User talk:WLU/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

If you get a moment

Could you help here [1] I think I figured out how to but I am not sure so it would also be helpful to me to learn too. She/he is a pretty new user and found this article to learn things here. I am not helpful too much. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, will have a look. WLU (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, she is aware of the problems in the article that is what caught her attentions to help her learn. She accidently found the article free of editors for awhile and thought that she could edit in an area of interest and see if she can make the article Wiki acceptable. I think this is a really good idea for learning too. The Crohn's article was dormant when I first got to it but I wasn't bold enough, as you are aware, to actually jump in and make the changes necessary. She is bold enough though to make an attempt to make the article better and learn in the process. That's why I asked you to help because you are excellent in explaining things, esp. to me and that is an achievement all on its own! :) Thanks my friend for helping out, now I'll go see what you did so I know how to do it too! ;) Have a wonderful day. I get to mop floors for fun, see why I am in no hurry to leave my computer!! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and if you are talking to her, feel free to refer her to me if she's questions that you can't answer. I'll do my best (and avalanch her in acronyms and shortcuts; I found out today that WT: takes you to the talk page in question - WT:MEDMOS, WT:V, sweet!).

The basic problem was that there was nothing above the highest heading (basically the first section should have been the lead, but leads don't need section headings). Did you know there's a preferences click box that lets you edit the lead without having to edit the whole page? I found that out in May. It's awesome. WLU (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I already have! :) Bold of me isn't it, but I knew you wouldn't mind. We have been talking mostly about Crohn's and meds that she wants to understand better and I want people to understand what CD is like to live with and the meds necessary to try to have a normal life, if that is even possible these days, at least for me.

I don't understand what you mean by the WT section above. Is this too in my preferences? I did find the lead info in the preferences and activated it. I have to be honest with you though, most of the things in the preferences I don't understand what they will do and I guess the verbal beatings my husband tells me over and over that I do not install or use something I don't know about sunk in! :) I tend to get in trouble with trying to use programs and such with my computer and he has to spend hours if not days fixing my mistakes which of course brings the reminder to not do if you do not understand.

I saw how you removed the title and damn, again I should have been bold and given it a go. Keep after me about this lack of courage I have. I should have made the change and given it a go but of course I chickened out, yet again. Oh well, I'll try to be bolder again but I have to admit I am disappointed with myself that I wasn't. Sorry for the book (ish) response. Again, thanks for the help and the info. I find it amazing that you too are still finding things to help with editing after being an editor for so long. It makes me wonder what else I am missing that would help me a lot with my editing here. I just found out a few days ago about the new tabs at the end of the tool bar titled <ref/ref> and CITE (took out the curly brackets that says it's a template). Boy are they real helpful for putting in sitations the right way. By the way, what is the difference between the two tabs? I have used the ref one once for an external link, is the other for wiki-links? Thanks again, sorry about more questions and how long this is. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WT isn't a preferences thing, WP: takes you to 'wikipedia' pages, pages that are official policies, guidelines and sometimes essays. Each of these has a talk page, and WT: takes you to the talk page. WP:MEDMOS is the manual of style for medical articles page. WT:MEDMOS is the talk page for the manual of style for medical articles page. Click both, see the diff?

From what I know, changing your wikipedia preferences doesn't install or change anything on your computer (it's like changing your hotmail or gmail preferences - since it's on a server, it shouldn't be able to mess with your home system). That being said, internet explorer has been crashing a lot lately whenever popups engages, so I could be wrong.

Wanna see something neat? {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}. Check out the edit pane to see how I did each one. And click on the 'no W' button while doing so.

If you know about diberri, pubmed, citation templates and how to footnote, you've got most of what you need for medical aritcles. The rest is just details.

I'm not sure what you mean by tabs. My preferences or web browser might give a different display, I don't see tabs but I do see buttons. WLU (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I understand the WT: now, thanks. I don't understand though what you are saying about {{cite book}} and so on and the use of 'no W'. I will be back probably tomorrow to find out, so if you would put it on my talk so I don't forget to look. Hubby is getting PO'd with my being on the computer so long. Talk to you later,--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(bing!) I was entranced the first time I saw the {{tl| wikitext, it fills the cockles of my heart with joy and is much more fun to use than the no wiki tags (which are accessed via a button on the tool bar - the W with the red circle and like through it next to the sig button). WLU (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I get it now, I never noticed the W button. By the way I meant buttons above when I said tabs. I have never used the no wiki tags so that was probably why I didn't have a clue to what you were talking about. Thanks again for so much detail and the new buttons ;) you have shared with me. The two last buttons I talk about above when I used the wrong term 'tabs' that are ref and cite, what is the difference between the two?

Also, I want to thank you for the lovely comments you made about me at Cyn's talk page "here". Your comments are very much appreciated and it's nice to hear (read) that kind of thing about my editing behaviors and all. (Sorry having a bad day, not a lot sleep last night because of it, so my apologies if there are errors.) Thanks again, have a wonderful weekend,--CrohnieGal^Talk 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The cite button will help you build a citation {{cite journal}}; the ref button will put the citation (or any other highlighted text) between <ref></ref> tags, which will in turn insert a footnote and move the actual citation to wherever there is a {{reflist}} template. All the buttons essentially allow you to apply common wiki formatting to any highlighted text - highlight horse and click the blue Ab and it throws it into [[ ]]. The buttons are just quick ways of adding commonly used text - the globe does external links, the big A does section headings, and I'm guessing the #R is for redirects -#REDIRECT [[And I'm right]].

I've no problem praising you Crohnie, you are excellent at civil discussions even if you don't use the edit pane enough (HINT!!). Most important of all, you're approach and intentions have always come across as civil and good in all my encounters with you - that's a lot more important than as important as good spelling, grammar and referencing. I tried to say more important, but I just couldn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first! WLU (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks yet again for everything you say above. Keep up with those HINT to me! :) I didn't catch it until I was told but User:CynRN is on vacation so like you did for me, I put the wikibreak template up for her. Thanks, seriously, for all the nice things you have said and done for me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put up the wikibreak template - it's more for users who are regulars and would be missed. I think s/he's too new for people to miss her, though I would suggest leaving her a note about the wikibreak template and what it's for. WLU (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Latissimus Dorsi

Yo man. I took a shot at editing an article pursuant to Wikipedia's policies and as per our conversation. Please take a look and let me know if I screwed anything up. By the way, I live in Manhattan if you need vacation advice... Hammerfist (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple comments:

1. When wikilinking, note that while it will turn blue if it's a redirect, a direct link is always preferred. For the link in the section title, that would mean latissiums dorsi muscle rather than latissimus dorsi, and the letters should all be lower case (the software has changed in the past year such that capitals matter less if they're at the start of a word; they're case sensitive for any mid-word letters though, and also can produce a redirect)
2. Medical, anatomical and general scientific articles require highly reliable sources; medical articles and statements about diagnosis and treatment require even better sourcing than most biological articles The floota link is not a reliable source; it shouldn't be used as a reference. It also shouldn't be used as an external link. Medical articles also have restrictions on linking. I can't see any reason why the floota link should ever be used in an article, the degree of oversight is unclear.
3. You might want to use citation templates; they are easy to generate with an ISBN or pubmed number, particularly using pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator
4. Yup, any advice on NYC would be cool, feel free to add it to the link on my user or talk page.

I would seriously reconsider ever adding the floota link to any pages; even when accompanying a sincere desire to help wikipedia and solid edits like the lat article, it still looks like spamming, and there's simply not much reason to. The standards for articles it could be appended to are quite high, and if it's describing diagnostic tests, where is the information on the test coming from? Assuming it's a reliable source, that is what should be referenced. If it's not a reliable source, then the floota pages should not be used because they are citing an unreliable source. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth; even if the tests work (i.e. is 'true'), until published in a reliable source, it's not verifiable.

Aside from that the edit looks good and I've left it accordingly, keep it up! If you think I'm presenting a biased or unfair view of the floota link, I'd suggest bringing it up at the external links or medical talk pages (the latter will probably get much more attention by informed contributors, who can give you more specific suggestions on good sources for information that is similar to what floota provides). I simply can't think of a reason why floota should be linked, but perhaps other contributors may be convinced or support it. Thanks, WLU (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Rereading the policies, I may be willing to concede that a website should not be FOOTNOTED, however, I think it's a viable candidate for an external link on a few pertient articles for a number of reasons. With respect to verifiability, the site has been conditionally approved by Health on the Net Foundation (http://www.hon.ch/) and will soon receive final approval once some edits are made. Second, the site is anecdotal in nature, and thus it's "verifiability" is a moot point. Third, the site contains numerous disclaimers to this effect. Fourth, with respect to advertising, by web design standards the site is quite "clean" because any ads it may contain are segregated from the rest of the content in the sidebars (pursuant to HonCode standards), and besides, Wikipedia is awash in links to external sites that contain some amount of advertising.

Hey how do I tell if an article is a medical article?

With respect to NY:

1. I don't know if you live in a city right now or not, but most suburbanites are astonished by the amount of walking one does in NY in the average day. Bring comfortable shoes.

2. Use the bathroom at your hotel and at every restaurant you go to. There are virtually no public bathrooms in NY. Your only access to bathrooms during the day will be limited to those places where you eat or buy something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammerfist (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take it up at WP:MEDRS - since the external page gives advice, it should be vetted there I think. Anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence, and is almost certainly not peer reviewed, making it less reliable. Disclaimers that the advice give might not be really good is not the best way to ensure the page is reliable enough for wiki purposes :) My interpretation is quite mainstream I believe, the only way you will find out is if you solicit opinions from people other than me, which I think is a good thing.

If you see other pages with spammy ELs, I urge you to remove them, or pass them along to me and I'll review (and almost certainly remove, death to spam!).

Basically if it talks about medical things, it falls under MEDMOS and MEDRS - if its about a drug, medical procedure, talking about pathology, illness, treatment, anything like that.

I've two suggestions - as above, bring up the link at MEDMOS or MEDRS (either one is a good choice); you could also bring it up at WT:EL but that page isn't so good for opinions as there's not near so much traffic. I could present it there for you if you'd like. I suppose you could put in a request for comment, but usually that's for specific incidents on specific pages. Second, leave floota for a while and edit elsewhere without adding it as a footnote or EL. After a month, say 500 edits or so, revisit and see if you still think it appropriate. Experience goes a long way to offsetting disagreements between newer editors and experienced ones.

I could also suggest some specific admins who could give you an opinion. Admins aren't gods, but they can block and they got to be admins by groking policies. User:Arcadian is one I respect, User:Jfdwolff is good too.

Thanks for the advice! WLU (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Another reason to go to MEDMOS/RS is the expertise there is more than just lil 'ol me. I've never heard of HON, so I'm not inclined to trust it. At MEDMOS they might say "HON? Why didn't you say so! It's an excellent source!" I've no idea. If you do post there, feel free to point the discussion to this section so people can see the context. WLU (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will take it up with those guys. Also, I know it's a must-see, but I would strongly advise limiting the amount of time you spend in Times Square and in midtown in general. It's kind of a circus and will stress you out. Try just walking around Gramercy or the West Village. Hammerfist (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I very much think you will find their opinions like mine but! if there is a degree of oversight on floota, it may meet the criteria for a reliable source, though I'm skeptical about its use on a medical page. Another suggestion for your edits - when you added it to lat, it was basically as 'here's a sentence that mostly serves to introduce the footnote' (that's how it read to me). Its a bit awkward and artificial. Instead, I would suggest something that introduces the problem the floota page discusses a bit better (x is a problem caused by y; this can be treated by z). For the lat edit, I'd suggest something along the lines of 'tight muscles can be diagnosed by the hands not touching the ground while on the back'. Something that reveals the contents of the source rather than pointing to it. But that assumes the source passes MEDRS, I'd confirm before I'd re-insert.

Two more things - are you related to floota in some way? See our conflict of interest guidelines if so, the links should be added via a third party if this is the case.

Finally, great suggestions! Do you have e-mail enabled? I'd love specifics (what restaurants are good, what stores are worth visiting, best museum) but wikipedia is not a how-to guide and that's kinda stomping all over WP:SPAM :) I got tickets to The Daily Show, sweet! If you feel like adding more places to visit, there's a list, slowly growing, in the link below the picture above. WLU (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Creation science

Would a copy of the paper (by e-mail) be sufficient to allow the edit? Dan Watts (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, send it to Hrafn and other editors as well so they can verify. WLU (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

JCLerman already has a copy. Dan Watts (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. I forgot that I sent him the ¹⁴C in natural diamonds paper. If you know some way through wikipedia to send pdf's please educate me, otherwise I'll need an e-mail address to send the paper. Dan Watts (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's a website, that's easy enough. If its a separate file, you'll have to click on the 'e-mail this user' link (just below the search bar), I'll reply to you and you'll have to send me the file in your reply to my reply. I've yet to figure out a good way of sending attachments direct from wikipedia, but I've not really looked. WLU (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello WLU. Wdanwatts sent me a copy of the Bosch ¹⁸⁷Re article to lend comment. What claim or claim is to be checked against this source? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I would review it for any mention of this supporting the creationist position (i.e. this is a radical new direction for physics research which could support the creationist paradigm of a young universe). If it's not that explicit, I'd use it on the physics page. If there's a physics wonk who can tell that it contradicts the creationist claim on the CS page, then we can put that up. Also allows for a more nuanced presentation of what the AiG guy is actually talking about. But really, I don't forsee it having much use because I doubt a physics journal is going to publish something about creationism. It's WP:UNDUE to place emphasis in the article on this one publication (or even set of publications or reactions) as if it vindicated the creationist approach in my mind.

If you've not been following the discussion on creation science about this, you're probably quite confused. WLU (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Training Split

Actually, I would argue that a training split is a major part of strength training and that it deserves its own section that could and should be more than a stub. A one paragraph mention on the strength training page is insufficient, in my opinion. I will work on expanding the entry on split training and resubmit it when it's a bit longer, and perhaps this way I can demonstrate that this topic should be more than a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmogul (talk • contribs)

Wiley Stuff

http://pr-gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10435&Itemid=9 This refutes at least half the stuff in the Sara Rosenthal article. The journal itself has been contacted by attorneys to retract the article for its bias, inaccuracies and deception. More to come. Neil Raden (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I trust I'm pointing out the obvious here: A press release issued by your wife cannot serve as a refutation for an article published over four months later, nor as a reliable source for Wikipedia. If what you say is true about contact from lawyers, it demonstrates that somebody had the money and motivation to make those legal threats happen, but no more. Debv (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That does appear to be a self-published press release and does not meet the standards for medical claims, sorry Neil. I don't think that could even be used to expand much of the description for the page. A press release is not going to trump Rosenthal's journal article. Wasn't there supposed to be a university-based clinical trial or something? This version has a comment about a University of Texas at Tyler longitudinal study, that'd be an excellent source if it's going ahead; info from the university's website could be used in some way I'm sure. WLU (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the study (not a clinical study) that Rosenthal criticizes.Debv (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Has the study been published or is it in process? It's about verifiability, not truth so if a reliable source reports the study results they should be reported. Right now I can't see anything in Rosenthal that's add-able. WLU (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rosenthal article has been incorporated. When the UT study results are published by a WP:MEDRS, they should certainly be incorporated into the article as well. I'm not arguing for any inclusions or changes here, just trying to offer context. Debv (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

two queries

Hi. If you can cast your mind back to this edit, I would like to ask whether you were aware a third opinion had been sought prior to it, and whether you were solicited to comment there. Thanks, and I hope no offense is taken to my curiosity.86.44.27.243 (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a regular observer and semi-regular editor on the page, I wasn't solicited from WP:3O as an independent commenter. WLU (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So that's no and no? Thanks, WLU. I was just curious about the timing. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Do you still want that personal tourism page deleted? If so try db-u1, or let me know. I hope you took some pictures for Wikipedia, to justify all the disk space we sacrificed! EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I second that section title since I didn't get the chance to say it first. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I too welcome your return. I hope you had an excellent time and it was all you hoped it to be! Hope to hear at least about some of your ventures while you were away. See you around I'm sure, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all, it was an excellent trip, very very enjoyable. I didn't get to many of the suggestions but I did get some. And...tons of pictures, just tons, so completely worth all the disk space. 27 pictures of Cleopatra's needle alone, all very artistic. No need to delete, I've reverted to the pre-solicitation to do list which I'll retain mostly for intellectual purposes. New York is a wonderful city from the 2nd floors up. The ground floor and street level is just dirty, dirty, dirty though, I've never washed my hands so much in one week. I chafe. Unfortunately I won't be regaling wikipedia with my adventures as I've already played the policies far too close to the breaking point. Anyone interested can send me an e-mail and I'll add you to my mass-mail out list. WLU (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Linguistics and Language

