the scientists of the past discovered new substances with unique and incomprehensible characteristics. Likewise in this process, while practicing replacement of negative emotions with enlightened perceptions, the new enlightened perceptions appear with such striking qualities that are impossible to see even in the boldest of dreams. The era of enlightened perceptions engineering begins forming a conglomerate called the “man”. A man starts a new and unique journey, the peculiarity of this journey consists of in the fact, that it’s not a notorious “journey of the mind” usually implying a certain emotional or intellectual process severed from the physical reality and senses, which means the physical body and common chores. A man goes on a journey as a whole entirety. He is not a dreamer that turns over philosophical terms in his mind and experiences a huge number of negative emotions and he has no enlightened perceptions, feels sick and gets worse and worse. His physical body is also a unity of perceptions, we call them “feelings”, and these perceptions can also be replaced directly by effort (e.g. apathy to activeness, from “feeling not well” to “feeling great”), his physical body begins to transform and improve as negative emotions are disappearing from the set of perceptions and enlightened perceptions taking their place.
At this moment (year 2005) there are very few of such travellers, only about 20 (I mean “snouts”), but in the year 2000, when I started my activity, there were no snouts at all. It makes me feel sure there will be more and more of them as money, cars, education, relations or inheritance are not needed to make the journey. It is enough to know that this journey is possible (the task is solved by this book) as well as the fact that you are alive and have the aspiration to be happy, to experience enlightened perceptions and overpower distresses. This is why I am confident the number of snouts will grow every year and the time will come when there will be snouts by the hundreds and thousands. Therefore I have had the most intensive anticipation while realizing my joyful wishes of accomplishing “snout-projects”, when I develop the infrastructure for the snout-culture, get books translated into other languages, be supportive with the “snouts” practices and help them become with time the experts in this field and be enlightened perceptions educators who can assist the beginners independently. All my time and finances are aimed for this and I enjoy it.
The minimum task for “snouts” consists of first mastering the art of lucid dreaming and out-of-body experiences and then of learning to keep the conscious clear throughout the process of passing away (when the body is going to die), in between the physical death of the body and the birth of the new and after the reincarnation to recall your practice in the “new life” and to continue from the level you have gone through in your past life. I am sure that to gain this experience it is necessary to get rid of distresses and achieve continuous enlightened perceptions of preferably ecstatic quality. Mankind has already had some similar limited experience (e.g. Dalai-Lama the 14th, Karmapa the 17th, and hundreds of other less famous Tibetan monks, “tulku”, known as people who transferred their consciousness to the new body with some larger or smaller gaps in their self-consciousness and capability to recall their past lives and past experiences)."
Snouts, huh? FuFoFuEd ( talk) 20:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that you originally uploaded the image file entitled "Article title versus first sentence.jpg", which is referenced in Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). The file is now empty and no images appear in these articles. I was considering replacing it myself, but I'm new at this and I wouldn't want to accidently cause additional problems. I suspect that you'd be the one best suited to re-create the image as it did initially (or as you now feel it should) appear. I did also see a message on Commons, as I was looking at this, regarding a problem generating thumbnails of uploaded/updated files, but I wouldn't suspect that would apply in this case. It doesn't look like the image file was erased or anything; at least the wrapper info, CCSA3.0 license, description, and everything else appear to still be intact, save for the fact that the jpg is empty/gone. I am also just a little curious why you would use a Share-Alike license rather than a Public Domain permission; I haven't uploaded anything to Commons so I haven't had to make that decision yet; but just curious why you'd choose one v. other or if it's just a default option thing. ttfn -- Who R you? ( talk) 04:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You're obviously seeing something different than I; here are screenshots of what I am seeing for this image (but only this image). Very strange. Just thought I'd let you know. As for the license, I now understand; I had thought the screenshot would technically be your work and the Wikipedia would be public domain; but of course you're right, Wiki work is GFDL/Share-Alike and screenshot is a capture of work by others which must be licensed as such, as you've obviously correctly done and which I hope I have as well. Thanks for the education! – Who R you? ( talk) 20:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
┌─────────────────┘
Yeah, image compression algorithms definitely aren't my thing; but no doubt someone with an image crunching background could write a simple enough scanner to check the color palette of the image. If memory serves (which more and more these days it doesn't necessarily; but if it does) the Cyan-Magenta-Yellow-Black -vs- the Red-Green-Blue palette selection is just a flag set at such&such a bit location in the image header record. I thought I saw talk of an image group/lab/support/something somewhere, probably in Commons, who are probably capable of writing a quick scanner to flag all the CMYK J-Pegs in Commons. I guess we should all be using PNGs but, of course, they aren't quite as universal as jpgs but I don't know what would still be around that doesn't support png. I guess maybe if someone in Africa or China is using a 15-year old computer running IE6 (tongue-in-cheek assuming that's how long ago microsoft created png), and I have no idea how long (or if) all other platforms like Mac fully support viewing/creating/editing microsoft's portable network graphic format. I know in recent times I have run into the odd occasion where I had to convert something from a png to a jpg in order to satisfy something that couldn't handle png; so I guess until it's ubiquitous, jpgs still the best option (still better quality than gif for a lot of/most things like screenshots and photos). Ya like how subtle I am about showing off that I once knew something almost useful about this kinda stuff? :) Once upon a time not many people knew this kind of stuff and they used to pay people that did.
Meanwhile I guess us IE users either have to finally dump ms (not that I'd mind on a lot of levels), or just follow-up if we see a missing image. But it was interesting to learn why that happened; apparently the saying's still true that one can learn something new every day.