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at. I *know* linguistics is not a minority field or a fringe position. So? I'm sorry, but what kind of expansions are you referring to in terms of the texts and citations, etc? The problem with the article is that it brings out only one position, one school of thought through its content. I don't know whether you are familiar with the subject or not; I am not sure whether you know the background under which the linguistics edit war actually happened. See the talk page. However, what you see under the linguistics article is just one philosophy and all the research done solely under that school of thought - the structuralist position, the Chomskyan one and I am fine with that being there, as long as the other positions and schools of thought aren't ignored. Which is being ignored. There is a post-structuralist position, there is the philosophical approach to language, there is a literary approach, a contextual approach; these approaches aim to look at language beyond its surface structure. The former one only looks at the structure of language; not at its social value, not at its role in society. There is sufficient work being done under post-structuralism and linguistic philosophy, but the people who are currently monopolising the linguistics page are not allowing that to be written about. I hope you've got what I'm trying to say. Let me know how you can help me to improve those articles on language and linguistics. And your tips / advice has been noted; thanks --Supriya 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My real take-home advice should be 'sources'. That's the only really important bit. You also need work on wikification, but most editors are willing to do that sort of gruntwork. The really hard bit is finding, summarizing and integrating sources but it's what you'll need to do for your edits to avoid being reverted. You've been reverted by I believe two admins now - admins are just like other users but they can block you; and they got to be admins by understanding and applying the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Listen to them, ask them questions, don't post really long diatribes. Sources will help you, not long explanations of your thought process. WLU (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But I had added a lot of links and references; that entire edit got scrapped because of the consensus on the linguistics page. And it was not about sources; it was about content. The sources were there. It was not in the form of original research. If it were a problem of citations only, surely they could have just added them or asked me to add them? But here the article is actually suffering because of their aims to censor material that doesn't fit with their ideals. You can have a look at the linguistics history - read the edits that I had made, and read the ones that they have made. A systematic deletion of counterviews has been happening. --Supriya 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this edit contains no sources (wikipedia is not a reliable source, and your addition seems to be to make a point). This edit is unsourced, this edit has large swaths of unreferenced material, your additions of categories are odd, [2] and [3], this is unsourced as is this. You've made a lot of complicated changes to the article and it's hard and time consuming for me to go through them all. Could you pick out one diff that you think shows the addition of a material plus a reliable source? I might be able to explain why it is problematic, or I might be able to suggest a way of presenting the changes to other contributors in a more palatable way. WLU (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of getting into the smaller edit changes which happened in the heat of the editing conflict, I'll just explain what needs to be done in general. One of the major differences between what I was trying to change, is in that there was no mention of discourse, semiotics and narrative in the article. If you see the linguistics talk page, you'll realize that that was what they objected against adding. I don't see why that should be the case; discourse, semiotics and narrative are very much a part of linguistics. I have had courses in these, here in India, as a linguistics student myself. Sure, they are not considered 'core', but surely wikipedia is not a place to decide on what is core and what is not core. It is the way you approach it. Also, what is odd about the categories? Fine, you want to remove or change the categories, that's ok. But the overall article misses out on so much content when discourse, semiotics and narrative (DSN) are not being mentioned there. How can DSN not be part of linguistics? Discourse is about the way we talk, semiotics is about language and signification, and narrative is again about the structure of a particular style. Also, stylistics. That's not being mentioned either. You might find these 'categories' odd, but the reason why you do is that people ignore it - even outside wikipedia. It's like, perhaps, how people may not talk about female orgasm because it is taboo. But can an encyclopedia not write about female orgasm just because people outside censor discussions on it? Is that called 'reflection'? Anyway, basically, what I feel needs to be done to the article is this: add (don't remove anything that is currently there) explanations of discourse, narrative, semiotics, stylistics to the article. If you need citations on these, fine I can give those. I agree that my edit perhaps needed far more citations, but I myself was in the process of re-writing the article and was just looking for time to add the relevant links. It happens in phases after all; there are many articles on wiki that start without references or sources but expand into them later. That was my only intention. Next. About animal language - the article states it as if it is true that animals don't communicate. "Non-humans do not." This is a blanket statement. There are arguments against that, and if you look at my edit - there are two sources that I've given arguing against it. If you want to change the tone of how I wrote it; fine again. It may not have been the best tone to present the argument on whether animal language exists or not. But the fact that there are two (or more) opinions or views on that can't change. --Supriya 17:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not even going to read this. I'm not going to get drawn into a content dispute that I'm not knowlegeable in. If your claims are easy to verify, dig up the sources, summarize and cite. You can't use logic and arguments to expand a page, that's original research and not allowed. Logic and arguments are for the talk page when discussing if a source is reliable or not, if a source is adequately summarized or not. Experienced editors see a lot of new editors come in determined to re-write articles based on 'I just know'. That doesn't work on wikipedia - anyone can edit, so I could write 'linguistics is based on the work of Cleopatra's zombie and Leonardo Da Vinci'. It may be true, but if there's no source it can not stay. Sources are the only way to settle content disputes. Please review the policies you have been pointed to - they are the touchstone for editing and expanding wikipedia and most experienced contributors won't care what you think if it's not backed up by reliable sources. WLU (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I had cited sources for some of the controversial things - like animal language! What I'll do is I'll re-write the whole thing, and show it to you. Tell me if there is a genuine problem with it in terms of verifiability. Then we'll put it on the talk page and figure it out with the rest of the people in a consensual manner. You may not have knowledge about the subject per say, but there are an entire chunk of topics that are being censored. The best thing would be for me to re-write the article, with sources, citations, etc, and show it to you. Tell me if there is anything missing in that - including counter views, etc. I will build on the content that is currently there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supriyya (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(bing)Consider writing a draft on a sub-page and showing it to the contributors on Talk:Linguistics rather than me (who doesn't really care about that page). I can not help with content and will not read up on it either as I'm just not interested. I can give you opinions on reliability of sources, template use, wording and formatting though. I doubt the topics are being censored, but your rather high-handed approach may have irritated the other contributors sufficiently that they're reverting rather than integrating. This is a community project, so long posts detailing the failings of your fellow contributors is not looked well upon. And please review the policies that have been dropped on your talk page, or start off with the simplified rule set. Also consider that linguistics is a very high level article and should not necessarily discuss all topics - perhaps they are better dealt with on sub-pages. I would also highly, highly recommend you approach the other contributors on the linguistics page with your ideas and ask them what they think, how it could be integrated, what could be done rather than assuming they're censoring. Consider that one of the people you are disagreeing with, User:Dbachmann, has nearly one hundred thousand edits and is the 17th most prolific contributor to wikipedia as well as being an admin. You don't get to that level of contribution by not knowning what you're doing. Garik has 10 times your edit count and Angr has fifty-five thousand as well as also being an admin. These are the core of wikipedia's user and management bases, not yahoos with an axe to grind. If you can't get along with them I don't know how well you'll do here. But feel free to ignore me if you'd like, it's up to you. These are fantastic people to learn from and collaborate with, not people to pick fights with. Please take their advice or you will end up one of the many frustrated former editors complaining that wikipedia is a failed project and they will continue editing as they always have. I was a fan of long talk page postings (still am obviously) but eventually you have to learn and play by the rules, leave or get blocked. Which one it is, is entirely up to you. WLU (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not surprised why people say that, esp. if it is about who has made more edits. But nevermind. In anycase, I've got your point about the sources. About the journalism page, why have you removed the links to the newspapers and channels? It's important to have a list of some of the well-known ones. --Supriya 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because 'well known' is subjective and WP:NPOV may be an issue (lots of local pride tends to muddy the waters); as well, there are WP:LISTs that are better suited for issues like that. I'd have to see a diff for a specific edit to say why I did something.

If you read the edit count page, you'll see there's agreement to your point. None the less, number of edits is a useful if rough gauge of experience and therefore the approach to take with other editors (new - explain; experienced - ask a question; sysop - polite; ridiculously high edit count - ask and expect to learn something). There's always exceptions but in general it's useful. WLU (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, I don't agree - there are people who might have been on wikipedia for years, and there is far greater chances of them having a bias. Which is what is happening. So it's not the best rough gauge, obviously, and wikipedia's credibility is going to fall for this reason, sooner or later. Already a lot of people I discuss this with, ask me why I'm wasting my time. But nevermind that. In terms of the journalism article, you are right about the 'well-known' phrase, but that can just be removed. There has to be a list of newspapers and channels in a journalism article! It can be expanded over time, and it can never cover all, because there are trillions. --Supriya 20:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has bias, and that includes you; they think you're just as biased as you think them, but have the advantage of experience in navigating the wiki mores. If you don't adhere to the mores and become conversant with the policies and guidelines, you stand a significant risk of being blocked or having every single one of your edits undone. Different viewpoints can navigate adequately on articles, but only by adhering to the common standards of the policies and guidelines. In my experience, it's the people who have been on wiki for only a short time that are sufficiently biased to get blocked for NPOV problems. Your insistence that you are right and that it is bias (rather than irritation and policies) that is preventing your edits from standing is almost certainly going to be a limiting factor in your interactions. Try asking why they oppose your edits, and listening. See WP:WRONG for a humorous look.

If a list exists (and I would suggest searching for it, e.g. List of newspapers), my usual rule of thumb is notability. If an article exists and it passes notability, it gets added. A good limitation against adding every single newspaper in the world. It's debatable whether such lists should or must exist (personally, I hate lists and think they're stupid) but in many cases they already exist and should be linked to, not cited directly in the article. WLU (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're talking about this edit, I reverted not because of the lists, but because of the "this section should be" which is WP:NPOV, out of WP:TONE and important for the talk page perhaps, not the main page. Also, I've never heard of Star News, and would never refer to them in an article. Which is why we have to be careful about what is placed on a high-level page like that. Lists can list every single tv and newspaper that has a wikipedia page, but journalism should not. It should link to the lists maybe. I'd be more inclined to link to newspaper and news station, then have the list of links in those pages. WLU (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See, I agree with you about most of what you are saying and i appreciate that you're taking the effort to do this. I also agree with what you say about the bias bit - it is never possible for anyone to have a complete neutral view and it can only be aspired. I also agree with you that I have a limited experience on wikipedia. I am getting familiar with the policies and stylistic guidlines only slowly. But no, I have never said that I am "right" and they are "wrong". That is a misconception. I said that I think both our views should be included and given equal weightage in the article. As for the sources, I would be most pleased to provide them, but the sources can only come in after the content does. Perhaps including the sources and the content simultaneously is a better method, but as I said, I will work on that. As for the journalism article, Star is a pretty big network in Asia. I think the talk page does find some comments from users saying that the article has a US bias, and one way I feel that can change is by adding more non-US sources and references. Anyway, that is a small issue. I'll look for the journalism lists and link them. --Supriya 11:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On wikipedia, sources determine the content, not the other way around. If you believe the content must determine the sources, you are putting truth before verifiability. Information (more practically, challenged information) can only be included on the page if there is a source that unambiguously supports it. I can not emphasize this enough - if you know something, but someone else disagrees with you, you can not add the information to the page without a source. You can not. WP:PROVEIT is very clear on this - "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This is a core content policy - sources come before content.

STAR TV (Asia) has a page, and it is on the list of television networks by country. If a page has a country-specific bias then it should be removed, the content pointed to more universal information and links included to allow connection to appropriate content (i.e. you should be able to get from journalism to Fox News but Fox shouldn't be on the main page unless it's in a template). Sources added should be universal, pages like Journalism in India, Journalism in the United States and the like are the places for country-specific content. WLU (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I don't argue when I agree with something, and I am agreeing with you: you are making it sound like an argument. I'll make changes or contribute with the post-structuralist positions next only when I find the time to support it with the sources; I am too tied up at the moment to work on it immediately. --Supriya 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Such is the nature of wikipedia, there's never enough time. All the emphasis is because for new contributors it is sometimes an issue to distinguish the difference between a contested and uncontested edit and how each impacts the specific pages. Once you've more experience (and in particular have dealt with the opposite end of things - enforcing WP:V or WP:RS when someone wants to add information and you are the one disagreeing) it's obvious, but this is far from the case when starting out. WLU (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I salute you! :D --Supriya 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of external links

I understand your position on this matter. I would suggest, however, that the links I put up are of higher quality than the www.exrx.com links that many of the exercise pages contain. Also, although Wikipedia is not supposed to be a how-to, for fundamentally practical information such as artices on specific exercise movements I feel that illustrated examples will help to explain the content.

Also, did you see I put the Training Split article into the Strength Training article under the recovery heading? Rmogul (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually gutted the whole section and replaced with information from a reliable source (Human Kinetics Publications). I've also ordered the book. There's way too many pop sources and way too few citations overall on the page. Since pubmed has apparently, probably recently indexed an entire journal dedicated to strength training, there's a huge resource available; info should come from there and scholarly publications.

There's two problems with the links you were adding - first, they're your own and that's a conflict of interest; second, they're not necessarily reliable; it's not an absolute requirement, but if it's an EL that's not a RS, it needs to be from a recognized authority or clearly of benefit. Weight training uses this link, which I'm OK with becuase it's published by a university. Were it not a series of MPEGs, I'd link every page to it. EXRX isn't a great website, but it has the advantage of animated demonstrations, which demonstrates more clearly than static pictures making them more encyclopedic. Also, there's no need for multiple links that show the same thing, particularly if one is clearly superior. Based on WP:EL, why do you think the EXRX pages are worse than your own website? WLU (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, although it is my website and I have made no attempt to hide that fact, there really is no way to tell with certainty that I was putting the links up. With the increased popularity of the site it could very well have been someone else. I have read the conflict of interest page, and I have to say that I do not believe that adding a link violates conflict of interest if the link is informative and relevant.

I am a graduate student at this time, and although I admit that Physiology is not my concentration I have read many textbooks on the issue of exercise and fitness and I have to say that they are often contradictory and inaccurate. I could run through all of the posts in the entire exercise and fitness sections of this site and find something in some textbook somewhere that contradicts it, but that does not help the readers at all.

The idea that animations are more "encyclopedic" than still images is an odd claim to make, and frankly I do not see the basis of it. I do not like ExRx because the information is very limited and the animations are very small. I feel that readers will be enriched more by larger images than small animated gifs. In fact, one of the reasons I even took the time to make a site dedicated to exercise is that I felt ExRx was severly lacking.

When it comes to multiple external links, I feel that when it comes to something as practical as how to execute a given exercise readers will benefit from multiple examples that show the move from multiple angles. I know that when I was a novice strength trainer I purchased multiple books on the same subject in order to see different angles and explinations for the movements.

Finally, when it comes to the www.uwlax.edu page I would say that I agree in general that university sites are better than private sites, but if you look at the authors they all seem to have BS or MA degrees, not Ph.Ds. I could host my site on UCLAs servers, but the content would not change. Being on a unversity host does not guarantee accuracy.

Also, let me point out that when you went through and reverted all of my edits, you eliminated content that I added to the articles. You should have been more careful as opposed to simply running through and reverting everything I did. I could play the same game, going through and simply undoing everything that you did, but that is immature.

Basically, I hold that the links are beneficial to the end user and should thus remain on the pages. Wikipedia, in my opinion, exists only to assist the end user in accessing information, and I feel the links help to accomplish that goal.

Thanks

Rmogul (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think there is way to tell with certainty who added the links to Wikipedia? Well, even if you didn't admit it further up the page, I think it's rather easy to confirm. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I never tried to hide it... Anyway, I'm tired of this anyhow. Even before I put up links the content I put up here was just deleted by someone anyhow. Don't need to worry about me adding to this site anymore. I didn't really mean to do anything wrong, sorry if I did. Rmogul (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The content guidelines that I used to determine if information is suitable or not exist to ensure that wikipedia adheres to a high standard of reliability, universality and quality. Raw text, lacking references, is nothing more than a vague assertion made by anyone with an internet connection. The bodybuilding, weight training and strength training articles are particularly vulnerable to the popular, trendy and unscientific information that is spread in forums, magazines, websites and books by non-scientists with no real peer-review or editorial oversight of the kind required for medical or biological articles. Ultimately the core page of strength training needs to have peer-reviewed, journal sources more than any other related page, because it is the most basic and central of all the pages. Popular wisdom is rife in the area but that doesn't mean wikipedia has to regurgitate it. Wikipedia may, in your opinion, exist to "assist the end user in accessing information" but that is not its purpose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that page contains the points "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNSOURCED MATERIAL", "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION" and "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR OPINIONS", all of which may apply. If you possess expertise in the area, demonstrate it through your mastery of reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journals and books from reliable (i.e. scientific and university press) publishers. Thanks, WLU (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"First off, although it is my website and I have made no attempt to hide that fact, there really is no way to tell with certainty that I was putting the links up. With the increased popularity of the site it could very well have been someone else."

See Aunt Entropy's reply above. The only alternative is that your account has been hacked, which is also problematic.

"I have read the conflict of interest page, and I have to say that I do not believe that adding a link violates conflict of interest if the link is informative and relevant."

People with a conflict of interest often think this and is the heart and soul of why there is a COI policy (and noticeboard, WP:COIN). It's therefore up to other editors to add the link though you can certainly argue for it on talk pages.

"...I have read many textbooks on the issue of exercise and fitness and I have to say that they are often contradictory and inaccurate. I could run through all of the posts in the entire exercise and fitness sections of this site and find something in some textbook somewhere that contradicts it, but that does not help the readers at all."

Actually that does help the readers - by providing sources for the contradictory information, the reader can refer to the sources themselves and see the original context. If sources discuss the contradictions explicitly, that's even better and should be included. Regards accuracy - for us to determine accuracy assumes that we know the truth, when wikipedia is about what can be verified. Truth is subjective, nebulous, and assertions of truth are often not neutral which is why verifiability is the standard instead.

"The idea that animations are more "encyclopedic" than still images is an odd claim to make, and frankly I do not see the basis of it."

Animations show the movement from beginning to end and process through. Still images show only single positions.

"When it comes to multiple external links, I feel that when it comes to something as practical as how to execute a given exercise readers will benefit from multiple examples that show the move from multiple angles. I know that when I was a novice strength trainer I purchased multiple books on the same subject in order to see different angles and explinations for the movements."

Links are to be kept to a minimum and wikipedia is not a how-to manual. WikiHow is though.

"Finally, when it comes to the www.uwlax.edu page I would say that I agree in general that university sites are better than private sites, but if you look at the authors they all seem to have BS or MA degrees, not Ph.Ds. I could host my site on UCLAs servers, but the content would not change. Being on a unversity host does not guarantee accuracy."

Nope, but it's not about who the person is, it's about oversight. Attatchment to a university suggests greater oversight than a personal webpage in my mind, though you can certainly make the case otherwise. However, since it'll probably be a matching of opposing opinions (e.g. you think this site is better, I think this site is better and BobAwesome thinks this site is better) there is no real way to determine who is correct. You could solicit a third opinion, or a request for comment if you'd like, but best is a reliable source that makes the distinction for us.

"Also, let me point out that when you went through and reverted all of my edits, you eliminated content that I added to the articles."

Please feel free to replace any content that is reliably sourced. Checking your contributions, I didn't see any sources but I did see some assertions that looked non-neutral, like opinions and instructive (and somewhat trivial - most exercises can be done with weights, cable or machines; this should be reflected in the strength training page, possibly the list of exercises page as a generic statement rather than telling people what can be used in each case).

"You should have been more careful as opposed to simply running through and reverting everything I did. I could play the same game, going through and simply undoing everything that you did, but that is immature."

Actually, it's more of an edit war, and can lead to blocking due to a violation of the three revert rule. WLU (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Im with WLU on this one, he has deleted some of my external links while reverting yours but you dont see me complaining. While I believed that the link I added on the Shoulder Shrug page was informative and added value this does not necessarily mean that everyone else believes so.

WLU is a well respected person on here so I do not question his motives when deleting external links...even when they are links I added GRRRR!!! :-) Keep up the good work. Koal4e (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, watch the spacing of your comments on talk pages, threading your posts makes for easier reading. WLU (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved comment

I moved my comment because you asked, and will happily do so again. However, its really more of a preference than a "convention". I'm not saying its better, or that it doesn't lead to confusion at times, but its pretty normal when someone feels they have been directly addressed and a third editor jumps into the thread to make the response clear. Its not a big deal, either way and I'm happy to oblige but just remember this is your preference, and some of us have other preferences. Also, please note that responding to "your argument" is not focusing on a contributer in the least, it is a way of identifying an "argument". "Your" is a an adjective and not a noun, and hence cannot be the object (or subject) of any sentence. I'll try to remember your advice in general. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya, if it were a policy thing, I'd move them for you and drop one of the standardized warnings, but since it's not and since I think that's overkill anyway, I thought a note would be better. When it's a busy page, I start reading at the post immediately below my previous one in each section - yours are often lost unless I've a reason to look for them (i.e. your name pops up on my watchlist but I don't see the specfic comment at the bottom of a section, or I notice a comment about your comment in the talk page). I wouldn't have bothered noting it except I've noticed repeatedly that I'm missing your comments.

Regards arguments, I prefer to identify the argument directly because 'your' does seem to invoke an almost automatic defensiveness (i.e. that's 'your', as in 'just your' argument, and therefore has no weight). I can't say my strategy is any more successful, but I like to think it is. I could be wrong, often I am. Thanks for the discussion and I shan't mention it again. Unless I forget I've already done so. In which case I might, but if I find it in an archive somewhere I'll drop an apology. WLU (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

your economics question

that you put in the economics project- I do not know if you have had it sufficiently answered - If you have I would like to see the answer, please respond - it would be nice if you would put a message over in my talk page.--Kiyarrllston 18:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, your sig makes it two whole steps to find your talk page. I'm outraged.

See here, but the real response was on the talk page above where you commented. I believe that's the only place where it was answered and my original question was motivated by a conflict of interest concern that I could not address due to a lack of experience. You may want to discuss this with User:Guido_den_Broeder, who was the COI party that added it in the first place (note that I've a far from smooth relationship with GDB and my quite biased opinion is that he is problematic to deal with as I believe he fails to acknowledge that his COI could in some way impact his editing). There may have been been other answers that I can't recall right now, if I remember them I'll post them.

Personally I'm content to let others deal with the issue because I'm ignorant - if someone familiar with economics says that the sources are appropriate, I'm content to leave it. I've no idea if they're fairly represented.

Incidentally, on your wikiproject posting along with one other editor your indent is off, making it twitchy to tell who says what. Not hard, just twitchy. Which is probably ungrammatical in addition to being nonsensical. Hope you don't mind, I've corrected it. WLU (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, thanks. I think I improved my sig in terms of the problem you described even though I understand you meant it humorously.

I was under the impression that the indents worked like a table of contents, therefore only to indent when responding to a question, therefore allowing threads, and... I see how this might not actually work.

Thanks for the edition on the wikiproject postings, Much clearer in fact.

I found your actions in regard COI very proper, I just wish I could either discredit or understand that passage you quoted.

How do you like my style of response? I generally like to re post the entire thing on both talk pages (which makes for a better read afterwards - if for too much room occupied.

--Kiyarrlls-talk 17:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to reply here - it is too complicated to switch to your window for a reply after reading your comment. Normally I'd bounce back and forth but meh.

Regards your signature, you can have pretty much whatever you want, but when it's different from your actual user name, it makes it harder for new users (and those who encounter you for the first time) to connect comments on the talk page with user pages and identities - it's a concern I've seen expressed somewhere. It's not something that's huge, but it may be a concern. Were I to adjust my sig, I'd keep the same name but modify it via colour, font, size, etc. But that's me, don't worry about it too much. I do think that making the talk part clearer is an improvement for me.

Indents work in almost all cases I can think of with experienced contributors at the level of a new post. Each new post added indents one colon more than the one above. Once it's ridiculously far over, put an {undent} or some other signal to indicate the discussion continues but you're respacing. Much easier to follow. There used to be a trend of every editor picking an indent but that seems to have gone by the wayside.

Alerting other editors is usually an idiosyncratic thing. In my experience only one reply is needed. If communicating in real-time, I usually bounce back and forth. If not, I usually post on a single page. If it's mine, I get a message, if it's someone else's and important, I make a point of checking the appropriate talk page. No real hard rules, it usually works - once you find something that works, stick with it.

The passage is from types of unemployment I believe, so you can check it for yourself if you'd like, as well as check out the lengthy discussion on the talk page of that section. WLU (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

[4] I didn't know this kind of secrecy happened here. Apparently no one knew what was happening that involved themselves until the closing and sanctioning, kind of scary to me. Anyways, I thought maybe you would be interested since I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of talk about this for some time to come. If not interested, of course ignore and delete. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really scary - I'm sure OrangeMarlin knew about the process, but the rest of the community might have been excluded or contacted on a need-to-ask basis only. (untrue, and would be quite troubling were the outcome and circumstances not so banal) I am very, very unsurprised that OM had this happen to him/her (conventionally going to be a he now). He's habitually rude and abrasive to people that disagree with him. Being right isn't the same thing as given free reign to be rude, and that's more what this is about I think. I regret the loss of a dedicated and knowledgeable contributor, but don't regret the loss of someone who comports themselves far out of keeping with WP:CIVIL in the process of contributing. Arbitration is usually reasonable from my experiences and readings and the ruling back my opinion I think - both parties were admonished, OM wasn't even blocked for a short time. Basically he broke the community's tolerance for rudeness and was slapped on the wrist. Since he adhered to the letter of the 'important' (i.e. content, edit warring) policies and guidelines, there was no block. Since he broke the spirit of the community guidelines, he was rebuked. I hope he comes back with a more polite approach, but I doubt it. I also hope that editors with a similar approach (I'm thinking of one in particular) will see this and adjust accordingly (though I doubt it because again, since the 'punishment' is symbolic and in my mind gives the impression that if you're rude, as long as you don't break the 'important' guidelines and can edit according to the letter of content rules, it's OK).

OM's behaviour was tolerated for a long time, I'm certain because he understood sourcing, had sources to back up an extreme (skeptical) point of view and could play the game. But being right doesn't mean you can be rude, only that you can be rude for longer than a blatant spammer.

Anyway, I don't know much about it, I don't really think it vital to invest the time, and I don't think you should worry either. I like to think we both take the TimVickers approach of firm without name-calling or deliberate provocation (most of the time in my case, I can be a bit of a dick and I'm thinking of a specific talk page) and we both know what a reliable source is, why it is important to use them, and the difference between verifiability and truth. OM was quite sure he had truth and luckily for him science backed him up, but that's still not a stick to beat people with.

I do love to ramble. Arbcom plays by its own rules, but it does have them and it does play by them. I'm not going to worry about it, I've too many sources to slog through.

Note that I'm a bit uncomfortable in my charicature of OM's behavior and I don't think I've enough evidence to prove my assertions. I may even redact this in the future. But don't worry, be nice and you should be OK. WLU (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I was not informed about this. Second, I do not have an extreme point of view. Removing references to Ginko curing Alzheimer's disease from the article could hardly be considered extreme. Otherwise, you might be right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple qualifiers - I know you have the outcome hanging over your head and your preferred blunt (in a sense of uncomplicated and true to your feelings, not pejorative sense) mode of communication is unlikely to be present. I haven't read most of the evidence or followed the diffs, I've only really read the verdict. Further, I've not interacted with you across your full range of interests so I've a limited sample of interactions with you. That being said:

• The verdict in your 'secret trial' was a slap on the wrist. You're not blocked from editing, only from being rude. Your co-accused was given a similar admonishment (but less so I realize, I'm painting in broad strokes). And in my experience you are rude and hostile, to the point that I've ceased editing some of the pages that you are a regular on (a small number but true in principle and in part because I'm pretty sure my input is unneeded because someone who agrees with my position and knows more than me is on board).
• You know your policies and you know your scholarly sources. A good source and understanding of the policies are in most cases sufficient to promote good editing and a sound research basis as well as deal with the nuts.
• The verdict demonstrates great tolerance for editors that edit according to the core content policies - it didn't block you despite an approach that incites conflict. It does demonstrate that civility and adhering to the policies in spirit is important (though obviously less so than adhering to the content and sourcing guidelines). I see the verdict as symbolic and a gesture as much (or more) than it is an arbcom finding. A lot of the skeptics use the skeptical position to lord over the nutters (and I've done so myself). It's rude, it's unnecessary (I've rarely found that a policy and a source are inadequate for dealing with a dispute; the noticeboards work in the skeptics favour as well) it invites, incites and accelerates acrimony.
• I hope you don't leave wikipedia. Your expertise is obvious and very valuable. Your knowledge of policies is also good (even if I'm not to keen on how you use that knowledge at times and think it's unnecessary). I think imposing a mentor is stupid and somewhat insulting - you are certainly experienced enough to be able to interact more civilly, it's not a lack of understanding that makes your tone what it is.
• I will say that how the arbcom approached this is...unusual...[5] and hopefully it will be cleared up and result in positive changes.
• And finally, who the hell am I to say anyways? I've only interacted with you on a small number of pages, I've not read the verdict or evidence and I'm not an admin; since I rarely have a need to edit pages you are active on 'cause I'm generally of the same opinion we rarely see each other. These are only my opinions and I'm not saying they are valid. They certainly aren't going to change anything and I hope if you disagree you are willing to let it wither as the opinions of no consequence by someone of little consequence.

Incidentally, did you arrive at my page due to this post? Otherwise I'm curious how you heard of it - the curiosity of all wikiholics, simply to know rather than as an agenda. It may mean that a heady few are watching my talk page and I find that outrageously flattering. WLU (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi WLU and OrangeMarlin, I am concerned and trying to keep up with this for many reasons. First off, though I have not interacted with OM that I remember though maybe I have briefly, I really don't know. But I have watched the past stuff like the 'White Pride' controversy. I agree with OM on the usage of this and being Jewish myself I understand his reactions esp. if he has ever been attacked because of being Jewish (I think I remember correctly that you are also Jewish, sorry if I am wrong.) Though OM could have stated himself in a more civil manner with editors, it's also a very emotional reaction that if you have been hurt or attacked or lost family members, either physically or emotionally, to react with uncivil and emotional behavior. I have experienced all so I stayed out of the comments going on at AN/I because my own POV would probably have been uncivil too and as I hope you know by now I do try to stay civil at all times.

From trying to follow what is going on so far I can say that 1st, no one was notified about this ARB until yesterday when that page was posted, no one, not even Jimbo.[6] 2) Now it seems that the decision might be based on one ARB member and that the decision given was not a unanimous decision of the arbiter's as originally stated, this I find to be un-wiki to say the least. 3) If it is true as an arbiter states here [7] then this whole matter would seem to fall into WP:Harrassment, WP:Civility and of course other policies. I just think this whole situation if left unabated, which is unlike to occur, will leave everyone who edits here open to a secret decision without the ability to state the opposing facts against those who are accusing, esp. since this case seems to have bad blood and a lot of history that I don't know about and don't want to know. To me the important thing for this project and what I so love with this site is the open and ability of 'all' to be able to say what they want no matter what kind of editor they are (Admins. vs. arbiters vs. the everyday editor). WLU, as you know by now I don't get passionate about things like this and I think this is really the first time I actually feel strongly about something like this. I think this whole mess is a horrible way to help the project; it only hurts it in my opinion. Editors should not be able to use back doors like this to remove anyone that they have bad blood with. This is what I feel is happening here right now. I hope I am not saying anything rudely or disruptly but I really have strong feelings right now about this. I am actually considering whether this is the kind of place I want to spend so much time at if the five pillars mean so little. I could go on and post more diffs about what others have said about this but if you look at OM talk page you will see a lot of how the community is reacting to this. This being said, I do not agree with OM on how aggressive he is when he edits is some that I have seen. I too think that the evidence shown on the ARB decision shows horrendous incivility but there are administrators stating all over the place that though they didn't agree with how OM did this or that, they were upset that their names were used to support this whole thing but that the info supplied was out of context and thus maybe cherry picked to show him in the most horrible light then actually was meant. Sorry this is turning into babble and a venting of sorts. As I said earlier, for some reason this touched me, and hard, thus also leaving me very upset so far with how this was handled. Hopefully the editor who announces this is back from the movies so he can try to explain things, and hopefully more of the arbiters will come out and respond to help clarify all of this. I have not, at this time posted to any of the many conversations going on. The reason I haven't is because right now is not a good time for me to add my opinions because my own rule is not to post when emotions are in the way. I hope I am making sense here. Sorry for the babble again but I have this dire need for some reason for you to understand why this seems so important to me. I know I will never need to worry about this kind of situation for myself but I sure can think of a bunch of editors that are really good for the project who could get drawn in easily to something like this and have the same outcome, another editor leaving that for the most part is an asset to the project and the community. I am not either of those, other than being extremely polite for the most part, I really don't have the knowledge and ability to be an editor that excels more than what I do now. Anyways thanks for listening to me, I feel a little better now. ;)

OM, I hope you continue to stay with the project. May I suggest that maybe a little less emotional responses in some area would be better for you and the project in total. Usually the racism is caught and dealt with appropriately withou having to sink to their level with uncivil comments. Maybe a little sarcasm would work! :) I personally believe that shooting from the hip and being honest is better but with policies in place, we all need to follow them and if any of us do not like certain policies then try to change them in the proper venue. I hope I haven't bored anyone to tears by now. This is really a long response, which is really uncommon by me. Have a good, healthy weekend to everyone!--CrohnieGal^Talk 15:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC) PS: I wrote so much that I am too lazy to look for errors, let me know if I screwed up please! ;)

Removal of lead section template

I notice that you removed the {{tooshort}} template, either accidentally or deliberately, from talk:intelligence. The lead remains too short and I have restored the template. If you did it on purpose, please stop - it's annoying. Richard001 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the template on the main page after Ward removed it from the talk page. WLU (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Linguistics

The controversy has re-started. Please have a look at the talk page. There's not a single thing that has been unsourced or uncited. Yet, they want to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supriyya (talk • contribs)

I'd suggest you take it up with them on the relevant talk page. WLU (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Try again

My computer took on a mind of it's own this morning and hubby fixed it. A button got stuck on my scanner and took control! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sent one to you to make sure things here are working again. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it a bit later. WLU (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok no rush. I will be gone for most of the day starting around 11:30 so take you time. I just hope you're not upset with me about something. If you are, don't hesitate to let me know so I can fix it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good morning WLU, it is here anyways, are you still having troubles getting to me or did you just change your mind? No problems I'm sure but just checking. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Naw, my editing is reduced significantly due to real-life issues. Plus a short attention span, I don't even remember what I was talking about. I'll look into it now. WLU (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Hi I got them, 2 of them. I did respond to just let you know I received them. If you would, would you copy the headers and email them to me? I want my husband to see it to see what is going on. If you can't do it directly, I gave you my email address and also you should be able to copy/paste it as a response to my email that would be helpful to me so I can figure out what the heck my computer is up to now. It's like it has a mind of it's own lately. I will respond soon. Did you get the email I sent back to you? I hope so, this is driving me crazy to be honest! Since you are having a time, like me, with real-life issues and concentration I will send something to you to hopefully give you a smile! --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I responded to your last comments on my talk page though my edit summary says respnded or some other nonsense.  :) I'm getting tired as you can tell since here I am telling you I responded at my talk and I am chatting over here anyways! :) Well I have a clean oven and clean silverware plus a clean kitchen with all the time I've been putzing around on the computer. Not too bad for me! --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User vandalism

Thanks for your message. I'd give the editor a final warning (all warnings had been deleted from their page) so I would have ARVd them pretty soon anyway. I found it amusing that they were trying to accuse me of unconstructive editing - but I've seen it all before. Also, I believe I'd already placed a refactoring (or similar) template on their page - the revision history shows how messy it got over the last couple of hours. Anyway - thanks for helping out - it's 02:10 am so I'm gonna get some sleep! Booglamay (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I really could use your opinion here

[8] I have reverted once and don't like to do a second revert on my for obvious reasons. Would you look in at this and tell me, or the article, if all those links follow WP:EL? I mean like the first one looks like it is not WP:RS and looks more like a blog to me but of course I could be wrong. But basically the links just added is nonsense to me. I don't want to try to sway your opinions one way or the other so would you mind taking the time to go through the links too? I would appreciate the help and your opinions on this matter, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this and thought it would be better to explain my thoughts on why I think they should be removed. For time saving on you to look at all the links thoughly and for my understanding I am listing the ones I think have a problem with policies.

The Zodiac map seems like WP:Synth and WP:OR. The next on is a summary from NAPA Sentinel and reads like a Conspiracy theory. Next, Zodiac killer called "clumsy criminal" looks like a blog to me and with looking into this multiple times I think the site took just excepts from the NAPA Sentinel. Zodiac Killer Ciphers 2.0 - Statistical analysis of the Zodiac's ciphers as well as tools to attempt to solve them. (Requires JavaScript.) Not sure of this one though the website it refers the reader to requires cookies in order to really see the site (which I did not do again for obvious reasons.) I did decide to remove a couple of the externals which can also be seen on my contributions or the history of the article. Thanks again,--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regards external links, WP:EL is always the touchstone and it's good to periodically re-read it. You may want to see the talk:Corn smut#External links section where I did a rational for why some are created and others not.

Also, there's an invisible commentary in the EL section that says look in the archive - you may want to search for "external links" with the find function throughout the archives - it's apparently been discussed before. And now, my comments!

EL are funny things, they don't have to be reliable but should be. Zodiac is a bit fringy, which also complicates things. Normally I'd remove the first and second at least for being personal webpages, but the archives might have a discussion in which case the author is considered knowledgeable. Also, the anon that reverted you and DreamGuy is an anon, and didn't have a good rational (i.e. there wasn't one). I'd normally revert back and leave a message on the talk page and user page. You've done one, but given rotating IP addresses, you may not get a reply because the person may not see your message. I'd suggest using the talk page. Go through WP:ELNO and point to how the links are in or out of keeping with the guidelines.

Um, I've got to have dinner, but ultimately the corn smut article is how I deal with articles like this. I'll try to read and reply a bit more later on. Stupid real life. WLU (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

/Generic_sandbox

Hi WLU, I've just stumbled over your sub-page in my wiki-wanderings. It is excellent, I think I might add it to my standard welcome repertoire as "optional reading", so please make sure it stays around!