—
Who R you? (
talk) 05:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to say thanks for your comments in response to my query at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_8#open_wikis. The feedback was very useful to help crystalise my thoughts about how to take this forward. AndrewRT( Talk) 17:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think a more up to date source (2011 vs 2007) is here. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 18:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Syphilis is currently being reviwed for GA by me. As you have contributed major to it i want you to participate in current going reviewing and debate thanks. Sehmeet singh Talk 13:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, maybe I need to get you to review my next GA candidate; you seem like an easy reviewer. Or is it just much harder to get delisted? I have seen much better articles fail GA, and others get delisted. Did you actually look at my candidates and think they are representative of good articles? Would you pass them? I think you have to grade articles so that any GA article has a similar level of quality, no? I am not sure I understand what you want me to do to verify the sources, with the templates and all, but I have not been allowed to use those same sources in the past in a failed GA review. BTW, I also see reviewers complain about reference formatting as well, even down to consistent date formatting across refs. BollyJeff || talk 01:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
after the removal of the social media links at British Red Cross, I have restored them, as I believe that is not the correct interpretation of WP:EL which says "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided" (emphasis mine). This preceeds the section you quoted, and reading around it, these links are permitted provided they are the official source of information for the organisation. That is also why the {{Twitter}} and {{Facebook}} templates are allowed to stay.
Hope that helps, OwainDavies ( about)( talk) edited at 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned by the time that we are both expending on high school notability. You have spent a lot of effort working your way around Wikipedia guidelines and I have spent a lot of effort following you around and reverting you! Though we may have a philosophical difference, in practice it is only just possible to get a playing card between the effect of our differing positions. I take the pragmatic position that since 99% of high schools have sources available (whether on Google or not) to meet WP:GNG treating them all as de facto notable (note I don't use the loaded term 'inherently notable') saves the Community spending an inordinate amount of time chasing them all through AfD in order to weed out the very few that may not be notable. This pragmatic approach is not unique to high schools. It is taken, for example, on:
None of these would get deleted at AfD even without a sniff of sources (note I am not justifying these merely exemplifying them). It is also not helpful inaccurately characterising supporters of high school notability as 'teenagers' or a 'minority'. Also, the various attempts at a school notability haven't foundered on this issue. What happened was that any standard that we suggested was considered too restrictive by schools inclusionists and too permissive by schools deletionists and it only takes 2 or 3 determined editors to scupper any standard.
Your concern appears to be that taking high schools as notable might allow home schools or small all-through private schools, for whom there are little or no reliable sources, to survive. In fact, this is not the issue. The problem, with the lack of an agreed standard, is with Indian, Pakistani, Filipino and Bangladeshi high schools where major public schools are continuously put forward for deletion. This is due to the generally woeful standard of writing and that there is only a very limited amount of reliable sources on the Internet. To avoid systemic bias it has to be argued that reliable sources probably exist but that ample time needs to be given to allow local sources to be researched (at local libraries and the like).
My offer of a compromise is that if you will row back from knocking the de facto notability of high schools, I will support you in getting deleted such schools as home schools, tiny private all-though schools for which we know reliable sources won't exist. That way we can both concentrate our efforts in doing some of the much-needed work of article writing and improvement. TerriersFan ( talk) 19:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Template:Third-party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 23:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I quoted a statement from WP:TITLECHANGES that has been in there since at least May 2010. I did add wording to WP:NDESC yesterday that was a clarifying paraphrase of this statement, but that's not what I quoted in my statement. Please acknowledge at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests.
Please retract the accusation you made of me: " make a significant change to a policy and then quote it as if it had always been part of the policy."
I would NEVER do that! WP:AGF, please! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
Just want you to know that I admire your integrity and appreciate the help you've given as an uninvolved editor Zac Δ talk 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hey, you may hate these things, I don't know. If so delete it, but wanted to show my thanks.
Zac
Δ talk 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the help with the Vermillion Literary Project Magazine. Wanted to know if you can see my user pages? I am working on another article, Lifelines, a literary journal out of Dartmouth. Hope I have done this right so far.... Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 18:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm contacting you because you participated in the proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles a few months ago; and particularly because you had some interesting ideas on how to implement the trial. I have set up a discussion page for various aspects of implementing the trial at WP:ACTRIAL. Please feel free to join the discussion if you are interested. I am not initially contacting a large number of users (in an attempt to keep the discussions contained and manageable), but feel free to invite any other users who might be helpful. Thanks. —SW— spout 00:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I was just Wikisurfing and I found your username. I have to say, It's awesome! Mike 2 8 9 18:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in your opinion on a question that came to mind after reading the following sentence.
Is a peer-reviewed journal article about a scientific experiment by the author, considered a first-party source or a third-party source? My thinking is that it is a third-party source because the peer-reviewed journal where it is published is a third-party source. If instead the experiment was reported only on the website of the experimenter, then it would be a first-party source. Regards, Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW are you satisfied with the title of the essay Party and person? Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this contribution is starting to come close to failing to meeting the spirit of WP:AGF even if it may meet the letter. Please do not ascribe motivations to me, or any editor, particularly since the ascribed motivation is incorrect. TerriersFan ( talk) 22:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Your name came up in the history of Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and your talk page is full of all sorts of grammar fun. The essay Wikipedia:Video links could use a copy edit to improve its readability. No worries if you are too busy, but it would be awesome if you had 10 minutes for it. Cptnono ( talk) 07:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to a drop a note saying that despite a vocal minority of complainers, there are long time editors like myself who really appreciate the efforts being made to launch this tool. It's not perfect, but rarely is the most viable product released in a perfect state. I've made a few comments on the Media Wiki page (as an IP since I don't particularly care to create another Wiki account) voicing my support and trying to point out to the objectors that there are sound market research principles behind your methodology. I do hope that you have the support of the WMF to give this project the time it needs to iron out the bugs. Agne Cheese/ Wine 19:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
As I know you like contributing to policy issues, there is currently a long and important thread on Jimbo's talk page that might be right up your (High) street. This may finally be the opportunity we are hoping for to get any ambiguities cleared up regarding any perceived interpretations of (non)notability. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking time to explain to me why I am not invited to vote on this issue.
Had I known prior to seeing the notice yesterday, I would have worked like a dog much earlier to meet the eligibility requirements.
It seemed a bit abrupt to me that the referendum was announced such a short time before the voting date cutoff.
Admittedly, perhaps my sense of such timing is simply out of whack with some standard procedure.
I only hope at this point that enough others share my pain concerning even the serious consideration of this action.
Thank you for reading my rant on it. I can now at least take solace in knowing that someone read it and even bothered to send me a comment. Such a compliment is becoming rarer and rarer these days.
Oh, by the way, I just read an earlier paragraph on your page. I now surmise you are in favor of such censoring,
so let me point out that I'm neither young nor single, just white, (whatever that has to do with anything).
Do you really think this is only young white men wanting to push porn and violence? Please!
This reveals far too much about your personal bias of who's trying to do what to whom.
I assumed all readers had the ability to make suggestions for editing articles individually if they had the gumption to get involved.
Readers censoring all of Wikipedia with mere a click of the mouse to accommodate their 'taste' smacks of caving in to Political Correctness, to me a dirty-word expression for insidiously turning information.. its very content, into Pablum and everyone into a 'Hey, don't look at me!' innocent bystander.
What's controversial? Where does it end? Where do you judge it to become silly?
Are you in favor of removable paragraphs, even entries, if they offend? Who dictates what varieties of what topics of material might need filters built and installed for them?
Can I assume for a moment that you're not a Fundamentalist who believes the world was created 6,000 years ago, like many, many here in the U.S. do?
Do you believe a mother should have a button to click on the home computer to filter out any possibility of her kids reading the entry Darwinism?
Do only young white males think like I do? You make me laugh.
No images of Christian crosses, but Maltese crosses are OK? Sexual matters? Which ones? Animal kingdom, too?, AIDS? How about Homosexuality? Segregation? Maybe someone wants to wipe from view any and all articles about communism? Capitalism? Anything at all about Islam? Karl Marx? Ayn Rand?
It rather defeats the purpose of a group of individuals getting together to decide how to honestly, intelligently and correctly present the facts on any given topic, doesn't it?
Mykstor ( talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
For your thorough explanation. And I apologize if WTF's answers made me cross the line, I tried, as hard as I could, not to (and not to overreact). But as I've said, I was appalled by such replies (go away from this wiki, and the obsessive use of the f word). -- Vlad| -> 05:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I realize now that the user was still working on it, but bear it mind there are many pages that are created and an hour later it's still only contains "born in New Zealand..." so I assumed that the article was either created as a test or an A7. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the beliefs you have laid out are fairly well reflected in my edit Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable. Care to take a look? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
Although I've edited wikipedia for years, I still have no clue as to how to give a standard warning that a particular article likely violates NPOV. Please, where is the wikipedia advice page which shows me how to add that to the top of an article or other statements such as the claim that the article may have original research in it etc. Thanks. Loki0115 ( talk) 17:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
. Don't forget to start a discussion on the talk page to explain your concerns, if you add that one to an article. We had a problem with people adding the template merely because they personally disagreed with the articles (e.g., a person who believes in homeopathy being unhappy because an article didn't say that homeopathy worked), so we've made discussion a rule for that particular template.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
If I may make a point. I recently deleted some very seriously biased pro-cooking "data" which was contradicted by other studies showing the exact opposite. Ryulong is perhaps right. I should have also prrovided refs showing such, even though they are easily accessible online. I will do so now. As for the Margaret Mead assertion by Ryulong, that has nothing whatsoever to do with cooking, but Ryulong is trying to promote an anti-raw assertion here, of course, which, again, has nothing whatsoever to do with Margaret Mead, solely in order to make a biased attack on me. I will add the necessary refs. Loki0115 ( talk) 21:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not provide pro-raw info. I simply deleted some extremely questionable pro-cooking claims, such as the decidedly scientifically-unsupported notion that cooking allowed humans to proliferate. I showed that the ref in question did not actually back up that notion, that it, instead supported the notion that the discovery of fossil fuels allowed humans to proliferate, not cooking per se, and pointed out that other data showed that human populations remained stable during the palaeolithic era. In short, I am not against solid data about cooking, I just don't want blanket pro-cooking statements which have already been debunked elsewhere in scientific circles. Loki0115 ( talk) 07:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The trouble is that including all views can make an article really longwinded and unclear. For example, your suggestion would involve first citing studies which show that cooking makes meat easier to digest, followed by studies showing that cooking makes meat more difficult to digest. That way, everybody gets confused, when, in reality, the issue of raw/cooked meat being more/less digestible hasn't really been sorted out yet for any definitive claim to be made as yet. Plus, it makes the article needlessly longer than it should be, also, the article isn't really about cooked food or raw food, it is about the control of fire. So any pro-cooking info really belongs in the cooking wikipedia page. Loki0115 ( talk) 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota ( talk) 00:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota ( talk) 00:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently you edited the Wikipedia article on Polycystic ovary syndrome, on august 11. It is a tragedy since the only likely CURE for PCOS has been wiped off the net by you. If PCOS is dominantly inherited (as you have edited with a 2001 dated reference) then the human race is doomed! On the other hand, since 2007 (after reading the American journal of Nutrition article on trans fats and PCOS) I have put numerous infertility patients on a trans fat free diet (absolutely no trans fats - believe me it is very difficult in todays world) and ALL of them have documented sonographic improvement and several of them (about 30%) have conceived. You can try this out with anyone known to you who has PCOS and see the response yourself. Your grounds for deleting my contribution was that the relevant reference was about 'ovulatory' infertility and not PCOS. Any doctor treating infertility will tell you that PCOS is the largest cause of 'ovulatory' infertility!