I have some comments, with regards to the section on "Suffer not the Vandals", as regards warning templates. I have warned some small dozens of vandals, nothing serious, but here is my experience:

• To quote a vastly more experienced 'pedian, "the average attention span of a vandal is 15 minutes". In many cases, it's sufficient to check their contribs and silently undo their work, then refresh their contrib page every few minutes for a while. Most vandals don't have a clue that someone can sit and watch their activity, I like to think they just get demoralized when they go back to check on "My firend Paul is teh gay" and it's already gone. 90% of the time, the vandalism ends very soon so there's no real need to do the template thing, and in many cases (library systems for instance) the template will be seen by the next person who sits down there and doesn't really accomplish anything.
• And in the cases where a vandal is persisting, I've always (from personal preference) left a fairly informal note on the vandal talk page asking them to stop, and in the case of a newly registered user always with a welcome template before my warning (I like using {{W-graphical}}). My theory here is that warning templates look an awful lot like automated messages, whereas when a note shows up that is obviously written by a human, the vandal suddenly realizes "oh wow, I thought I could do this for fun, now I see an adult is watching". I'd be hard-pressed to find the examples, but I recall doing this with vandals persisting even through warning templates, until they got my "OK, please stop now" message. Especially when I've dropped the second "you're not helping" message. My success rate on this is very close to 100%, and I've never used a template.
• (Side note, they can click the pref "Automatically add pages I edit to my watchlist".)

Perhaps you could incorporate some of this into your essay, the informal approach almost always works for me, in my limited experience. That's not to take away from the templating approach, I've just found that a more personal approach often works wonders, and sometimes turns up someone who is genuinely confused and welcomes the opportunity to make personal contact - then you get the chance to drug 'em up with the Wikipedia addiction :) Sorry for the long post, thanks for the essay! Franamax (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One day when I have time and am bored, I'll try spamming it to the Village Pump and see if there's merit to greater community awareness. The nice thing is even months after writing it, I still think it's reasonably accurate.

The advantage to the 4 stages of vandal warning is most admins won't block until a final warning is given. If you've a bored 15 minute vandal, they'll stop after the 15 minutes is up. If you've got a dedicated douchebag, I don't know if an admin would block without some version of {{uw-vand4}}.

Better than me adding this to my essay would be if you did so - I don't use the approach so I can't argue for its merits or drawbacks. I like standardization in all forms, and I have the warnings memorized, making them quite quick to type out. But that doesn't make it right, and I got a WP:DTTR message a while back (which lead to my finding the WP:TTR page, huzzah). Anyway, feel free to draft an addition on the talk page, or add it directly to the essay. Drop me a line so I can proofread and if I feel like I can add jokes. I'd suggest making it short, or perhaps write your own essay and link to it. Of necessity a page like that can't be comprehensive to all wikipedians but useful alternatives are good to refer to.

Incidentally, I do refresh the user contribs page every 30 seconds or so when I've found a persistant vandal. In part because I'm vindictive. WLU (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot

Getting cleverer and cleverer... by making one SPA for each edit, who knows how many pages were done this way. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I thought you were an admin as well - I'll try to remember to contact FQ directly from now on, but please don't be offended if I forget and bother you again. I more quickly associate you with dealing with this problem, so that is why I thought of you first. :) 67.162.108.96 (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you!  :) No problem! And congratulations on your work tying them all together. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for your dedication in cleaning up after this idiot over the past few months - I noticed you quite a few times in the various article histories. Great essay btw ;)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awarded with gratitude for your assistance in bringing the Barefoot Bandit and his 87 Socks to justice, and helping keep Wikipedia respectably shod. Many thanks, EyeSerenetalk 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Socks blocked, mocked." That's the best thing ever :) Thanks! Your endorsement of my essay fills me with joy, but not as much as a shiny barnstar. WLU (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you're very welcome (and thanks for the link fix - I forgot mine would disappear when it gets archived!). EyeSerene^talk 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with making conversation ;) Or, in fact, being a pedant - being one myself. I'm ashamed to admit that I ran across a very old post of mine some time ago on a moribund talk page, spotted a spelling mistake, and corrected it... Maybe we should start a self-help group (if we could find someone masochistic enough to agree to take minutes). EyeSerene^talk 20:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Any input? 67.162.108.96 (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

UV/Lupus

That one looks like it is verifiable. Are those sources OK? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

i'm not too sure how this all works, but i'd like to know who keeps removing my info on UVA1 phototherapy...

UVA1 Phototherapy - An effective "off-label" treatment which is slowly but steadily gaining acceptance uses ultraviolet UVA1 radiation - long UVA wave lengths that do not promote sunburn and which actually block inflammatory immune factors by promoting apoptosis (cell death) in T cells. Several studies, both in the U.S. and Europe, have shown that UVA1 phototherapy lowers disease activity in SLE.

i mean, how many peer reviewed research references do you want? my name is anthony debartolo, i have SLE & i use UVA1 quite effectively...i published a book in 2004, "lupus underground" that explains this method...i can understand removing refers to my book, but not the method... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, the real culprit is me. I have responded on my talkpage. JFW | T@lk 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the policies on undue weight, the concern may be that too much emphasis is given to an uncommon treatment. Per WP:MEDRS, the references must be from extremely high-quality sources. Thanks Wolff, I'll have a gander if you don't mind to see if I have an opinion. WLU (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mushroom stuff

Hi - I'm not ignoring you - but I have been really busy. Perhaps next week I'll follow-up on things.Heliocybe (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield

The idea is that the sections are there, even if empty, to indicate that the sections should be filled as they are necessary. As to the other issue, do what you feel best. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

Thank you very much! Felix Felix Basinger (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. WLU (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Weeds

Weeds is not automatically paired with 'widow's' - see Ye Sacred Muses and, doubtlesss, other examples of that era. Have reverted. Linuxlad (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'Weed' (singular) is legit if rather dated 'Modern English' (ie Shakespeare and his kind) for a piece of cloth. See say Chambers 20th C. Just because it is often coupled with widow, does not make that automatic. In Byrd's lament it's the Muses, presumably unwidowable, who are in 'mourning weeds'. As a word it's probably got more life left than a TV show! (I for one had never heard of the (American?) show, but have known the 'archaic' usage from (English) childhood!) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The show is good, if you like ribald humour. Closer to Benny Hill and Keeping Up Appearances than Blackadder from my knolwedge of British humour. Let's see what the WT:DAB discussion says. WLU (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Southern tick-associated rash illness

Hi there, did I use the correct ICD codes in the infobox? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, but to my chagrin I can't be certain. If it's an emerging illness then I don't know if they'd have an ICD code. The best I can say is I can't see anything wrong with it, my apologies. WLU (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex boy

Thanks for your recent copyedit in Alex Constantine. I've just added my comment in talk page. —Cesar Tort 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• "I've never seen in any other source the allegation that SRA is used to create alters", you stated in Satanic ritual abuse talk. IIRC, our beloved Alex boy claims that CIA used SRA to create them. LOL! :) —Cesar Tort 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's a reliable source, right? Oh, hold on, it's not. So Noblitt is the only researcher/therapist who thinks satanic cults systematically rapes and tortures small children to force them to do their bidding, so it's out. Lovely. If Constantine ever publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, perhaps we could put it in then. WLU (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find Cory Hammond made similar claims in the early 1990s in relation to SRA, DID/MPD and the CIA. So, too, has Cesar Tort's favorite, Colin Ross.

I don't know what to make of such claims, but they aren't the sole province of nutjobs. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well. At least there's something in which we agree, Biao: skepticism of CIA's SRA experiments. WLU: I see that you've got Ross' book. Let me state that he can be very skeptic and very credulous. When I visited him & his therapy group sessions in 1997 I confronted him in private that he seemed to take at face value his patients' claims of extra-sensory perception powers. I believe he is a supberb clinician, but he falls in all the traps of clinicians: believing more than what is needed. It's a huge subject and I don't want to overwhelm this page with it. Just advising to approach Ross with due caution (of course, you know how to do that). BTW, most of the edits in Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, which I started, are mine. —Cesar Tort 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll get the book out and review it, any edits I make will be based on what I read. WLU (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Going back on break

WLU, good luck with the mess I generated by way of that list ... sorry about that :(. I have to stick to my guns this time and really stay away from this place--SRA is frustrating but the other situation that brought me back, and now looks to be turning into another disruptive and nonsensical fiasco just drains me of everything positive. I'll be on email, but I have to leave you all hanging at the SRA entry. Hey at least maybe some of those sources prove useful. Sincerest apologies and good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

More sources are always useful! Even if I (personally) don't think the exercise in ranking and categorization is useful, awareness of more sources always a help and it's easier to plug in titles to a search engine than track 'em down. I persist in believing that there is nothing special about SRA and nothing that can not be addressed through the judicious use of noticeboards and requests for comments. Thanks for your help, I hope you don't mind if I sporadically pepper you with e-mail requests for journal articles I can't access from my local library? You are of course always free to say no 'cause we all have real-life to drag us away from wikipedia. WLU (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Useful Audio Links

Hi WLU, please put down the gun, and let's talk. I'm not spamming. Sure, I need to get used to Wikipedia's nuances, and I'll change the links so that there is no mention of ejunto. I've seen a number of links to free audio from LibriVox and this is the same idea. Anyway, I'm more than happy to reformat, or relocate the links, but this content is highly relevant for Wikipedia users...just like all the other external links. I can totally understand why you thought this was just about promotion. I've reviewed the external links guidelines and think the content of the link conforms. If not, please advise why. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaster77 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I severely doubt that Wikipedia will be able to successfully deal with the situation as long as letting anyone off the street (including people who can register multiple accounts or pop on through various IPs) can edit freely just as well as people with proven knowledge and objective writing skills. It's the tragedy of the commons, basically, as the good guys are always going to get screwed.

I think I saw on Jack-A-Roe's page that you recommended him for admin. I can't think of too many people who would be worse. Look at his edit history and it's obvious that the person is here with a very specific agenda to promote. It wouldn't surprise me if it's someone who got into trouble for POV-pushing in the past and came back under a new name. I see that the person also had been accused of sockpuppeting in the past and had his user page totally wiped twice. That's not someone I would trust. DreamGuy (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Um...if we're thinking about the same topics, I believe your assessment of JAR is off. He has an agenda, perhaps, but everyone does. He had a second account, I suggested he place the template at the top of his talk page. His second account was used briefly to request that his current one be made available because another user had already signed up for it but never edited. I would recommend JAR for an admin because even when I disagree, he is civil in his dialogue and always refers to sources. There's lots who would be worse; being an admin doesn't mean you can't have a POV, it just means you use the appropriate processes in a defensible way when using the extra tools. I think JAR would be great at that. Regards registered editing, it's mentioned in WP:PEREN. It certainly would make my life easier on certain pages if editing were limited to those demonstrating expertise, but that would leave me unable to edit many pages. But there are many who agree with you on various points and wikipedia is nothing if not a chance to hold grudges and grind axes. Part of its charm, like the stink of garbage in NYC. WLU (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, your beliefs about JAR don't at all meet with his contribution history from what I've seen of it, and I did look at a lot of it and have seen it first hand on several articles. I think you make a huge mistake in valuing civility (or at least the appearance of civility, as true civility is something else entirely) over following the foundations of what an encyclopedia stands for. DreamGuy (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Selling out civility to push a specific POV isn't the answer though. Unfortunately it's rare to see two sides of a debate calmly sit down and review each other's articles for reliability and accurate summary. The only way to sort out POV disputes is by verifying what the sources say. No original research is part of the five pillars, which means irrespective of what we think and know, we are required to find a source that says it for us. I firmly believe that there is sufficient scholarly work on recovered memory to do an adequate job of detailing the debate without having to kick another editor off the page. I also believe it's inappropriate to present solely the skeptical side as if there were no debate. No matter how stupid the "believe the children" side is. WLU (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice you've removed my comment from your talk page, which is fine. I will point out however, that if ResearchEditor or Jack-A-Roe are actually violating policy, the proper action to take is to report them at WP:AIV or WP:ANI, rather than berating them on talk pages. Berating makes the positions more entrenched, more polarized, more acrimonious and more frustrating. In addition, you run the risk of yourself being blocked, engaged in arbitration or banned from editing the contentious pages. I also think it's unnecessary. But as you like.

Incidentally, I've PDF copies of The Science and Folklore of Traumatic Amnesia by Richard McNally (2004), Custer's Last Stand:Brown, Schefflin and Whitfield's latest attempt to salvage dissociative amnesia by Piper, Pope and Borowiecki (2000) and Dispelling Confusion About Traumatic Dissociative Amnesia by Richard McNally (2007), all of which could be useful. I've never gotten 'round to integrating them, but they'd be useful on the pages I think. Please reply to my e-mail if interested, if not I will try to use them in the coming months. WLU (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

{undent} I agree with DreamGuy about JAR. Yes: he's smarter than another pusher and as civil as him/her. But he's a pusher who, to date (I may be wrong), I haven't seen "writing for an enemy". His extreme pov is obvious in pretty controversial talk pages such as pederasty. It'd be a very bad idea to promote him as an admin. —Cesar Tort 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

CT, when was the last time you, or I, wrote for the enemy? I haven't done so in months I would wager, and if I did so it was at best grudging. Since our 'enemies' are already writing for themselves, there's no real need. This is a huge problem, but it's a flaw endemic to the wiki process itself. It's not exactly legitemate to accuse others of sins we are ourselves guilty of. Editors with strong POVs are a necessary 'evil' and of necessity force the same evil on to other editors who consider the POV to be extreme. I would certainly endorse JAR for adminship if it came up; others would oppose. Were he to become an admin and abuse his tools then that would merit a posting on ANI and possible de-adminship. I'm not saying that RE is perfect or that I think JAR's POV is correct, I'm saying it's reasonable to acknowledge that their POV does have a place on wikipedia; the onus is on all editors to prove their opinion is the majority and that includes us. As it says at UNDUE, if ours is the majority opinion, it should be easy to prove; to date, it has been at the cost of a lot of reading. But ultimately these questions are academic 'cause neither you, nor I will promote JAR to adminship, that's up to the RFA process itself, if he decides to go. I've never really looked into his pederasty edits and don't see much need since those aren't pages where I have a lot of contact. P'raps one day I will, almost certainly if he goes for a RFA. WLU (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time I wrote for an enemy? Maybe this February. —Cesar Tort 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there ya go then. I've got nothing. Kudos CT, I've had my moral authority, such that it was, handily removed. WLU (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well... that was relatively easy because User:Slrubenstein is not a pusher (though our belief systems are diametrically opposed). What concerns me of a "JAR admin" scenario is that AT/RE would take it as an endorsement for his pushing. After all, JAR has defended him even on the boards when the admins consensus was to block the pusher. I agree with Dreamguy that people with conflict of interest (COI) should avoid these articles. I am not saying that JAR or AT/RE were sexually abused. But Dreamguy is right when he says that these guys have developed an obsession with the subject of child sex abuse. I for one quit from editing psychiatry-related articles because of my own COI (my mother used to pour psychiatric drugs in my orange juice when I was a teen even though I was perfectly sane!). It's very painful to edit the psychiatry articles in the wiki because the psychiatric drugging of sane children is not a subject that I can back up with RS or WP:UNDUE (because of finantial interests with BigPharma, most of the peer-reviewed journals agree with Ritalin and other dugs). I learnt it the hard way when I was dragged to a nasty ArbCom process a month after I arrived to Wikiland. I simply quit from editing those articles. No one ever blocked or restricted me. Although I am not saying with my example that the pushers in the false memory debate were also abused, the rational way for them is not to edit articles in which they clearly show an obsession. More detached editors are ideal to deal with such articles. —Cesar Tort 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno CT, I've never seen JAR back an action that I consider unambiguously wrong; further, that's not an issue JAR has control over and I'm quite sure he'd sharply rebuke any editors that assumed one person's agreement is consensus. I see JAR's actions in line with the view that everybody deserves a lawyer and his veiwpoint was defensible - he wasn't wildly mis-interpreting policies and guidelines, he was using what he knew of the policies and guidelines to assist an editor who didn't understand them. I reviewed his contribs to pederasty and found nothing untoward - tagging with {{fact}}, adding sources. Maybe I missed key ones, but I'm not going to spend my days reviewing an editor who I trust's edits because I disagree with him on one set of pages.

As for COI, unfortunately the policy only really details financial COIs. People tend to edit areas they are interested in, often passionate about; the whole reason we have WP:DR is because of that fact. I persist in believing that the issues are best dealt with through sources rather than acrimony, it's just a longer and much more frustrating process. Though when you find that perfect source, reliable and appropriate, it's soooooo gratifying. WLU (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• "I reviewed his contribs to pederasty and ..."

I was talking about talk:pederasty, especially the recent edit war by many editors who wanted to include in the category of "abuse" even legal sexual unions —a hotly disputed debate in which I will never really enter of course :) —Cesar Tort 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that - the closest I've been to that topic is discussion of the use of hatnotes in eubophilia and pedophilia. A cursory review of the talk page turns up nothing to raise my eyebrows, but it was indeed cursory. I've my foot in one mire, I'll use the other one for traction :) WLU (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

ok. Just want to point out that there's a gulf between paidophilia and, say, a pederastic relationship between a 18 year-old with a 23 yr.o. Not my favorite subject... but the pov I saw pushing by several editors in that page was amazing. —Cesar Tort 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, pederasty does not refer to an 18 year old and a 23 year old - it stops when the younger boy gets his beard - according to the sources. A 25 or 30 year old and a 14 or 15 year old would be a more representative example. You decide if that's OK with you or not, but whatever you decide - or whatever I feel about it - has nothing to do with the content of the article. The pederasty articles (there are more than a half dozen of them with overlapping content) have many problems with original research, as can be seen by the fact that there is currently a very long thread about it on the AN/I board focusing on misuse of sources - and that, without any comments from me. I'm considering whether or not to add something there and I might do so, but the report was entered without my involvement, which shows that my concerns about the problems with those articles are not unfounded. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack! I've been defending your honour. And I would request that this thread be ended as I doubt there's much else that can be said. And it's not talk:pederasty. WLU (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi WLU, yes, I noticed and appreciate what you wrote, thank you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Source - KS Pope

WLU, I know you respect scholarship even when the views differ from yours, so when I read these papers, I thought you'd be interested in checking them out.