If you own a trans fat related business, perhaps you could be forgiven, otherwise you have done the human race a gross injustice. Fullwill ( talk) 14:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC) |
I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity. |
My76Strat ( talk) 02:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoghtful comments at User_talk:Ottawahitech#Recruiting_professionals. Do you already know about the info at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=wikipedia? Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing,
You and I spoke briefly on an issue I was having with Vincristine, Vinblastine and Mustargen drugboxes. It's not happening anymore, and what you thought was happening is right. I'd attempted to install Chrome on my computer, it wasn't successful, however, Chrome left residual registry keys and they were causing my browsers to display incorrectly (happened with a few other applications at work, but never happened at home ). I cleaned my registry out of any mention of "Chrome" and now the drug boxes are displaying normally.
I wanted to ask you about the data within them. YOu stated that they can't have any breaks in them. They're not links of any kind, so what would the problem be ? @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons► Markab-@ 23:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have belatedly responded to your reply at [3] Regards. Eldumpo ( talk) 16:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thank you for your feedback on Transnasal esophagoscopy. I have reviewed the article and the editorial guidelines and agree that there was too much directly sourced material. I have removed the article, which I was the sole contributor to, for a complete rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weintraub.a ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. Debresser ( talk) 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits to the username policy. Changes to police require discussion. Mlpearc Public If you reply here, please leave a {{ Talkback}} on my talk. 18:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The Executive Director's Barnstar | |
Hello Whatamidoing! Congratulations on being awarded the Executive Director's Barnstar, which was created for me by my colleague Frank Schulenburg, and which I award occasionally to editors who are making a major contribution to the Wikimedia projects. You've been nominated by User:Jorm (WMF) and User:Moonriddengirl, because, they tell me, you're a "consistently sane and friendly voice" "who does amazing work all around the project." Reading your talk page and edit history, it's obvious that you're a stellar Wikipedian: clear, constructive, prolific and knowledgeable. Thank you, and congratulations! If you, or anyone reading this, would like to nominate someone else for this award, please feel free to do that on my talk page. Sue Gardner ( talk) 03:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
Sent you a quick one. Courcelles 22:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
When asking people to come participate in a discussion it's important to make the request as neutral as possible to avoid violating WP:CANVASS. Your request here seems to do the opposite, asking for people who already have particular views to comment. [4] Could you please review the guideline and revise your request to make it less pointed? Will Beback talk 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing, please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Infobox_statements. Best, -- J N 466 22:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment and edit on IVRA. I had not known when it is appropriate to remove the newpage tag and the sheer number of guidance articles is slightly overwhelming. ~ Wafflephile ( talk) 16:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I just came across
Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. That is a great essay, and I'm glad you're around to defend it. In fact, it just inspired me to go the article
Dalvik (software) and add the statement "It is the software that runs the apps on Android phones" as the second sentence in the article. (It wasn't made clear anywhere else!). Any time you need moral support for the cause, I'm on your side.
--
Qwerty0 (
talk) 11:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You left a comment at the infobox debate but I wasnt sure if you had a strong enough opinion to leave a !vote as to whether the articles in question are better served with or without the infobox. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate please do not add machine translated content to this wikipedia as you did with above article. If you are unable to properly translate it then leave it to be translated by someone else or deleted when the time comes. Thank you-- Jac16888 Talk 23:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
WAID, if you were to take a look at Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation, you will see that it is filled with over 400 articles by people who created an extremely poor machine translated article and left it for some else to fix "eventually". But that is not exactly happening, because often fixing a bad machine translation is an extremely difficult thing to do, I would argue its more difficult than actually translating in the first place. You are not helping by adding machine translation, and its possible for anyone to determine the subject by using google translate to look at the article themeselves, since its linked to in the {{ notenglish}} template-- Jac16888 Talk 09:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Was wondering what you think of this contributions. Do we normally consider random thesis reliable? I ask because this guys is spending hours every day adding links to here. What do you think - do we have a spammer more interested in the site or are this of great interest to us? Asking for a second opinion here. Moxy ( talk) 03:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I know this would be trollbait, but it would be interesting to see a list of the forms of advocacy that are not permitted by consensus to be in articles. Would it be strictly legal (as in pedophilia or would it include cultural taboos as well? patsw ( talk) 17:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Some time ago, I came across numerous edits by 1 or 2 people who mainly wanted to change words which used British spelling over to the American version. I recall trying to re-edit them back , but this was foiled repeatedly so I gave up. Now, I know that wikipedia policy is that pages based on the american sphere of influence are supposed to have american spelling while wikipedia pages focused on anything to do with the British sphere of influence(commonwealth etc.) but what is the policy on wikipedia pages which have no such influence, such as, say, pages on Roman or Kazakhstan culture or whatever? I am also wondering if it would be OK for me to frequently alter spellings of words to the British version on pages which have nothing to do with the US or the UK? Loki0115 ( talk) 07:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
As you appear well-versed in psychology perhaps you can comment on the "Blocks should not be punitive" issue at WT:BLOCK. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 23:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Verifiablity and plagiarism are the hammer and anvil of astute wikilawyers. For now it's in my user space. I think the language used may be a little too caustic. The problem is real though and not addressed by any other essay. I invite you to edit it if you fell so inclined, or at least provide some feedback on it if you so please. Thanks, Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 03:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I seem to recall that you were trying to develop Gaussgauss ( talk · contribs). This editor has again assumed an accusatory tone on Talk:Diabetic ketoacidosis ( diff), now with the added ingredient of pulling rank (see for yourself). I have responded to the talkpage post and on the user's talkpage. Could you possibly have a look? JFW | T@lk 22:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello WhatamIdoing! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
WhatamIdoing: I think we both have the same goals on the Layout MOS talk page, but I feel like we've started off on the wrong foot. My goal is very simple: I just want to make FNNR clearer so novices can get a better understanding of notes/citations. That is all. I'm not trying to create any new policy, or impose my personal preferences, or push any agenda. I'm perfectly satisfied with the fact that FNNR endorses many different ways to do refs/notes. I get the impression that other editors in the past have tried to impose a particular "standard practice", and you had to spend a lot of time fighting the good fight to keep the MOS sane and sensible (if you did, I thank you). But you may be jumping to the assumption that I am one of those editors. I'm not. My only goal is to provide clear guidance to novices. If that guidance ends up being "there are twenty ways to do it, and none is recommended" that is fine by me: I just want that stated in a clearer fashion. Does that make sense? -- Noleander ( talk) 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that teenage pregnancy is a formal "universally held definition" referring to pregnancy by women under the age of 20. Teenage refers to ages with the suffix -teen, however this is something only recognized in the English language. Furthermore, women can become child bearing prior to 13 which voids even the English language based argument. While it is a universally held definition that each water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, the statement "pregnancy prior to 20th birthday is teenage pregnancy" is not. To be considered "universally held" it must be truly universal like mathematical proof and science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As you were one of the people asking for per-article dashboards – the index on the AFT table I have been insistingly asking the toolserver folks for since August has eventually been released, so I started playing with this data, here's a first stab:
Cheers, -- DarTar ( talk) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Right on with this one [5]. You're absolutely correct. Dayewalker ( talk) 04:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Sorry this is so long after the event, but I want to thank WhatamIdoing for her patient, complete and so very helpful advice on my lame efforts editing parts of Talk:Breast Cancer. She thoroughly deserves a Barnstar/Burger/Furry kitten or whatever she fancies as appreciation for her hard and useful work. Treagle ( talk) 17:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hey WhatamIdoing. Brandon Harris, Howie Fung, Fabrice Florin and I will be holding a second Office Hours session on IRC in #wikimedia office on Thursday, 3 November at 24:00 UTC. This unusually late time is aimed at permitting East Coast editors, who would normally be at work, to attend. We will be discussing the new Article Feedback Tool designs; if you have any questions about Office Hours, or how to get on IRC, feel free to leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there; thank you for your suggestions thus far, and your contributions to discussions about the existing AFT over the past year :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 19:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI, There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural#RfC management, RfC bot tags. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
=== RFC Proposal re first sentence
The proposal is in two parts...
{ |
Hi! Recently a user asked me to see why was this done. I tried to explained him to be WP:BOLD, since i am feeling a little uncomfortable reverting it. He said that the user is not banned, so the revert should had been not done. Kindly see if the edit was done in mistake. Thanks. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please remind me where that guideline is that you directed me to the other day? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for commenting on the shared IP talk page proposal. I put up a comment at the bottom there to try and reach a compromise decision about how often to archive. Feel free to comment. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. With regard to this question, it might cut down extraneous argument if we were comparing (car + nude person) with (car +clothed person). -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 17:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
As our primary/secondary/tertiary expert, and somone who is wise wrt sourcing issues, I think you may have something useful to say at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Secondary sources verses a paper by the Institute of Medicine. Colin° Talk 15:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have recently accidentally reverted this edit of yours:
m Talk:Vitamin D; 17:20 . . (+95) . . WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) (Reference formatting) [rollback]
so sorry! Gandydancer ( talk) 18:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hiya!
Just dropping you a note to let you know that I really am working on it. I am a bit slow but reliable. I'll let you know here as well as on the technical props page when I have a definitive either working or not result. So far I have a button that does nothing and a desperate need for more tea!
fg
t
c 10:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. As far as I can tell this works. I can't figure out how to make event listeners work if the script is imported so unfortunately you'll have to add this directly to your common javascript. Just paste all of it into the page as it is and save. When you visit the search results page you'll see a button top right of the list. Click and wait. It is not super fast (depends a little on your PC) so be patient (it's still faster than doing it by hand!). It will hide all the entries that have been patrolled. Drop me a message if it fails or you need help with it in any way.
importScript("User:Fred Gandt/getUnpatrolledOfAlexNewArtBotResultsPages.js");
fg t c 06:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've replaced the text in the code pane above to save space. It seems to be working ok. Give it a whirl and let me know if anything isn't right. Sorry the first one was a failure. I didn't mean to waste your time. I may post updates to you if I find anything wrong with it before you do. fg t c 20:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
FG- anything I need to do to get this working on the NewArt results? For instance, User:AlexNewArtBot/ArchitectureSearchResult. I'm coming here with my botwriter hat on, not as a page patroller- in other words, let me know if I need to add any hooks to the search result pages. (I'll watch this page for a while) tedder ( talk) 22:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Redundant
Simply changing the recognition condition for the button creation function (how many tions?) will set it up to work on any page with the same html structure of results. If there is possible wider use for this script than for one set of results I can rewrite it to add a button to all (how many are there? OMG!! I just looked. Lummy that's a lot of search results.) results pages. I thought this medical results page was just a one off thing. With regard to hooks: Element id's are always useful (cuts down on the sheer number of nextSiblings etc.) but where there's a will there's a way and I wouldn't want to cause a fuss. I need to twiddle with the script above to solve an issue I wasn't expecting so while I'm at it I'll set it up to function on any of your search results pages. I'm a bit too tired to think clearly about it right now though. Thanks for your interest fg t c 23:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the " - Patrol" link showing up for you? It should appear at the end of the result entry if that entry is unpatrolled. fg t c 16:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hiya. It's unlikely going to get any more accurate (at least for a while). I will however continue to work on making it more efficient. In other words, as it stands it's as good as completed. Any further changes will not change how it looks or appears to behave (except for possibly being a bit quicker). I did check it using IE and didn't even get a button. It may be my IE settings or it may be a general IE incompatibility. I really cannot abide that browser and refuse to bend over backward to pander to its idiosyncrasies. The script works in Chrome so should be fine in Safari. I'd be surprised if it didn't work with Firefox but am not going to download and install it just to find out (I'm a bit grumpy about cross platform compatibility since standards exist that if followed would guarantee compatibility without developers having to... seriously, I should stop now. I have). So go ahead and use it and tell others (if they're interested) where it is. Let me know if it breaks or has bugs etc. I'l be quietly tweaking off and on for a few more days but you shouldn't even notice (other than possible speed changes or if I make a mistake (which does happen (quite often))). f g 21:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hiya! I have not quite but very nearly finished the update. It is working but I like to twiddle to optimize. It's slightly faster. It's more efficient insofar that it makes fewer requests of MWF servers and databases (that was the whole point of the redesign). I'd appreciate if you could try it out and see if it works ok for you too. As far as I can tell it's accurate (within acceptable tolerances).