KS Pope (Harvard/Yale degrees, over 100 peer-reviewed articles, APA Award for Distinguished Contributions to Public Service)

• http://www.kspope.com/memory/index.php
• http://www.kspope.com/memory/memory.php
• http://www.kspope.com/memory/science.php
• http://www.kspope.com/memory/lofrev3.php
• http://www.kspope.com/memory/repweb2a.php

Although this author has the same last name as Harrison Pope of the FMSF, this Pope has a different approach. I have no idea if they're related or if it's just a coincidence. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, I'm not sure what you'd like me to do with these. They look to be suitable as sources for the RM/RMT pages. Once I've comprehensively dealt with the SRA page, months from now, I may start adding them back. However, if the history of the SRA page is any indication, the 'believe the children' side will doubtless be well represented and I'll be forced into the critical role again. But perhaps not; the RM debate is less absurd than the satanic cult debate. WLU (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry my comment wasn't clear. I wasn't asking you to do anything with them, I just thought you might like to read them, since you had sent me some sources on that topic a while ago. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In which case my response is "Thanks!" I'm not sure when I may have time to get to this, between real life busy and the SRA fiasco. But thanks, more references are always a good thing. WLU (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

archive SRA

Since Biao recently responded to one month posts (and you responded him as well), maybe those exchanges ought to remain for a little while. But before the page is unprotected perhaps we could archive al least 250 Kb of dicussions in the "empty" folder (the page is now more than 300 Kb)? —Cesar Tort 17:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I've got to get to it but since BT added a bunch of commnents I haven't done so yet. It's on my list but I'd rather a lengthy page covering all current issues than ressurection. WLU (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arterial venous switch

Thanks for removing the section on arterial venous switching from Stroke, i'm currently in an ongoing discussion with the author of the information trying to persuade them it is not the right time or place to add this information. Somehow they found patents are valid under WP:MEDRS. Anyway, thanks—CycloneNimrod^T@lk? 15:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But the word "patent" doesn't even appear under MEDRS, so how can they claim this? If it's not a peer-reviewed journal, it's out as far as I'm concerned, and if I notice it happening once more, I'm reporting it to AIV. You, Wolff and myself have all pointed out that it's not appropriate to add the info, I at least have pointed the editor to WT:MED, so they've had enough warnings. I was going to use a standard template but uw-vand is for blatant vandalism and uw-spam only discusses ELs, so they got a hand-written note. I hope they appreciated it. If AIV isn't responsive, I'm going to troll an active MED admin to block. WLU (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I've been trying to explain through emails that patents do not qualify as peer-reviewed journals but i'm awaiting a final reply, should I get one. I agree, once more and this should go over to AIV since I believe it classes as 3RR. Kind regards—CycloneNimrod^T@lk? 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

DID - removal of cultural references

You have removed the contents of Cultural references section. I understand you want to clean up the article, but I think you should rather move this information to Dissociative identity disorder in fiction article, which you are referencing, instead of just deleting it. Otherwise you waste somebody's else work. Tigrisek (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. WLU (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ;-) Tigrisek (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Generally I loathe "in pop culture" sections because the entries usually aren't notable, don't have their own articles, and it's of dubious encyclopedic value (a reason I hate lists in general). This list and "in pop culture" section was no exception. But that's my opinion, and if I ruled wikipedia, it'd be a much smaller place. Better referenced though. And I'm a hypocrite because I have a secret list of pop culture articles I edit with shame. Everyone has a soft spot. WLU (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

important post

I think your recent post critical of AT/RE is so important that it merits spelling correction. Also, in your sentence "So to directly reply, removing the criticism of Victor is not [violating] NPOV, it's a removal of a quote-mined selection which mis-interprets Fraser's analysis of Victor quite badly", doesn't the word in brackets is missing? And in "then proclaiming the page is NPOV would be laughable were it not so frustrating" I guess you meant "pov" instead of "npov" since s/he pov-tagged the article. —Cesar Tort 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like so many editors if I see NPOV it can mean either POV, non-POV or something else. I've corrected, but I don't know if it'll make any difference. WLU (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Sock

Hi. Not really, only the ones with the "Nazi" edit summary here. Are there many more that you are aware of? Cheers TigerShark (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Arterial Venous Switch

Please don't clutter my talk page until you've read the guidance pointed out

I am a board certified physician from the US with five boards in medicine and subspecialties. I have noticed your interference with publishing the concept of Arterial Venous Switching as an experimental treatment for stroke, even though it was mentioned clearly that it is first copy righted and second is experimental. Now what is your definition of treatment? Because I always studied treatment in any topic that includes old established as well as new and experimental. In case of the latter, the experimental phase may be mentioned (e.g. phase one or two, animal research etc.) So if your administrator function is to make sure that the information is accurate, then there is no justification to delete the “experimental” mention of the concept, without being biased to any form of therapy versus the other. Let medical research determine if the arterial venous switching is a valid approach or not. You have no right to determine it is not, from what I understand, unless you have done a similar research (that you should reference also) which proves it to be a non viable approach. Until then, the public has the right to know what is current therapy for stroke and what future therapy might look like.

Your peers who are part of this effort are respectable and reputable physicians including Dr. Elazer Edelman, The Director of Harvard/MIT Biotechnology lab. Please refer to Reviveflow.com and look up the medical advisory board if you want a peer opinion to satisfy your conditions off publishing information. The Wikipedia is made to be by the public to the public and not be controlled by any biased opinion to prevent freedom of information availability.

Obviously people like you who "control" information and interpret what they want to their own liking is the reason why any project start great then ends somehow biased with double or triple standards. So, even though I expalined to previous readers who wanted to delete the section of the Arterial Venous Switch because it dd not suit their purposes, you still followed this uneducated approach and also deleted it. I don't see any inaccuracy when I am explaining a term of a new technology that was validated and successful in animal model, to the public. It was described under "future Therapies" not "Treatment". Your opinion is simply a "block" on a scientific fact.

So, if someone googles the term and find a definition for the term arterial Venous Switch and find it, would not you think it should have been found in an online referrence like wikipedia? obviously your answer will match your superficial understanding of the topic when you categorized it as advertisement. If you or a family member of yours will get stroked, trust me, you will be looking for any hope for future therapy. i am sorry i wasted time and energy on a silly subject like Wikipedia, that became a monopoly to biased opinionated semi-educated public —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soomeh (talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I left messages in responce to the "rude" deletion of my edit by other editors who try to explain to me something, they lack enough knowledge on. The concept of "Retrograde Cerebral Perfusion" is a very valid medical treatment to brain ischemia and is currently used in many fields including "cardiac surgery/CPB". Before an editor assumes the position of the "teacher" ans start spreading "incorrect information" they can ask experts for help or get some self education to be on the level of discussion, leave alone editing. So, I advise you and other editors who "concluded that the concept of "Venous or retrograde perfusion" is a "conflict of interest" or "commercial", to read more on the subject, before editing me. I have spent enough time and effort on "Stroke" and I know what I am talking about, regardless of being a physician or not and regardless of being "Board Certified" or not. I hope you can do the same and READ MORE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soomeh (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to learn that our hesitance to add information to Wikipedia is done out of making it more a reliable place, rather than all-inclusive. Verifying facts allows the encyclopaedia to be more accurate and this can only be done, in this circumstance, by reviewing the sources you provided. The source you provided was a patent. There are several patents around for absolutely disgraceful devices that will never be created. Should we make articles for these patents? No, they are nonsense, just as your device may be. We don't know until it has recieved consensus from a peer-reviewed journal, and until that day I have nothing left to say on this matter other than do not add the information again or you may very well be blocked for ignoring warnings. Thank you. —CycloneNimrod^T@lk? 15:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to know how you think I do not care about future therapies for patients? I wish for every single sick person who suffers from a stroke to recover completely, but adding unreliable information to Wikipedia won't help. Peer-reviewed journals spreading the news to the world's greatest physicians will do infinitely more good in the world, and then we can talk about it here. —CycloneNimrod^T@lk? 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This does not apply to Cyclonenim, who is free to post musings, insight and genius, sane or otherwise. WLU (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A man walks into a bar... —CycloneNimrod^T@lk? 16:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I clearly specified musings, insight and insane genius, not jokes! No talk page for you!! WLU (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

—Look what you've done—Cyclonenim^T@lk? 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that is clearly inappropriate, I've modified it accordingly. WLU (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's it. I've had enough of your shenanigans. Good day to you. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm such a great person, I'll even let you have the last word. WLU (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 17:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Atherosclerosis external reference

[9] Hi. According to external link policy, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The site I linked to on Atherosclerosis has several patient interviews that couldn't be included in Wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valejo (talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be "interviews with the subject of the wikipedia page". It shouldn't be a collection of random interviews. The patients are not notable and the page contains advertising. The information is not reliable, it offers advertising to interested parties at the bottom of the page. It's a general information website, meaning it would not contain information beyond what wikipedia should have anyway (#1). You can bring it up at the medicine wikiproject talk page, which is where I will bring it up if you insist on re-inserting it. I've seen a lot of external links, and I don't see any reason to keep it. There's nothing new or irreplaceable that it adds.

At best I would suggest bringing it up for the good people at DMOZ (the external site, not the DMOZ talk page). WLU (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just popping in.....

Real world has had me busy so I just wanted to pop in and say howdy! I hope you are well and doing what you do. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got real-world busy and wiki-busy (satanic rital abuse is an acrimonious minefield, and I'm one of the mines). Not having the best week/month, but not the worst, and I keep finding sources that back up the POV I believe to be correct. So in wikiterms, I'm actually doing pretty good. I hadn't heard from you in a while, and was wondering if you were busy too. Are you BOLD yet :) I noticed a while ago that Crohn's disease, from a purely citaiton and grammar basis, could use a re-write, but I've not the time. I think it's a good challenge! WLU (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you are keeping busy. I've been down under lately with my Crohn's and not doing too much of anything but sleeping. Not sure exactly what's going on with me other than I keep getting one blockage after another which knocks the heck out of me. I started a little at the Crohn's article for a bit, mainly cleanup stuff but I haven't had the energy to do anything too serious. Not really bold yet but now it's mainly lack of focus and energy.

I did want to bring something to your attention though, [10], with your reasoning and balanced knowledge of the rules here, this essay is getting a lot of attentions because it seems 'tag teams' is the new phrase of the day, running second in my opinion to civility parole. I though you might be interest in seeing if you can get it balanced since the editors there now seem to be on extreme sides of spectum on what makes a tag team. With some of it written, I could even been considered one in some cases which I find spooky! Talk again soon, darn, I'm tired of being tired. :( --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at it later on today. WLU (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands

In September 2007 I added a chapter about the Netherlands in the English page on satanic ritual abuse. Due to harassments, insults and false accusations from several contributors, especially from biaothanatoi, I decided to make a separate page about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. Again due to biaothanatoi, this page was redirected to the English page on satanic ritual abuse several times. Then I made another page on satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands in December 2007. Since then a couple of contributors have tried to redirect this page to the English page on satanic ritual abuse, but I discovered that mostly within a couple of days and reversed those redirections.

Before redirecting again, you should consider that this page contains information from mainly Dutch sources that are not accessable to you because you do not speak Dutch, the information from these sources (scientific books and articles, newspaper articles, television news magazines et cetera) is relevant because it shows that the discussion in the Netherlands took a totally different course than in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries where satanic ritual abuse was an issue, and that the fact that you cannot read the original Dutch sources does not mean that those sources are not reliable or that the author of the page is a layman.

Therefore I would like to ask you not to redirect this page again to the English page on satanic ritual abuse. Give the readers in the world the opportunity to read what has happened in the Netherlands regarding satanic ritual abuse, and why the discussion took such a different course in this country.

Since my English is not perfect, please correct the grammatical errors, but leave the content of the page unimpaired.

Yours sincerely

Criminologist1963 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting at Satanic Ritual Abuse

Your edits have been simply reverting data at the SRA page without an attempt at consensus. Your edits will not allow a neutral or pro position to be on the page, though there are many sources backing both positions. Please stop reverting without consensus. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Convince me there is merit to your position and I will consider it. WLU (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor: apparently two people from the NPOVN board disagree with your interpretation of NPOV. I would very strongly recommend you to ask to the experts in wiki policy whether or not your interpretation of NPOV is the right one. —Cesar Tort 03:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AN board discussion

• "on the quotes by five sources that the phenomenon is no longer over"

shouldn't the stroken word be removed in the ANI board or am I misreading it? Cesar Tort 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Shit. I need to proofread more. WLU (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The results have not been ignored, they've been followed." —#1 AN

You have to explain WLU that it's us, not the editor in question, who have followed them (for instance, RE seem to have ignored that the people in the NPOVN board admit that SRA was a moral panic rather than a real crime issue). —Cesar Tort 16:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

D'you want a job as my proofreader? I can only pay you in wikidollars, but the benefits are, well, quite poor. WLU (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget what I wrote above. I am mainly concerned about how ResearchEditor broke your reply in the ANI board. I've just complained in the board. Hope the admins will take notice. —Cesar Tort 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sick of the back and forth, I don't have much more to say but I've left a link to my intact reply. WLU (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Has RE read any of my comments on the bullshit sources? I've discounted some of them already. RE has never provided an explicit quote from any of his/her sources that says SRA is still taken seriously. We'll see, there's not really much else to say. WLU (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, s/he's asking the reviewing admins to read entire books to determine if s/he's right. Obscure books at that. "Have you read any of the reliable sources that are pro or neutral on the question of SRA?" Were I that admin, I'd block him on that. Which is why I have a box on my user page saying "I'm not an admin and I shouldn't be". WLU (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent} Although Biao has about the same pov of RE, I'd much prefer dealing with him, Biao, in spite of the fact that he is writing his PhD on SRA. At least Biao has a grasp of WP policy and nowadays doesn't push his pov as he did last year (when he found weak resistance in talk page). Now the admins have a bit of the flavour in their own board of RE's behavior in talk pages. —Cesar Tort 21:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, maybe we should put your comments back the way they were. —Cesar Tort 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of work for not much pay-off, and we would have to keep RE's comments integrated somehow. I don't think it'll change the outcome of the board's decision. WLU (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular

Hi there. I've been trying to find a form of words that might cover the same ground as that pseudoscience box and be acceptable to everybody involved. I think most of the editors on the page would agree that OM isn't as unreal as homeopathy or therapeutic touch, but is obviously seen as not mainstream science. Could you live with "This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific." diff? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but my involvement on the page has been mostly 'drive-by' rather than serious engagement. I think OMM was rejected by mainstream medicine and considered fringe, but individual and concpets are starting to creep back in, which are in turn grabbed by OM practitioners as vindication of their overall approach. I like the diffed version you've put up, but I've not seen the overall context of the page. WLU (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:3O for Michelle Remembers

see here —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchEditor (talk • contribs)

Now that the problem will be over for at least 6 months in SRA-related pages, I agree with you that we should go back to our previous patient dealing with the other pushers. Only want to say that AT must be believing now that the Truth has been Abused (just as Roland Suimmit believed that the SRA skeptics were part of the SRA conspiracy —this is even mentioned in article!). Incidentally, AT/RE removed the following memorable sentence from his last post in the AN board: "Freedom of speech is crucial to wikipedia's development." —Cesar Tort 20:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm less inclined to give anyone as much play as RE was given. RE's only virtue was superficial civility on the talk page. This should be a lesson perhaps.

I find that comment amusing as well - freedom of speech isn't the same thing as "any idiot gets to sharpen their POV". Too bad we didn't get any WRONG VERSION-style complaints, though we did get a comment on Jimbo's page. TWV stuff is always funny. WLU (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I just want to drop you a note that I responded back to you on my talk page. I find sometimes I forget and miss to see on my watchlist when people respond to me. Have a good one, I hope your day is better than what's going on here! --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Featured Topic Task Force proposal

Hey WLU, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Poststructural linguistics

Hello.

About the addition of sources, I'm working on it. Within a little while, I'll make sure there are more to the page. Supriya 18:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll check out that page/tool, and work on it. Supriya 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey. Yes, I had considered doing that myself. In any case, I am keeping a copy of the article (with the wiki formatting and all) as a backup on my hard disk, so that should not be a problem. I did think of the same thing myself, but thanks for the detailed steps - I'll keep those in mind. I do feel that there have been two or three opinions on the deletion page that are "pro poststructural linguistics", so there should be a chance to. Anyway, if the deletion happens, then I'm sure that there will be something fresh that can be done later. Thanks again - and about the WP:WAX page you sent me, I did scan through it. I'll get back to you more on it later. Supriya 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

John Sarno

Dear WLU,

My revisions to the John Sarno entry, calling TMS by its new name ("myoneural") is based directly on Dr. Sarno's renaming of TMS. I learned of this change during my meetings with him on July 2008. His new TMS document calls it ("myoneural"), and it's how re refers to TMS in his lectures. Is this not a good enough source or reason to make this revision??

--Akalati (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Has to be verified in a reliable source, personal experience is not suitable. In addition, WP:NAME (this section) states "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Right now that's tension myositis syndrome. I would, had I a reference to support it, add "(renamed by Sarno as tension myoneural syndrome)" to the lead of the article, with a footnote to a reliable source to verify (and a redirect to the page from the 'new' name). It's possible that eventually Sarno will release a new book or some sort of massive announcement that he has renamed it; at that point my footnoted suggestion would be warranted. As several other sources and discussions start to pile up and there is a substantial change in what TMS is called and this change is recognized by the vast majority of the unwashed masses, then the page might be moved to this new name. But that can be done at pretty much any time, so you might as well wait until the new term has legs. Because it's ambiguous, you're probably better off leaving it. If it's inevitable, it'll happen eventually; until then it'll screw up many of the links and redirects to the page.

Still doesn't change that it is a fringe theory either, but at least a sourceable one. WLU (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the E=mc2

Thanks for the barnstar. I haven't desired adminship; it doesn't sound like fun, to be honest. And I didn't know I was in the top 3000! Maybe I should cut back.... Eubulides (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Again

I am back again to inform Wikipedia users of the truth about WLU and FisherQueen and BigDunc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMajorGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know which one this is? There are so many people stalking me these days, I lose track easily. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FQ, I am so sorry you blocked that person indef. I demand an investigation! EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you attempt an investigation, I'm afraid we'll have to have you 'silenced' as well. No hard feelings; it's just business, you understand. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, naturally. All hail the cabal, power to the Rouge Admins and hail to the Great Lord Cthulhu, Fhtagn! WLU (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest...

...what did you mean by this? _Gb^T/c 07:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they were proclaiming discontent that they were being silenced by me and/or FQ and/or someone else. I wish I could silence the irritating little weasel, but I can't 'cause I can't block (don't want to either, I just wish I could have an exception this one time). 10 points were for trying to express a valid opinion and failing. WLU (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh - for a moment there I thought it read more like "FQ : Are you trying to silence Gb", "You : I'd love to silence him but can't"...! _Gb^T/c 11:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask comment on this please

User:Maxschmelling has added[11] or edited thusly: User:Diligent Terrier is not currently accepting new adoptees[12][13]. I am presently under Terrier's adoption and Terrier had been very very diligent in my tutorial. Now, this time, Terrier removed his template Wikibreak and stated on his user page:This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. What is the point of Max editing Administrator Terrier's adopter's page. What is the basis? It behooves, that out of respect to my parent, Max should have first posted his edit suggestion on Terrier's talk page. Worst, Max wrote: "but I don't think you should take on any new adoptees at this time." Without respectfully waiting for reply, Max went ahead.[14] May I please ask you to share your comment on this? Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fathers Rights Deletion

Actually you should start a discussion before REMOVING the section in it's entirety. In fact it may have been discussed many times already. NeoApsara (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Criminologist1963

Greetings! I see your concerns about forum-shopping; if it makes you feel better, start the post at AN/I with "I posted this report to AIV, but an administrator suggested this was the better forum for it."