importScript("User:Fred_Gandt/test.js");
//importScript("User:Fred Gandt/getUnpatrolledOfAlexNewArtBotResultsPages.js");
Make sure (if you test it) that you comment out the other as above. Once I'm sure it's behaving I'll replace the original with the new code so no one will have to change anything (that's the usefulness of importing). Thanks! f g 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
All swapped over now so use the long named script. There'll be no more changes to the import link to worry about. I may still fix it up a bit later but basically it's all done. f g 04:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, Thanks for getting in touch with me and sharing the editing info about which I knew nothing. I'm a fairly eclectic reader and originally got interested in editing by seeing a notice on the Osama bin Laden article that requested an edit of a section for improved readability. I played with the idea of making the articles related to various aspects of Islam more NPOV. I'm a native English speaker, a non-Muslim, and my professional background gives me a mindset of "withhold judgment." I'm not sure what I could do, and I know I have a lot to learn, but I think I have something to offer. I've been extremely frustrated. I would really like to work with a group of people rather than in such an isolated manner. Again, thanks! Tina Carmaskid ( talk) 20:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi and a question. I think the Vermillion Literary Project Magazine article ought to be listed as such, seeing how the Project it is affiliated is a seperate entity. I'm working on improving the article, and also want to put an image up too. Thoughts? Thanks! Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 22:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a poll Talk:Usage share of operating systems#Is there a consensus to include the median line. You might want to comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (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 " Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers". Thank you. -- Jdm64 ( talk) 00:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am a Wikipedian and researcher from Carnegie Mellon University, working with Professors Robert E. Kraut and Aniket Kittur. We’ve published many scholarly papers on Wikipedia and are partnering with the Wikimedia Foundation on several new projects.
I have been analyzing collaboration in Wikipedia, especially Collaborations of the Week/Month. My analysis of seven years of archival Wikipedia data shows that Collaborations of the Week/Month substantially increase the amount and nature of project members’ contributions, with long lasting effects. We would like to talk to Wikipedians to better understand the processes that that produce this behavior change.
We’ve identified you as a particularly good candidate to speak with because of your involvement with the WikiProject Medicine' Collaborations, which is one of those we’ve been investigating. It would really help us if you would be willing to have a short talk with us, less than 30 minutes of your time. We can talk via skype or instant messenger or other means if you’d prefer. Do you have time at any point during this week to chat? If so, please send an email to haiyiz@cs.cmu.edu or drop a line on my talk page.
Thanks! ( This my personal website) Haiyizhu ( talk) 02:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: Please see my 19:41 post on the talk page of that hockey player. As I wrote there, I could use some help shoehorning this into little-finger-out, proper form for an AfD. Greg L ( talk) 19:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply at WT:MED. I have responded there, but I find your blanket response a bit glib, and I would prefer an actual assessment of the changes that have been made.
When edits are made to an article about a controversial procedure by somebody who actually undertakes that procedure for money, I don't think there needs to be promotion of that individual's individual practice or publications for there to be the potential for COI. Jheald ( talk) 10:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
As advised by ItsZippy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, applied to Mediation Cabal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 00:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, perhaps you have an idea where to place this -- "Among younger African-American women, we estimate that up to 68% of basal-like breast cancer could be prevented by promoting breastfeeding and reducing abdominal adiposity." ? PMID 17578664. -- Richiez ( talk) 00:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear WhatamIdoing: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, thehistorian10, at their talk page. MedcabBot ( talk) 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding to the discussion at Vitamin D. I've learned not to try to form coherent opinions after spending a few hours relearning antibiotics and TB. The Haz talk 04:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Not sure exactly what you were looking for, but here is the table of contents from that surgery book I've got my hands on:
Unit I 1 Concepts Basic to Perioperative Nursing 2 Patient and Enviromental Safety 3 Surgical Modalities 4. Infection Prevention and Control 5. Positioning the Patient for Surgery 6. Sutures, Needles, and Instruments 7. Anesthesia 8. Postoperative Patient Care and Pain Management 9. Wound Healing, Dressings, and Drains 10. Patient Education and Discharge Planning Unit II 11. Gastrointestinal Surgery 12. Surgery of the Liver, Biliary Tract, Pancreas, and Spleen 13. Repair of Hernias 14. Gynecologic Surgery and Cesarean Birth 15. Genitourinary Surgery 16. Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery 17. Breast Surgery 18. Ophthalmic Surgery 19. Otologic Surgery 20. Rhinologic and Sinus Surgery 21. Laryngologic and Head and Neck Surgery 22. Orthopedic Surgery 23. Neurosurgery 24. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 25. Thoracic Surgery 26. Vascular Surgery 27. Cardiac Surgery Unit III 28. Ambulatory Surgery 29. Pediatric Surgery 30. Geriatric Surgery 31. Trauma Surgery 32. Complementary and Alternative Therapy.
I'm not exactly sure what you'd like out of these. I have zero medical background at all. The books basically ended up in boxes shipped to me and I was asked to hold onto them until my boss finds someone who wants them.--v/r - T P 16:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The book talks about pressure put on the patient's body including from the surgury itself but also from instruments, drills, the bed and attachments, bandages, ect. It describes factors such as duration and intensity and the limit of how much pressure the tissue can withstand (32mm Hg). Then it describes intrinsic factors such as the length of the procedure, position of the devices, and physiological changes.
The book discusses three forces: shear, friction, and maceration. Shear forces are the folding of tissue then the skeleton moves. Friction is the tissue rubbing against each other. Maceration is when moisture on the skin causes it to be more vulnerable to pressure, friction, and shear.
The book then discusses stress on the musculoskeletal system and nervous system. Then it gets into something called Peripheral Neuropathies (?) and Upper Extremity Neuropathies (?) and Lower Extremity Neuropathies. I dont really get this part but I think it has something to do with the position of nerves in the body in relation to placement of the legs and arms.
It then discusses how anesthesia changes the body's vascular system and how vessels dilate causing a drop in blood pressure. It discusses the pooling of blood and compression in the vessels (?).
It discusses how in all types of positions (except Fowler, sitting, and reverse Trendelenburg), the abdominal viscera (?) are pushed toward the diaphragm putting stress on the respiratory system.
It then discusses nursing considerations such as planning, implementation, and evaluation. This part discusses beds, matresses, and gel packs (pressure-reduction considerations).
Then it gets into the actual positions. All of these also discuss transferring the patient and anesthesia.
Hope this helps.--v/r -
T
P 18:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please point me to some pages that will give me the full back story on the image filter? So far I've got the Harris report and Meta:Controversial content/Brainstorming Will that do it? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 19:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to post something on the project medicine forum [6], but for some reason the second half of my text is not appearing. It is visible if I go into edit mode, but not showing in the preview or in the published draft. Any suggestions? Puhlaa ( talk) 23:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Best regards! Puhlaa ( talk) 01:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. If you think there's a problem with controversial image use on Wikipedia, would you mind telling me what you think it is here? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You have made disruptive personal comments and several false accusations here [7]. Please retract and address the subject or further action will be taken thx ... talknic ( talk) 10:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Ive done some research and found that hrafn has been raving against sources contrary to his personal beliefs for some time. And has been twisting WP policy to force his view. See this small sample of discussions (if you can call them that):
--- SmittysmithIII ( talk) 22:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I just realized that I overlooked somehow a perfectly lovely note from you. I hope you remember what I'm talking about. Anyway, just wanted to let you know it was appreciated, if belatedly! I know I'm not always the most cuddly editor around, but I do think it's important to recognize the good-faith efforts of new editors. Best, Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There has been a bunch of editors adding external links to Mount Sinai web site. User:Cardioeditor is only one. I assume that they are linked.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I would be interested to know what you make of this: User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I. Colin° Talk 23:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. I can't remember where the last debate was. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
whatamIdoing- thanks for the message. I'm a new user, would be grateful for any tips on best practice for the link added. OncologyMD9 ( talk) 20:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)OncologyMD9
I noticed this: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Page_name. I looked back at your talkpage and note that you haven't been keen to become an admin. Being an admin doesn't mean that you have to do anything. It means you are trusted with extra tools so that you can do things like page moves yourself as and when you need to. It was the page move tool that I wanted. I got fed up with asking other people to make what were obvious moves, but were protected because of some prior move. You have plenty of experience, are widely trusted and respected, and are level headed, so there shouldn't be a problem with an RfA. I'd be happy to nominate you if you'd allow me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard ( talk) 08:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing-
Thanks for your recent Helpful tips, I added some information under the Percutaneous Aortic Valve Replacement section of this page as you suggested. When you have a chance, please let me know if a link to the page should be provided in this section as well. THANKS Cardioeditor ( talk) 16:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Cardioeditor
HOW Can this be modified/edited to include this information about such a first-time historic implantation event? Can you please advise or add this to the article in the best manner-Maybe a link would work best.Thanks in advance for your help Cardioeditor ( talk) 14:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Cardioeditor
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bed blocking. Since you had some involvement with the Bed blocking redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
err… I don't want to bring this up in article talk, but it would probably be wise to quietly edit out the with the trait in question bit of this post. I'm assuming it was unintentional (because you're the last person I would expect to indulge in that kind of thing) but implying that someone has a paraphilia of this sort is really dicey. best it just fades away… -- Ludwigs2 23:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comprehensive responses at my questions regarding the new TOS. It didn't occur to me that trademarks can sometimes be "organically produced" and can become used more widely than initially intended-- my presumption was that, as you said, some group is designated to create official logos and so, it would be easy to create an exhaustive list and add to it as needed. I can see why The Foundation would want to cover these cases as well, and so I now understand why the TOS is worded as it is. Thanks again for your clarification-- hopefully you haven't given Geoff too much more work to do. I'm sure he's busy enough as it is. :) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Your concern for policy is commendable but please guard your comments and do more research before unilaterally sending out critical blanket comments. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Are there refs to support this?
Palliative care is often confused with hospice and therefore only involved when people approach end of life. Like hospice care, palliative care attempts to help the person cope with the immediate needs and to increase the person's comfort. Unlike hospice care, palliative care does not require people to stop treatment aimed at prolonging their lives or curing the cancer.
Specifically the "often confused" part Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw this and knew I had to respond somewhere. I chose your talk page. Feel free to move it:
Someone else already called WP:UNCIVIL on this so I don't need too. What's remarkable is the charge of WP:WIKILAWYERING to your common-sense distinction between WP:WEIGHT (or WP:UNDUE) and WP:N. Compounding that error is the bizarre creative twist that all the tests of WP:N and its children spill into article content because of the "do not directly limit the content" phrase in the text of the guideline.