Part of the reason I think it's more a case for AN/I is that a longer-perspective look is needed at the actions. AIV is very in the moment: discussions go away as soon as an individual is blocked or when the report is manually removed (stale, not vandalism, etc.). AN/I threads are longer-lived; it's only after several days without further discussion that they get archived.

I also don't think it's a cut-and-dried situation with him. Is he editing disruptively? Somewhat. Is he editing in good faith? Yes, since he thinks he's improving Wikipedia. Would he be better advised to discuss the situation on a talk page rather than edit war? Absolutely.

I'm going to leave a message on his talk page inviting him to explain his edits. If he decides not to, but instead starts revert warring again, then it's a pretty clear-cut three-revert rule violation. —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot redux

Check this out, in combination: the contribs of contributions, plus this article, plus the August 10th entry for this. Nandesuka (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's circumstantial, but it's possible it could be the same guy. Too bad, 'cause I really liked the WhiteWolf games. Not much to do really, no point in blocking an IP address that no vandalising anymore. If it persists, we could report to ANI but the problem was always finding the socks and the bad edits. I live too far away from Seattle to run over there and forcibly shoe him. WLU (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Meant to do this a while ago

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		I, delldot talk, hereby award WLU this barnstar for your excellent and tireless article work and insistence on high-quality content. You also do a great job communicating with other editors and lending help to those who need it. delldot talk 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

MedRevise.co.uk

Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active! With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wiki keeps me pretty busy and I don't have much expertise. WLU (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Treatment

The word 'treatment' is not a synonym for therapy; it has a broader meaning, and the other references are valid specifications of the general term. In particular, in my own experience, there are contexts where the word 'treatment', used without qualifiers, indicates a film treatment, as correctly disambiguated in the page as I left it. The word 'treatment', without embellishment, does not have an inevitably medical connotation at all, and the wider usages shown in the disambiguation page are entirely valid. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Deadhouse Gates.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Deadhouse Gates.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For pointing me to the use of citation templates. You were right! They've been easy once I got the hang of them, and use them all the time now. Many thanks Professor marginalia (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Hi, thanks for editing CFS. I tried here explaining why CFS is still the term for using, but I don't think any one agreed. They say ME/CFS and when you show its really mostly CFS then they say well, ME and CFS are separate. It is an article I just gave up on because there's about five editors that really believe strongly about ME and for them CFS is like a existential insult. So I am "chicken out"!! RetroS1mone talk 13:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, it's not like it's an uncontested are solely decided upon by disinterested parties. I've done some renaming and rewriting, that seems to have helped. So long as you make the post with good intentions and sincerely try to help, and work with consensus, you can't really go wrong. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need more non-zealots to help balance the CFS page. Also, if you can have a look at the psychosomatic article it would be useful, as I am in a deadlock with Guido. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No way man, one thing at a time. Unlike Guido, I'm not a SPA so I am forced to spread my efforts across multiple pages. I've no doubt that he's a giant problem, but I've got my hands full on the CFS pages. For a guy who apparently only has 2 active, useful hours per day he sure gets around. Maybe it's voice-type dictation. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Heck I don't know what happened!

I responded to you, I did hit preview and everything looked ok then when I saved it a whole slew of stuff showed up. What did I do? Did you have this stuff hidden or something? I tried to undo my comment, which is way down at the bottom of all the other stuff, but I got a database syntax error of some sort which wouldn't allow me to delete myself. Sorry, I don't know how I made a mess of your page. Please help and explain so I don't do it again! Thanks and so very sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

I have reported your editing behaviour at AN/I here. Things cannot go on like this. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, things cannot go on like this. I have just reported Guido here. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sophia MIrza

In Sophia Mirza you have already violated WP:3RR. Make sure that you do not revert again. Use talk instead. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a WP:3RR violation report against you (7 reverts in total on this page alone). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

May I please get your attention? ;)

Hi WLU, I would love your opinion here [15]. I hope my response doesn't sound snotty, I tried to be careful to Assume good faith and No personal attacks with this editor, but I also know his history about bacteria and his conspiracy theories about Crohn's disease and Inflammatory bowel disease in general which is that the government and pharmaceutical companies don't want people to know about bacteria control curing all IBD because of profits. I would appreciate two things if you have time, first, tell me if I need to refactor since you know I don't like to be rude. I think I may have come off a bit strong here but I also know that if User talk:Caesarjbsquitti isn't disputed he is going to add gobs of POV info about bacteria (this can be seen in his talk page history and the history of all of the IBD articles. My comments I think came more from my own POV and emotions from knowing his and I probably should delete my comments all together. I would also appreciate if you would see what he wrote there and make your own comments to what you feel about them. I would appreciate hearing your opinions on this when you have time, no rush. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC) PS: If you would just flag my page that you commented on the above I'd also appreciate that too! :)

In process of giving it. Basically WP:MEDRS, WP:V and possibly WP:FRINGE or WP:REDFLAG. If bacteria really cured Crohn's disease, then it would have disappeared years ago. Even if Big Pharma and the government opposed it, Big Yogurt and Medium Sellers Of Non-Medical Supplements Available At Your Local Health Food Store would get the word out, probably fund some studies even. I basically ignored what he said, checked the references and started writing my comments. Remember, WP:PROVEIT means if it doesn't have a source, anyone can remove it without challenge and it is up to the add-ee to provide sources. Failing to do so would merit a post on WP:AN/I probably, or your friendly admin familiar with the page (or any random admin would probably help also). If it's not a sufficiently prestigious (i.e. peer-reviewed and respected) source on a medical page, the source gets removed along with the text. Medical pages have very high standards. Those links do not adhere to them. They are starting points to find actual medical articles (particularly that University of Alberta news page, a pubmed search of the researcher's name might turn up an article or two that could be legit) but not legitemate sources in and of themselves.

You spelled "acceptable" as "exceptable" BTW :P I almost saved "spelled" as "spelt", making me a near-hypocrite.

You may try focusing more on the source, less on the commentator. It's hard to do, and I've taken more than my fair share of pot-shots at other editors that irritate me. Were I in your shoes, I'd have, well, done what I did - cite MEDRS, V and left it. Since the sources are not appropriate, nothing should change on the page. No need to comment on the guy, or even his contributions. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in for me. I knew my response to him wasn't the best and since he is now soapboxing to your comments I am not going to respond to him. I think what he said near the end was basically he was trying to get his reasoning in the history of the article plus he is disappointed that someone removed his bacteria section. If he does decide to put that stuff back into the main article though I will remove it under the policies you site and keep the rest of it to myself. I do know where my POV is and I try desperately not to show it but I had a strong feeling that it showed in my response to him. I have seen him here on Wikipedia and all over the net with the same "conspiracy theories". He is mostly blocked by users on the internet newsgroups who have tired of the same old, same old. Well I am getting my POV showing again so I am stopping! .

I also responded to you on my talk page. If you ever want to change/edit my work please feel free to do so. I know I make errors and though I try my best I am not that good, so fix it if you feel up to it, you will never hurt my feelings. Oh, and I figured out how to put diffs in with using other words but showing the diffs, remember that challenge you gave me? Well it took a lot of time, I bet you don't remember it was so long ago, but I did it! Have a good one WLU, now I'm off to fix my typo! --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This was just posted Here. Who is he calling a Sockpuppet? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate question is "who cares"? If he's not edit warring, he gets a {{chat}} warning and his comments get hidden or removed if particularly egregious. Not responding is appropriate, and something I should really learn to do. You're allowed to have a POV and show it on wikpedia, so long as you have reliable sources that support it. He doesn't seem to. You don't make that many mistakes Crohnie, I 'correct' simply because I see a way to do it a bit more neatly or (really) more like how I like doing it. Doesn't make it right! Sometimes it's neat to see what you can do though. For instance, I didn't know you could make smileys using {{=}}. Neat! WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea I'm learning, slow as it might be but it's a step in the right direction! I saw what you did and I have to say I am still laughing. You are definitely bold but I did say I wouldn't respond and I didn't, I'm proud of that too because I really wanted to. I saw you hid the section, now I have learned something new again. Thanks! --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have hit a transclusion issue. Basically, one character surrounded by squiggly brackets produces a smiley face. The other replaces the template with the page contents of [[:]]. Anything with {{}} brackets is a template, and inserts things automatically (like a {{cite journal}} template produces the same citation format no matter the order of the template's contents). You have to know them pretty well to use them sometimes, 'cause they can produce stuff like that. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I am glad you understood what happened because I sure didn't. I don't know how I did it at all. I see you say I some how did it but I have never used any templates or transluded so I don't understand but I was very happy to see you could clean up my mess, sorry again. How do I fix something like that or prevent it? I was so worried that someone would get mad at me for vandalising your page. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Undent. You don't "use" a template, if you insert a template into the page (basically anything in squiggly brackets) then it'll transclude (or if a subst: template, pop in a bunch of text). Your ( {{=)}} ) is actually a template that replaces the text with a picture - don't believe me, type template:=) into the search box and see where it takes you! (it'll take you to template:=) by the way) You tried to generalize by using a different combination within the {{}}, but that gave you a totally different outcome. If you still want the different options for smiley faces, try some of the "arguments" the template page gives you (where arguments are basically piped tempaltes). {{=)|sad}} transcludes to , if you replace "sad" with wink, blush, surprise (or 3, 4, 6), you'll get a different smiley. Templates are handy, but not as intuitive as wikilinks can be. I doubt anyone would say you vandalised my page, and if they had I would defend you vigorously. The only way to fix would be to find and remove the template, and the only way to prevent it would be to preview (which you would use to remove the template before saving). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiley clinical trials

There are no Wiley clinical trials therefor there can't be ethical problems with them, only opportunistic medical "ethicists" who got their job by marrying the head doc at the university. Why in the world did you insert that phrase??? Neil Raden (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I go after verifiability, not truth. From here WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

“ A glaring example of unregulated and unethical research in BHRT is The Wiley Protocol, which became more widely known to the public through Somers' promotion of it as legitimate research. The Wiley Protocol has involved over 1000 participants in the administration of 'a trademarked, patent-pending delivery system consisting of bioidentical estradiol and progesterone in a topical cream preparation dosed to mimic the natural hormones produced by [a 20-year old woman].' This protocol emphasizes a 'rhythmic' dosing schedule using potentially unsafe high dosages of hormones. Somers' book misrepresents TS Wiley, its lay investigator, as a respected and published scientist. Somers' book also serves as a recruitment tool for unwitting human subjects. This is a multicenter Phase II trial (with no record of Phase I testing) involving 129 study sites in 29 US states, and 2 study sites in British Columbia, Canada. Since data is being collected and presented on women enrolled in this trial, but has not been IRB approved (interviews: TS Wiley, and D Turner, 13 March 2007; J Taguchi, 15 March 2007), or monitored by an investigator with experience in scientific methodology or clinical research, it does not meet criteria for regulated or ethical research. There are no formal exclusion or inclusion criteria for patient enrollment (interview: J Taguchi, 15 March 2007), and the study population spans women aged 19 through 90, who may not understand that they are enrolled in unethical research.64 Serious safety concerns about this protocol have been raised. Co-investigators appear to be prescribers of this protocol who widely vary in training, ranging from physicians to massage therapists; and pharmacists who are contractually obligated to Wiley as a source of the compounded pharmaceuticals sold to participants of the protocol. The study is funded by participants, who are paying for the protocol with their prescriptions. Typically, study agents should not be sold. ”

The statement in the Wikipedia article is: "In addition there are criticisms about the dosages of the hormones used, Wiley's lack of qualifications to design the protocol, and ethical problems with the clinical trials that are being run to test it." (Emphasis added.) So do you see multiple studies in the Rosenthal article? I don't. I think it's very clear that she's criticizing one study and makes no mention of any others involving the Wiley Protocol.

I also think it's dubious to cite Rosenthal in positively asserting in the Wikipedia article that the one study under discussion is a "clinical trial". Rosenthal makes no such statement, and in fact is arguing that the study fails to meet the standards of such. Indeed she starts the following paragraph with (note the quotation marks): "This may be the tip of the iceberg. Several other BHRT prescribers make reference to having conducted 'clinical trials' in BHRT." I suspect that may have been overlooked in the context here. Debv (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How about: "...and ethical problems with a study that has been proposed to test it."? No reliable source to my knowledge establishes that 1) there are multiple studies underway, much less that 2) any proposed study is actually underway, and that 3) any proposed study qualifies as a clinical trial. Debv (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your user page

I noticed this reference on your user page

Bottoms, B.L., Shaver, P.R., Goodman, G.S., and Qin, J. (199?). In the name of God: A profile of religion-related child abuse. Journal of Social Issues 51, 85-111.

So I poked around, and based on the fact that volume 53 is from 1997 (and there appears to be one volume per year) I think it's a pretty good guess that 51 is from 1995. If you want me to, I can look for the hard copy next time I'm at the library. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm...I'm not editing the SRA page much anymore and most of the useful references are already there (and quite recent), but I'm always pleased to have another source. Might turn up something cool. Unfortunately a hardcopy won't do me much good unless it's mailed or faxed to me (and I do loves me privacy), but a scanned copy would be awesome. If it's not a bother, if you don't mind either providing me an electronic version or being available to ask questions if I have some, or if you're simply curious and don't mind taking the time, having access to the article would be great. That'd be a wonderful favour and I would be most pleased if you would be kind enough to indulge it. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks Like Satan

What's wrong with looking like Satan? It's not important, but I think the previous photo shows humanity and intensity. (Imaging if Bush looked into those eyes instead of Putin's.) Einstein and others get the same treatment, with late life photos replacing prime of productivity period stuff. EricDiesel (talk)

I admit it's an aesthetic choice on a more-or-less irrelevant page (i.e. the picture doesn't really demonstrate what Darwinism is about), I just intensely dislike that image. Image:Charles Darwin aged 51.jpg might be most appropriate, as it was Darwin just after On the Origins of Species, without looking, well, satanic. There's nothing wrong with intensity, but I personally draw the line at "serial killer" intensity. It doesn't really matter, but I do think that picture is extremely unflattering. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Speedy Delivery for fringewiki

No problem. I made the page because the website does have a lot of legimate content. Regards, --Truetech (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but content does not determine a page's viability on wikipedia, notability does. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation

Hi,

You deleted the Nightingale Research Foundation page, which is fine, but partway through the deletion discussion the page was moved to Byron Hyde and re-worked. Byron Hyde had his own deletion discussion a year ago, and the new debate wasn't directly addressing his work. I'm not sure if this is a simple User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted#Incomplete multiple AFD closure case, so I'm asking. I'm OK with the page being deleted, or re-starting a new deletion discussion if required. Right now the page has a lingering AFD template at the top which should be dealt with in some way and it's sufficiently complicated that I'm throwing it at your mercy discretion. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted that page as that seems to reflect the wishes of the AFD contributors. Thanks for letting me know. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)

Hey there WLU! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!

• Notice delivery by xenobot 14:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok being WP:Bold but could use some serious advice! :)

Hi WLU, I have an article I was working on just to put citations in since it was filled with at Ed Gein. Well during my search I found two different refs that I was using and the second one, about.com I found that there are paragraphs that are total copy and pastes of that site. I tried to change the wording though to me my wording now sounds a bit weasely unfortunately. I guess what I did is ok but how do I go about getting rid of the copywrite problems, or I guess the better question is, am I doing ok with how I am trying to rid the article of the problems? I put notations in the edit summary a couple of times so that hopefully no one thinks I am the one who put the original information in. This is the first time I have run into a situation like this so I am going all out asking for input on how to deal with this in the proper manner. I would really, really love your input on this. I was having a pretty good time until I got to the second reference and saw the exact words in the article. Now I am feeling a bit overwhelmed and shy to edit more to be honest. A boost to be WP:Bold and suggestions would be more than welcomed at this time!  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore, I was stupid and missed a lot. I have struck it out because I now know what I did wrong and how to fix it. Soooooo, hi how are you?! :) (this is me trying to change the subject!) Take care and i'll talk to you soon. I haven't given up on what I was trying to do yesterday, just going to do it in a different way, after I wake up a bit! I will continue to try to be WP:Bold so don't give up on me on this just yet!  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Better to make a mistake and learn from it than to never make any mistakes at all! Congrats, and I've not given up on you. Let me know if you'd like my opinion, analysis or advice on anything, I took a very cursory look at the page, but didn't really try to sort what actually happened. Your polite interaction with the other editor is an excellent approach, so you should take pride in that! WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Belzebuub Article

Hello WLU, thank you for your comments and intervention in the Belzebuub/Mark Pritchard biography. You are right that the sources being used for the article are very one-sided and self-serving, which is why I called attention to it in the first place. What I would like to ask you is whether a google cache [16] can constitute a legitimate source for the article. It is very fishy that the information on this guy's website, which references him as being the reincarnation of "Belzebuub," was taken out during the dispute on the article's talk page. If you look at the google cache you will see what I mean.

Personally, I think the article is too self-serving, as you have said so yourself. The guy who made the article, and who has been attacking people on the talk page, clearly has some POV issues. Also, either himself or another person is trying to recruit others from his school's webforums [17] in order to help his position in the article.

If you do decide to keep the article, I think it would be necessary to add the reference to the biography from a work by another occult author, by the name of Samael Aun Weor, who supposedly made a prophecy in the 1950's about the birth and whereabouts of "Belzebuub." The dispute on the talk page was about whether the book The Revolution of Beelzebub [18] has anything to do with this guy who calls himself "Belzebuub."

Some of the arguments about the relevance of this book is that in it, this person or being was to be born as a woman in France. Although the subject of the biography is a Welsh male from Australia, what it originally stated on the "Belzebuub" website was that Samael Aun Weor made mistakes in his earlier works, and had "messed up the prophecy," so to say. But this was taken out of that website since the argument on the talk page.

I will of course rely on your direction and judgment. I had also reported Matt reltub for his behavior, which you can see from the talk page is pretty unwarranted.