The reason for that phrase is that the content is limited because editors cannot omit the stuff that allows other editors to evaluate its notability. That is the total extent of the indirect limitation of content. Does this need to be brought up in WT:N? patsw ( talk) 16:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for dropping a thank you note to one of my students. It is unlikely they'll return to editing, but such messages make it more likely :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for your great comments on the Terms of Use draft--you've been nearly tireless at explaining points that people have questioned, with clarity and admirable patience! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi –
Can someone please help me. I am trying to figure out why Ameya Pawar has not gone live yet. Please advise. Thank you.
rideittowin 17:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rideittowin ( talk • contribs)
Hi. I've gone ahead and expanding this article. Would you mind giving it a copyedit? I might like to send this to DYK.--v/r - T P 17:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reviewing the article! I think that it greatly benefited from the GA review as we were able to iron out some kinks. I agree that the article hasn't yet meet GA criteria. When I have the time, I might do additional work on it (I still think the chart is an eyesore). Bejinhan talks 13:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.
I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:
// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left addOnloadHook(function () { addPortletLink( "p-tb", // toolbox portlet "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage, "Reflinks" // link label )});
onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. So long! -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 03:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Breeding for drought stress tolerance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breeding ( 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) 10:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been trying to discuss [ "Change of policy towards Dutch ..."] and wonder how this "village pump"-thing is supposed to work. Is there anybody of notice who decides to close a discussion, promote it to a serious policy- proposal, flush it down the history (as has happened here). Someone is allowed to tilt the discussion out of scope by adding a "subheading" to discuss the quality of a specific article. I see some things are done by bots. Guess someone operates them.
Isn't it time someone starts a villagepump policy policy discussion which stays on top until resolved? I think it's not in my way, being far to unnoticeable.
Sorry to bother you with this but saw no better chance. Victor50 ( talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
From what I can understand from your comment on the causes of hepatitis you appear to think that the list of causes I provided were not cited from reviews or similar secondary sources. This is incorrect: this can be confirmed from the references themselves.
It appears that you would prefer to see a single source for all the causes rather than the multiple sources I provided. Most textbooks of general medicine will list for example parasites as a cause at least in part because of their association with cirrhosis and liver cancer. They may be slightly less informative on the replication sites for (say) the Ebola fever virus which has the liver as its primary replication site but these can be found in infectious diseases/virology/microbiology textbooks. When I pointed this out I simply ended up in a row. For this reason it seemed sensible to provided multiple sources. There may perhaps be some diversity of opinion on this point.
As the record shows provision of suitable references by itself was not sufficient to prevent a minor edit war when these were then deleted without even being read - which seems (to me anyway) at least a little rude.
As to the importance of the infectious causes I think it is clear to say that virtually all if not all of the categories listed could be regarded as important. In medicine a cause is regarded - generally - as important if it is treatable. If a disease is untreatable the precise cause of the problem is usually not regarded as a priority: there are exceptions. Most of the infectious causes listed are thankfully treatable.
A secondary consideration in importance is the transmissibility of a disease. Tuberculosis is regarded as an important disease partly because of the difficulty treating it but also because of its transmissibility. Ebola is not very treatable but is an important cause because it is very easily spread to the health care staff treating the patient.
Other considerations in the importance of a disease include their likelihood of being confused with another disease. The causes of granulomatous hepatitis are among these. An inexperienced clinician may think of these as only being caused by tuberculosis when the actual list is much longer. Red faces soon follow when this is pointed out. Before dismissing this as nonsense I have seen this very error with my own eyes. I am sure I am not unique there.
Another consideration is the age profile of the patient. A number of conditions occur only in children. These are uncommon or rare in the population as a whole but worthy of serious consideration to those treating children. Parvovirus as a cause of hepatitis springs to mind here. Parvovirus and its relations infect only dividing cells. Children particularly smaller ones tend to have more dividing cells in their organs than do adults. For this reason it is thought parvovirus tends to be a cause of hepatitis in children rather than adults. There may well be other reasons but if there are I have not yet come across them. Numerically parvovirus as a cause of hepatitis in the population as a whole is a miniscule quantity. However in children with hepatitis without an obvious cause parvovirus is high on the list of differentitial diagnoses.
Importance is not even a matter of being listed in textbook as textbooks take different slants. A textbook of paediatrics will list different causes for many things than an adult textbook. A textbook on infectious diseases normally will give a much more extensive listing of infectious causes than a textbook on general medicine. Larger textbooks tend to give more causes than smaller ones.
For these reasons and others, while your comment on importance is of note, importance is not a simple issue.
You mentioned a list of drugs that can cause hepatitis. This is an extensive list. Your point as regards importance of the agents is again interesting. I do not pretend to any expertise in deciding which should or should not be included in such a list. Perhaps an appeal for an expert opinion on these matters is indicated. The current listing gives no indication which if any of these drugs are important causes of hepatitis. Suggestions as to its revision seem desirable for this reason.
I agree with you over the causes of fatigue - a veritable nightmare list of causes. I would argue that where there is a defined clinicopathological entity such as hepatitis the causes thereof listed may need to be/can be justified as being more extensive than in cases where there is no defined pathology such as fatigue. Perhaps you may have an opinion on this?
Finally a minor note not directly related to your comment. JWD has stated that cardiac failure does not cause hepatitis. This - as I have pointed out to him - is incorrect. That this condition does cause hepatitis is stated in the usual undergraduate textbooks of pathology as well as the references cited. The pathology cardiac failure induces is very similar to that produced by ischemic hepatitis which is a cause that was earlier included. DrMicro ( talk) 10:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Open the possibility to earmark donations to Wikipedia to specific languages.
Alternative: Have all (localized) Wikipedia's campaign for themselves.
(Arguments are given above and in my villagepump-proposal)
Victor50 ( talk) 10:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)