Thank you for your time and your help. Rabicante (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The solution to the problem is not to troll google cache, it is to find reliable sources published in non-self serving fora. Essentially I think the page should be gutted to a stub to take out all the crap about him. Coming to conclusions on the basis of comparing current and cached pages is original research. More than anything I think the low notability of the subject is the limiting factor. The whole 'prophecy thing' should be a very short, minimal mention at best, if mentioned in the page at all - in my opinion the best bet is to remove the offending section until an adequate source can be found. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you harassing me at the satanic ritual abuse page?

There are many sources that show that SRA is real. Why are you telling me I can’t edit the satanic ritual abuse page? Extrabreeze (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review the past discussion of SRA - per WP:UNDUE, wikipedia is obliged to report on the mainstream scholarly opinion of SRA. The mainstream scholarly opinion has been judged as to support the idea that SRA was a moral panic, an explosion of interest, worry and research that was unjustified by the actual nature of the 'threat' (i.e. the threat was from the panic, not from actual satanists torturing and abusing children). There are numerous references that repeatedly and explicitly state that the events were a moral panic, and are now over, with any remaining interest coming from a small but vocal minority. Current publications on the topic are in low-impact journals, non-peer-reviewed press and popular websites or publishers. There is no serious scholarly interest in the topic aside from it being a historical example of a moral panic. Pleas review the two most recent archives and you will see the exhaustive discussion of this topic. Serious interest in SRA as a 'real' entity is a fringe position, and we have a policy on that - WP:FRINGE.

To summarize, the sources that 'show' SRA is real are generally of low quality, or old. The sources that 'show' SRA to be a moral panic are the product of well-respected researchers publishing in high-impact journals and books from university press. You can edit the page, but ongoing interest in SRA must be shown as a minority, and can not be given excessive weight. Basically all that can be said is already in the lead - interest in SRA has passed and now only a minority of people still think there's any weight to it. Randy Noblitt is one such, and has resorted to self-publication in order to get his nutjob opinion out. It's dead, it never really existed, and wikipedia will portray it as such. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point I'm 'harrasing you' because you appear to be violating your ban on satanic ritual abuse. So bugger off. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please fix this

Please do not re-open this discussion until you have read the policies

you added to Wiley Protocol "ethical problems with the clinical trials that are being run to test it." You have got to remove it. THERE ARE NO CLINICAL TRIALS. I'm not going to get into an argument about Rosenthal's distorted "scholarship," but I can tell you categorically there are no clinical trials. If you insist on leaving that in, I must insist that you can PROVE there are trials. You won't be able to. Where is your reliable source? You can't use Rosenthal, she fabricated this idea so she could criticize it. You've always been pretty fair, and I've let things gto that just aren't true to avoid an argument, but I'm not going let this one go. The whole Rosenthal thing is about to explode. Let me know if you's like to see the letters some doctors have written to the journal disputing what she wrote. Unlike Erika Scwartz, none of them are married to the editor in chief of the New York Times, but we'll get them published somewhere.

Also there is a new observational study that just came out of Denmark that followed SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND women and basically confirmed all of the major claims of Wiley about HRT, and cast doubt on the current standard of care. Neil Raden (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V. There is a source stating that there is a trial (not several, I corrected to singular). I can not take your word that there is no trial, what is required is a second source stating that there are no trials. I do not need to prove it, I need to source it, which I have done. The reliability comes from the publisher (the International Journal of Impotence Research in this case). Letters to the editors are not really great sources for pages, but they can be used carefully, so I would be interested in seeing any electronic copies you may have. If Rosenthal explodes, I would be very, very interested to find out and will adjust the page accordingly, please provide me with the link or an electronic version via e-mail.

Did the Denmark study use Wiley's bioidentical horemones? If so, it can be used. If not, it's original research to include it and not a vindication - problems with HRT does not make the WP correct.

Please stop SHOUTING and demanding that I change things based on your word alone. This will not happen, you must provide sources that are independent and reliable to back up your point. Very cautiously, if Wiley has rebutted some of Rosenthal's points on her web page, that may be appropriate to include. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Very shortly, letters from Wiley and the two Principal investigators of the two studies (which have IRB's but have not yet started) will be sent to the journal. Wiley will publish them somewhere, I'm not sure where yet. She ignores the picadillos of Debv and Laurel McCubbin (if indeed they are different people, which I seriously doubT) but a journal is a different story. They will point out the numerous factual errors and challenge Rosenthal's scholarship and motives. I will provide you the links when I have them.

The Denmark study (review in Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081001093504.htm) observed 700,000 women and found that heart disease was significantly reduced with higher dosages BHRT and cyclic patterns, two bedrock positions of Wiley. The greatest benefit was observed in women whose dosages were high enough to restart menstruation, another bedrock principle of the Wiley Protocol, and one that causes derision in practitioners who follow the Standard of Care. Neil Raden (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, but you know neither I, nor any other editor can do anything until those are published. It is the frustrating thing of dealing with a topic that is in the discovery process. If/when the letters are published, let me know and in order to edit the page accordingly I will need copies of the publication. Also, the link between the Denmark study and the WP are original research without an external party making the link. Wiley herself can make the link, but depending on the publication will have to be treated with care (per WP:SPS, her website would work but would need to be phrased as "Wiley has disputed..." and be phrased appropriately (minimal detail, and could not be portrayed as certain). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:08, October 2008 (UTC)

You have to remove the statement " possibly dangerously high doses of hormones" from the T. S.Wiley article. There is not one shred of evidence that the levels are even possibly dangerous, and the Denmark study is pretty clear that the dangerous levels are the low ones. Neil Raden (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, since the claim is now adequately attributed and invoking the Denmark study is original research. But thanks for pointing to the page, I've corrected a spelling mistake and added a citation to back the "dangerously high" criticism. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You have me scratching my head. Why is the denmark study original research? It was a completely independent, journal reported study that had noting to do with Wiley. but you really screwed up on the citations for dangerously high. First of all, Rosenthal is not a scientist, she was making charges about ethics. I said you can't find PROOF, not rumors. And the ACAM report never claimed that there were dangerously high levels, only that some doctors had concerns. I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, but I think you are way off track here. Is an unsubstantiated claim reliable because it is published? You have refused to add comments from doctors' websites who are favorable to Wiley, these two citations are exactly the same thing. Neil Raden (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to do some research. Estrasorb is a bioidentical estradiol patch approved by the FDA. Look at http://www.fda.gov/Cder/foi/label/2003/21371_estrasorb_lbl.pdf. The average daily estradiol dose of the Wiley Protocol is around 10mg/day applied to the skin. Estrasorb is almost 9mg/day (3.45gm/day @ 2.5mg E2/gm of gel). Now please remove that biased nonsense about dangerously high. That's propaganda from people who have an agenda against Wiley, if you won't, document this citation and mention that it is only a claim and similar levels are already approved by the FDA Neil Raden (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And here is another citation: http://www.wdxcyber.com/nmood11.htm. Notice the dosage - 200-300mg of progesterone for 10 days. The WP averages out to 309mg/day for 14 days. Neil Raden (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Do any of those citations specifically cite the Wiley Protocol? If not, then to link them to the Wiley Protocol is original research that is forbidden by our policy on original research. You are not an expert and your word alone is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:No original research. If the Denmark study had "nothing to do with Wiley" then I am NEVER going to cite it on the page. Rosenthal's qualifications are irrelevant, what does count is that her opinions are verifiable in a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Until you have a reliable source that clearly and explicitly states the problems so far stated about the Wiley Protocol are suprious, this conversation is done. Until that time, please don't bother posting on my talk page. See points 3 and 4 in the box right at the top of the page. I've referred you to two policies and a guideline regards why I am not going to edit the page. Until you read those documents and come back with a policy-based reason to adjust the content, you are wasting both our time, but more importantly my time. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I read your documents, more than once. I've given you two reliable sources about dosage levels that contradict what you recently wrote in the article. Neil Raden (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you gave me two weblinks that don't mention the Wiley protocol at all. And mentioning them as if they validate the Wiley protocol is original research. As I have said repeatedly. And you don't seem to get. Until you have a document that includes the word "Wiley", I am, and remember I say this with increasing frustration, not going to do a damned thing. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get this. If the Smith Protocol calls for 5000units a day of Vitamin C and 10,000 units/day of D3 and Smith's website says that his dosages are "potentially dangerous" (even if the reference cited hasn't produced a shred of proof) but you find a site that shows the FDA views them within limits, even without mentioning Smith, are you telling me that's original research? That there shouldn't be something on Smith's article that says, "despite these detractors, these limits are approved by the FDA?" Besides, of all the references you have that the WP is dangerous, aren't they all just opinion and original research? No one has ever published results of a study of something like the WP. Even if it is dangerous, there is no proof, and THAT should be in the article as prominently as the detractors who have never studied it. Ever heard of Velikovsky? Neil Raden (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't care, I think it's original research, and I refuse to make the change on that basis. You are free to ask someone else to make the change for you if you'd like. User:TimVickers is a very respected admin, he's a biochemist so knowledgeable, and I trust him implicitly. Try asking him and see what he thinks. I am unwilling, and I'm done, so stop insisting. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RFK Assassination--Lawrence Teeter Interview

Your most recent edit of the MKULTRA article introduces some distortions as to what Sirhan Sirhan's lawyer asserted. In particular, Teeter asserted that Sirhan Sirhan was an experienced hypnotic subject who was under the influence of hypnosis when he fired his weapon at Robert Kennedy; considerable evidence supports this particular assertion. Based on forensic evidence from the official Los Angeles County autopsy of Kennedy's body (proximity of weapon, direction of gunshot wound, angle of entry of gunshot wound) and evidence collected at the scene (too many bullets to have been fired from Sirhan Sirhan's gun alone), Teeter also asserted that another weapon, and thus another shooter, were involved in the assassination; considerable evidence supports this assertion also. Teeters discovered links between the CIA and the appointment of Grant Cooper as Sirhan Sirhan's original attorney, and Teeter asserts that the CIA succeeded in compromising Grant Cooper, which is why he purposefully blew Sirhan Sirhan's defense; some evidence supports this assertion, especially a review of the flawed defense that Cooper mounted on Sirhan's behalf. It is Teeters final assertion for which we have little supporting evidence: that since we know the CIA participated in MKULTRA experiments using hypnosis, and since we know that the CIA learned hypnotic techniques from those experiments, and since we know there was a connection between the CIA and Sirhan Sirhan...that the CIA was the party responsible for hypnotizing Sirhan Sirhan and thus linked to the assassination plot. I have revised the section to reflect this more precise understanding of Teeter's assertions, which he lays out quite carefully in the cited interview. Apostle12 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed, but attributing all of that to an interview that would fail as a reliable source makes me uneasy. The whole "CIA had an effective mind-control program" is a dubious fringe claim. I think the current wording is OK, and you've edited the page since this posting, when I've a bit more time I'll try to review some more, but if you are satisfied with the current wording, so am I. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Warning venting in process, you got mail! Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Endnotes

Now that peer-review on SRA has started, you might consider Harvard-style for endnotes since this format is suited for multiple references to same source, just as Richard is doing in the McMartin article. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 04:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cesar,

I've been busy with other things, and since it's no longer a trainwreck I'd pretty much let SRA go, but now that I see how it's done and am looking for a cheap way to up my edit count, I'll have a go at it. Pain in the ass, but it should help the page. If you know which pages certain references are attached to, that'll help a lot since Harvard style pretty much requires all the citations have a page appended. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvard

Yes, its my first time using them, so I don't know what I am doing yet, but yes, tagging them with "ref" so they go down into the footnotes looks the best. I like the way they actually tie now to a book citation and a url for the book in Google Book Search. I just came across an article yesterday where people were using "ibid" and "opcit" which became corrupted after someone added a new reference and the order changed. I also saw an article yesterday where the editor used "________________" after the first reference to mean that the book in the previous reference had the same author as the one using _____. It looks like Research Editor got blocked for while, he is much less tendentious than he was a year ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See is you can fix the one damaged reference in Mcmartin, I will and see if I can find the problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the google books links aren't really much more helpful than the ISBN links in citation templates - I usually only link to google books when it has a limited preview. I fixed one ref name tag error that I'd made, and that was the only one that caught my eye. Let me know if there's anything else. Otherwise I've embedded the harvard refs in ref tags throughout now. I assume you're being sarcasting regards RE by the way WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

GA sweeps: Mummy

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of Mummy, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Didactic

Thanks for the edit to Gaturro. I guess I was just being dense, but I didn't understand how it was being used in this context. So, in actuality, there are ten books, two of which are didactic in nature. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess, I know nothing about Gaturro, but I do know what didactic fiction is. That's the only link and context I know of, and I believe it is correct. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Question?

On the Crohn's disease talk page Here you used an hide box for soapboxing (I personally think the garbage should have been archived but agree with what you did as an alternative.). The problem now is when someone tries to use the new section button it too gets hidden under the hide box. I looked at it and it looks like you closed it but I'm not real good at all with this so would you check it out for me? I made a comment and just moved my comment above the box so it was visable though out of order but there is someone elses comment in the box that I never saw until today. Anyways, when you have the time would you take a peek and let me know how to fix something like this? No rush at all about this. There was an edit war on the external links section by two editors that if my count was right went way past the 3RR rule but no harm was done so I didn't do anything about it. There is enough drama going around without me causing problems about this sort of thing that slowly burned itself out way before I got there! :) Also I need to go back and figure out how to archive again since this talk page goes back over a year and desperately needs archiving. The last time I tried to archive I screwed things up so bad, thank goodness it was my own talk page and I had a wonderful editor watching over me to see how I would do who fixed it up for me. I guess I am gun shy to try again after my last fiasco. I got a bot to do it for me with the help of this same editor, that's how bad I did! :) Yes I know, be bold, it always can be fixed! Thanks as always, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hola, I've fixed the template, basically because I used the wrong (possibly even impossible) template, the hide box didn't know where to end. Sorry, I thought I was helping! Archiving isn't a good idea IMHO 'cause it would break up the chronological order of the archive and it's not super civil either (neither is the hidebox, but it's slightly more civil than outright deletion and they can't use the "CENSORSHIP" red herring). The problem was the {{divhide}} needs a second template with the argument "|end" ({{divhide|end}}) to know when to finish. It says this right on the Template:Divhide page, but I always think I've got the right template text but never learn that I should check (or preview for that matter).

Regards archiving, it's actually pretty simple. Edit the very top portion of the page (what would be the lead in the main page, all text before the first section). If you don't have an edit button at the very top of the window, it's an option you can enable in your preferences. A work-around is to edit any section, then delete the last number in the URL and replace it with a zero (0). Got to the section that (now) says

{{archivebox|
* [[Talk:Crohn's disease/Archive 1|Archive Page 1]]
}} 

and add a second line that's exactly the same as the archive name, but replace the ones with twos (i.e. * [[Talk:Crohn's disease/Archive 2|Archive Page 2]], making sure to put it before the second }}. Save the page, and you should see the red link:

• Archive Page 2

Open a second window and use it to edit that red link. That'll start the new archive page for you. Put at the top {{archive}}. Go back to the first page (the current talk page). Edit the whole page using the Edit this page tab. Highlight everything on the page from below the archive box to the end of the hidden section (i.e. everything except the templates at the top and the newest posts, you may want to get the Incidence in siblings in section too). Copy the highlighted text and delete it (or cut to do the same thing), then move to the second window with the new page and paste. Hit save on both pages and you're done.

However, looking at the archive, it's about 71K - too small, I think the archives are supposed to be around 250K. In this case, I'd simply paste the current talk page contents you're archiving to the bottom of the archive page and save. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about the hide box, once I saw what you did I realized what was missing. Thanks for fixing it though. As for the rest of the archive stuff you say, I have one word, HUH! You totally lost me! I'll try to go to the page and read about archiving again and see if I can understand it now since I've been here now for awhile and understand more. These types of things I have to say confuse the heck out of me. Sometimes I think surgery would be better than some of the formating things, not! Thanks again, if you want to try to explain again, drop me a line when you get time. I'm leaving the computer for now. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You're just scared because your computer hates you. Very simple, cut to remove the old text, paste to put it on the new page. All the complicated stuff is just because I thought you'd have to create a new page. It's also simple - Create the archive page, cut and paste to move the contents, and make sure there's a link by editing the {{archivebox}} template to include a link to the new page (which is really just a wikilink with a pipe). The slash in the address (i.e. User talk:WLU/Archive 4) just makes it a sub-page instead of a separate page. Super easy, if you ever want to do so, find a page that needs archiving, and if we're on wiki in realtime together, I'll walk you through it via talk page postings. It's the exact same process as editing a main page or setting up a sub-page, the only real difference is the myriad archive templates involved. You need a walk-through once or twice, then you'll be a pro. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I have to say I got a good laugh, and yes I lied, I'm still here though I did get up and do something. Ok, maybe I'll give it a twirl another time. Thanks for archiving the page for me. And your right, my computer hates me, and if I don't get off of it soon, I think so will my husband! :) Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a quick note to thank you for keeping an eye on Water ionizer. I have had a long and unpleasant experience with the editor Water Ionizer Research and thus I appreciate some assistance in dealing with this editors tricky editds. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but the big guns are the ones coming over from the fringe theories noticeboard. With a name like that (not to mention editing history), I don't think they'll be getting much support for their edits. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Potato

Those were just various articles I got from Lexis Nexis -- I had to email them to myself one at a time. Each email has a seperate news story attached. I'm sure that much of it is duplicate information, but perhaps there are details that can get added. Enjoy.PelleSmith (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I think you've found the only scholarly material on the subject, as far as I can tell.PelleSmith (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are like Christmas presents. The mystery is always more fun than the socks.

We don't need to use scholarly sources on this one, which is nice. News articles are perfectly acceptable. Thanks, I'll have a look at the sources tonight.

For anyone watching, "potato" is certainly not my password. That would be insane. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 10:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's much better

Your wording is tops! :). I was just trying to stay away from the notion that SRA allegations were "blamed" on something. Good work and thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't have picked up on it were it not for your edit in the first place, so I must pass the thanks back to you. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Serafin

Hello... thanks for investigating and reverting those edits. Unfortunately, there is a long-banned editor (User:Serafin) who manages to repeatedly evade his block. His methodology is to create a new user account and make ten uncommented minor edits (usually to science-related articles) to get past the new-user restrictions. He then goes straight for the semi-protected articles Nicolaus Copernicus, Recovered Territories and Bureaucracy to add his POV, using the term "NAZI" in his edit summary. (This happens on a daily basis, so if you notice those sort of edits again, you can pretty much guarantee he's heading for his target articles. Feel free to revert on site and let an admin know he needs to be blocked.) Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya, when I saw the sock notice on his user page, I realized. I think I've actually warned him before even. I'll try to keep an eye out. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgiveness

Hello. Re: your 4th September 2008 revision of Forgiveness which removed a paragraph claiming POV, this paragraph is actually argued as being NPOV on the discussion page here: Talk:Forgiveness#Paper. Would you look at the case made and reply there? Thanks. Whitespace (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, I commented for what it's worth, but that discussion is nearly a full year old. The paper shouldn't be used as a source, and the idea, if prominent, should be easy to cite with an actual reliable source of merit and weight (and in any case it shouldn't be weaselly worded or promoting a specific viewpoint. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin assist

{{helpme}}

If an admin could help me out here, in a fit of stupidity, I redriected Te Rangi Hiroa (Peter Buck) to Te Rangi Hīroa through a cut-and-paste rather than a page move, thus breaking the page's history. Could an admin write-over the move instead? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix it for you. Give me a few minutes.... Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops... looks like we both saw this. I've already moved the article; I'll wait until Stwalkerster sees this before working on the talk page. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you finish off, as I very nearly screwed up the article history: for some inexplicable reason the page I deleted to make way for the move recreated itself. I almost redeleted the page, but luckily I noticed the new log entry. :P Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ah, the joys of non-real-time Wiki communications! Thanks and cheers... --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, much obliged. That was quick and enthuseastic! WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A source for contradicting some of Rosenthal

Here you go, some bonafide third party coverage, especially the part that contradicts Rosenthal: "Clinical trials soon will be under way, and patients’ full compliance to the system is critical to gaining FDA approval." That is completely opposite to what's been averred by certain references. I hope you read the whole article at [19] and will incorporate/fix some of the inaccuracies in this and the T.S. Wiley article. Neil Raden (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That's an industry or trade magazine, a far cry from the peer reviewed journal Rosenthal has published in. When those clinical trials are published in a peer-reviewed journal, then Rosenthal's assertions and criticisms may be eclipsed. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Colon cleansing

Well I got to this page through vandal patrol so I thought I would take a peek, and yes I have seen the ongoing conversations there for past 24 hrs. I am trying hard to understand the one editor with very long posts but I can't keep up with what they are trying to say though I do have a strong idea. I am sure you understand my feelings about this article, personally I think it is one for a speedy delete but what can I say. This type of thing has been tried to be sold to me since the beginning of me being on the net and going to CD talk sites, so I have to be careful how I approach things here, please keep an eye on me and if I go nuts in what I say or do, please adjust my attitude. :) I'd appreciate a kick in the right place ;) if my POV becomes too strong here. Thanks!

Also, do you have time for an email? It won't be about Wiki at all, just kind of a shoulder to cry on? Let me know via email if you have the time to listen to my latest. Plus you might be able to help me find some research I am having problems locating on my own that I am doing for personal reasons. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's deletable, but it is fringeworthy. Basically I'm not bothering to take it seriously until there's new sources. I'll keep reading the page, but you traditionally are more patient than I so I don't know if I'll worry about it too much.

Sure, ping me an e-mail, I'll do my best. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sent the email, thanks, it helped just writing it! As always, take your time in responding. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Check my contribs and you'll see my initial response :) WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching, I am just waiting to see when your patience is worn so thin, remember stay calm. ;) Good edits though! I just haven't been up to doing any research lately so I am just reading, commenting here and there and doing vandal patrol (which I find easy and keeps my mind a bit busy with what's going on, the email will explain this last comment.) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The editor with very long posts? I guess that just may be referring to me, so apologies to you both if it is making your editorial job hell - that certainly is not my intention. I would like to think that my intentions by now are fairly clear - to bring some balance to this highly emotive and controversial subject, that is under-researched, but that everyone it seems has an strong opinion on. And just FYI - I also disagree strongly with some of the highly contentious claims made by SOME therapists in the field - but research is slowly but surely starting to vindicate at least some of the value of what they do, even if the autotoxemia thing is a bit of a redherring that gets coatracked a lot. Thanks WLU for the heads up with all the rules of WP - I am a newbie, so learning all the time. And yes, I do know a fair amount about this field, both the good and the bad from many years of researching - hence the long posts. Mea culpa. I will try and keep my discussion posts brief and to the point in the future. Please feel free to respond on my talkpage. --Antoniolus (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to be offensive at all but with all the meds I take I have a real hard time following really long posts that move around. Please except my apology if I offended you, that was not at all my intention. I too have strong feelings about colon cleansing, thus I try to keep my comments to a minimum. I personally cannot understand anyone ever wanting to do this for just doing it. It's horrible to my system when I have to clean out and takes me a long time to recover from it. Until I get my balance back I have trouble eating, get acute pain and more, so yes, I am not a for this treatment and I consider it a WP:Fringe at the extreme. Again sorry if I offended you, I hope you understand. I did respond to you at my talk page incase you didn't see that. Thanks for understanding, I hope! ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Antoniolus, at some point I seem to remember reading that you were in school for some sort of alt med course. I understand that you want there to be some benefit to alt med treatments, fine. But wikipedia works with reliable sources, and WP:MEDRS is quite clear that medical claims require medical sources of high quality. Until those are provided, the relevant sources on colon cleansing are very clear about it being unsupported and quackery. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies you two. I appreciate Crohnie where you are coming from - and no, I don't get offended, nor do I take things personally - but thanks for the sentiment nonetheless. I also hear very clearly your arguments about fringeworthiness - and agree that there are elements here that are clearly fringe in the extreme. I have both seen and heard some outrageous claims supported by nothing more than ignorance and faith by some of those who practice colon cleansing in its various guises - but as I have probably mentioned before (sigh ... sorry!) , I don't think that in itself constitutes grounds for dismissal. I do think that some subtlety in approach to dealing with the subject is called for, and differentiation between the therapeutic modality and the therapists who practice it - or it should be made very clear in the intro. In the same way that there are bad doctors out there, but that does not invalidate medical science. That would seem to be fair to the subject matter considering some of the orthodox medical research out there, though how to weave that in without appearing to be antogonistic to some of WP's rules is difficult - and extremely so if one wants to be succinct, and not to start synth issues. The wealth of anecdotal evidence clearly cannot be included, but I think should be borne in mind when one is editing. And yes WLU, I do agree that there are huge quack elements out there - but not all - babies and bathwater ... FYI I started in life as an engineer with a background in physical sciences before I became a DO, and have since studied many other medical modalities over the years. Many of those I dispute the validity of in terms of the way they are taught and the claims that are made - mostly surrounding proof (or usually lack of it) as well as dogmatic belief systems based on faith - though doesn't mean that I throw them out necessarily, just recognise that there is a time and place to use modalities with judicious clinical judgement. A lot of research is called for, which may or may not happen. I don't 'want there to be benefits' - I don't wrap my identity up in the sum total of my learning, quite the opposite - scientific method rides way above all that. Medicine is regrettably imperfect, but thankfully getting better all the time, and panaceas are almost certainly bogus! Thanks for your time and input. And sorry, trying to be succinct, but answering you both ... Kind regards --Antoniolus (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your statement about anecdotal evidence. Within science, scepticism is the default position - it is up to the claims maker to provide proof that there is merit to their claims. It's not up to me to provide evidence that it's wrong. Wikipedia does not use anecdotal evidence, and it should not be kept in mind when editing. Personally, I see the benefits of colon cleansing equalling an enema, and that's it. It helps you poop. But my feelings are irrelevant - what is relevant is the many sources that exist on the page from good, reliable publishers, that state it's quackery and of no benefit. There is no need to adjust the page, any more than I would adjust geography to reflect Flat Earth beliefs or evolution to place any weight on creationist ideas. If you want any positive information on the benefits of colon cleansing to appear on the page, it is up to you to provide adequately reliable links that supports the assertions. This is not about dogma and truth, this is about verifiability, reliable sources, medically reliable sources for medical claims and fringe topics. There are numerous sources accepted as reliable on wikipedia that state colon cleansing is bunk that is completely out of keeping with knowledge of the GI tract and human anatomy. Without equivalent counter-sources, there is no reason to give anything but scepticism any text on the page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

100% agreed with claims making - but the same applies when making claims as to lack of value. Almost the entirety of medicine is based initially on anecdotal evidence, which then leads to investigation and trials - sometimes, before being put into the mainstream position. Meta analyses frequently occur as a result of questionnaires, based basically on anecdotal evidence which is amalgamated into a paper, I am sure you are aware of that. It would appear that you don't appreciate the difference between enemas and colon hydrotherapy - your opinion here is irrelevant - base it upon fact ... please. A big mac and a banana both constitute 'food' but they are hardly the same thing, and I think the mainstream consensus would probably agree - a trite example, but I am sure you get my point. Many of the sources do not meet WP:RS criteria from what I can see, but are being used anyhow to support the creation of POV, certainly not an NPOV. Weasel wording is used abundantly to create a 'mainstream' view in the article. As for colon cleansing being bunk, well that is a big contention which is far from being validated by science - though the autotoxemia model is thankfully put to rest - for the time being anyhow. Don't take it personally WLU, none of these are personal attacks - just questioning where and why this article continues to not represent NPOV, nor 'consensus'. I have provided a fair number of sources on the talk page which certainly question the skepticism perspective, some of which are justifiably dismissed (I wasn't suggesting for one minute that they all be included), but all of which should raise a few eyebrows with regards to the modality and its dismissal - which has, after all, had a colossal public following and perceived impact on the wellbeing of people out there - albeit anecdotally. Whether it has impacted their physical health is not for me, nor anyone, to judge until formal research can be done. So many statements in previous and current edits could be considered negative synthesis - I have been trying to clarify that whilst maintaining a neutral position in my edits. I am not putting my personal views into this article.--Antoniolus (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies WLU, this is all starting to get a little ridiculous, and probably over heated. It appears that you are the principal editor in this article - would you be interested in sandboxing a revision that we can start finding consensus on, and that may agreeable to all - at least in the interim? I have neither the time, nor the desire in getting into an edit war here, which will probably result in either arbitration or deletion - neither of which I feel should be necessary. I only wish to see an article on the subject which is representative, and with a little scope for neutrality, if that is possible. I hope you feel the same way, but please advise - there is common ground here and plenty of scope for satisfactory compromise, even if our avenues of expression may differ somewhat. --Antoniolus (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm reading a few things here that you need to read up on. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that an article about fringe ideas have to be written with both the pros and cons unless there are WP:RS to that end. We write articles by following the sources. Anecdotal sources aren't allowed as you have been told and seem to understand. You also seem to be using Weasel words out of context so please reread it if you read it already. Maybe you can do a Google scholar search and see if there is anything out there that might be acceptable. Since you are the one who wants these positives in you need to find sources that are again reliable. If you can find reliable sources, for instance about the equipment used for the procedure then show the sources. If I remember correctly you said the FDA regulates then show the sources from there on the talk page. This goes for all of the different ideas you have that you want into the article. So far I haven't seen any reliable sources presented by you, sorry. As for consenses, well I have spoken up as has Mastcell along with WLU, that's all I can remember off the top of my head at the moment. To use WP:Consensus, you need to provide the info you want in then get a consenses if it is refuted, which right now your attempts have been. Don't do an edit war to get your points in as this would not be a good way to do things. Use the talk page and if others disagree with you on one thing then find another, then another if needed. This is how we write in collabortive manner here. Be patient, with fringe ideas you will need very strong sources to be accepted. I hope I am making sense here, I just woke up recently and don't even have a cup of coffee in yet! :) I'll also give you an excellent suggestion given to me when I was a new editor and that is to go to a page or two that isn't contensious and work on them to learn the policies and editing procedures before jumping into an article that is going to be hard for you to edit because of a strong POV. The policies here can be hard to learn, then add in that people can think of something in a different way then you and it can be complicated moreso. So my suggestion is to find a simple article or two to work on so you can see and learn how to use and follow the policies easier, of course there is also the sandbox to practive in too. I hope this helps, this is what was told to me so I thought I would pass it along. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Note FTN posting. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I am taking a long wikibreak since next Tuesday. Before I leave do you need help in some of the articles I've now unwatched? (Oh yes: the SRA peer-review will be closed pretty soon. We still might ask for further comment before a bot closes it.) —Cesar Tort 20:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to know which you've unwatched before I could comment, but I think I'll be OK Drop me a line when you get back in case questions have accumulated in your absence (I may also simply use your talk page). I've never really driven any article to try to get featured status, and will probably work on SRA only sporadically when other pages aren't drawing my attention. But I'll try to notice if it comes up.

I hope it's either a vacation, or something equally fun. If not, lie to me so I can continue to believe in a just universe. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Rationalwiki

Hello. Why would you delete rationalwiki from the list?--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

You have weighed in in the past on the Fathers' rights movement page, and I wonder if I could tempt you to do so again. We are sorely in need of some other voices and opinions on the talkpage page, and your comments on some of the outstanding issues would be gratefully received. Unfortunately it is a tedious read, but the two most active sections are this one [20] and this one [21]. --Slp1 (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I'd like to help but that's a page I know will require a considerable investment of time. I'll try to venture an opinion in a bit, if you're looking for extra input I'm certain you're already aware of WP:3O and WP:RFC, they might be better choices for soliciting outside input that would be better able to give the page the attention it requires. As is, even a cursory look suggests several issues - WP:MOS issues, and some phrasing that reads like an WP:NPOV problem. I'll try reading the talk page and seeing if I've got an opinion. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I know it is a lot to ask. I've tried WP:3O, WP:NORN, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN for specific issues (as you will see from the talkpage) which has proved of some help, though there hasn't always been a response to my queries. In my view the problems are not clearly defined enough for an article WP:RFC, and in fact it will likely be obvious that my view is that the real problem is an editor who hasn't truly understood or integrated WP policies about article editing. I think another voice, even just in the discussions already taking place, would be a great help. --Slp1 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I usually have two settings - bull in a china shop, and scorched earth. Mostly because I tend to reduce spam-stuffed articles to stubs. This one seems quite the mess, I think my approach will be what I've done (general fixes) followed by a careful review of the sources. Already the citations seem problematic - it's a very odd mixture of quality, some scholarly volumes and lots of advocacy websites. Given the existence of the scholarly works, I'm very tempted to simply remove much of the non-scholarly stuff. But we'll see. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to term it a "breath of fresh air" rather than alluding to smelly bulls and and stinky burnt earth! Your approach wasn't what I was thinking of initially, but I am very open to any way out of the circular conversations and this is very helpful. I totally agree about the sourcing: the original approach (Jan-Sept. 2007) on the article was that advocacy websites for and against were fine. Then I went to the library; but when I tried to include information from scholarly texts I was much resisted: so much so that I gave up for 10 months or so. There's lots of academic resources and significant articles about the movement from mainstream newspapers/magazines out there to be used (and I have loads bookmarked on googlebooks and downloaded from Factiva as I type this), but it has proved a challenge to have any of this information accepted. Some of the information currently sourced to advocacy websites probably be easily sourced to scholarly sources and mainstream newspapers etc. Would you like me to try to do this before you engage in any vigorous broom-like activity?--Slp1 (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My third approach is "acetone on styrofoam", but most people don't get that one. Advocacy sites are OK, but for very limited purposes and should not be used to contradict scholarly works. This seems rather self-evident, like, WP:ANI self-evident. If you have an electronic list of text, I would appreciate a copy. My caveat is that I'm trying for life-wiki balance, and it's not working out so great these days (wiki tends to win hands-down), so I'll do what I can but I can't promise daily and consistent edits. I will start reading through the article itself and the attached references to see what I feel about the text they justify. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly get it! Here are some of the more useful books/articles I have found on google books.[22]; [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. There's a lot and many more than these too! --Slp1 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sklogwiki

Dear WLU, your addition of a proposed deletion template to the page Sklogwiki has been noted. All the best --Spud Gun (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear WLU, I have now added a short discussion on why I think the page Sklogwiki should not be deleted. --Spud Gun (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Derivative work

Hi. I reverted your revert in Derivative work. Please be more selective in reverting, what you did looks like WP:BITE. Knowledgable contributors should be handled with care, especially when they start contributing. Please could you take the time to explain to the contributor on his/her talk page, User talk:66.208.26.115, how the contributions could be improved. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Here's my reasoning on my [revert, which is certainly in part motivated by my own ignorance:

1. There's very few sources, and those that are used are inserted as examples (i.e. <ref>See...)
2. It's more text into the already very long United States section
3. "The statutory definition, however, is incomplete and the concept must be understood with reference to explanatory case law." - WP:NOR; who says it is incomplete? There is no attribution or verification
4. "Thus in the celebrated Second Circuit decision" is an WP:NPOV problem by my reading. This section also discusses a very specific case that is held up as an example. It also has a direct quote without an attached reference, and it's unclear what analysis is from Judge Easterbrook and what is from the editor/wikipedia
5. "A crucial factor in current legal analysis of derivative works is transformativeness."; again NPOV
6. "For example, in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation... in fact an image search engine would likely be infeasible without the use of thumbnails as an indexing device", another example held up like analysis.
7. " In polar cases, the economic harm to the copyright proprietor is small and the benefit to the public from the new use is substantial, or the benefit is negligible but the impairment of the copyright proprietor’s economic interest is great. Such cases are easily decided. But cases that fall in the middle of the spectrum — where both benefit to public and economic harm to copyright proprietor are substantial — are far more difficult, and courts have not yet opined about this pattern. " - again, NPOV and OR concerns.
8. "These few, seemingly insubstantial additions were highly transformative because they incensed contemporary French bourgeoisie, by mocking their cult of “Jocondisme,” at that time said to be “practically a secular religion of the French bourgeoisie and an important part of their self image.”" - source? Quotes? The ultimate source seems to be a web page, so how reliable is it? Where is the oversight?
9. "Trivia books, based on TV shows, such as ‘’Seinfeld’’, are considered derivative works.<ref>See [[Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group]].</ref>" - a reference that goes to another wikipedia page? Ouch.
10. "whose interest should prevail? That of Amazon in the integrity of its Web site. Or the public’s in buying cheap books, championed by Half.com?" Normally the socratic method isn't something you see on wikipedia.
11. "This point is discussed in Computer Law teaching materials for a Washington DC law school.<ref>See [http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/ch6c3.htm].</ref>" - seems quite self/other-promotional.

I'll admit that it's obviously not clear-cut, and my total lack of familiarity with copyright law hampered me, and I'm not going to re-revert (I'll assume you've reviewed and approved of the contributions). I'll also be leaving a note on the anon's page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)