User talk:hmwith/August09

Hello. I was still thinking that the name change from 2009 swine flu outbreak to 2009 flu pandemic could have been given more time to show that there was disagreement in regards to dropping swine, as the talk page showed shortly thereafter. =\ Thanks. -Pecoc (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Pococ. Are you discussing the changing "outbreak" to "pandemic" or the "swine flu" to "flu"? hmwith τ 01:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably remember the move included both but I'm saying "swine flu" to "flu". Thanks. -Pecoc (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the move included both was why I was unsure of which you were discussing. We can always open up discussion on the talk page. That would be fine with me. It's been given plenty of time. We can gauge where consensus stands at this point. hmwith t 00:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

Hi there Hmwith! I think you made a typo here; I think you meant to say "You can make it clear on your userpage that..." Normally I wouldn't correct typos like that, but it might be confusing to them as it is now. Anyway, thanks for all your help on RFC/N; I've even learned from your activity there what are some good practices. -kotra (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was certainly confusing. I thank you for pointing our that error. I corrected it. Cheers, hmwith τ 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch

Thank you for noticing this. I found a few more similar errors, where people had placed categorization in an unexpected. Cheers, –xeno^talk 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just gnoming around. :) hmwith τ 08:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assisting with my signature!

Much appreciated!----Occono (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It took much trial and error for me to get any of my first ideas to work. I'm glad you found something that you like and got it working fine. hmwith t 01:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low arousal theory

I note that you started or were an early contributor to the article Low arousal theory. FYI: It's been suggested on the article's talk page that it should be deleted as not notable. Cheers, - Hordaland (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I revamped the article (adding more references and content). I responded to concerns on the talk page. hmwith t 02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you added ==Music and performance==? Why? - Hordaland (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That information was already in the article. However, it wasn't intro information, and it was a separate topic for a new section. There's no need for a whole page to just be a long intro, especially if not all of it is just a summary of the topic. hmwith t 13:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sig

I definitely ganked the style. Hope you don't mind! ⟳ausa کui × 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the GFDL is for. :) hmwith t 01:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, hmwith! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 6, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, Midnight Comet! hmwith t 01:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian of the Week

Congratulations, Hmwith! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Week" award for this week! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the top award, "Wikipedian of the Month" for this month!

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, hmwith t 16:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd-WMC case

Hi there. You are listed as active at the clerks page. Would you be able to have a look here? I'm looking for one of the currently active clerks to look after the case for a few days until Hersfold is back? If one of the five clerks listed as active could volunteer, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can take it. I responded there, and I left a message on your talk page asking to be filled in. hmwith t 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hmwith. Thanks for volunteering to cover on this case while Hersfold is away. Apologies for not being more explicit about what was needed, but what happened was that Hersfold has been away since 2nd August (see his e-mail to clerks-l) and is due back on 11th August. While he was away, a series of events (the precise details are now part of the case) led to one of the parties (William M. Connolley) blocking the other party (Abd). It was during the fall-out from that, that we realised we needed a clerk around to help handle things like that. As for how Hersfold was managing the evidence pages, it would be best to check the case evidence talk page, as from what I can remember several arbitrators said it was OK for those presenting evidence to use subpages, as long as the summary could stand on its own. Some arbitrators will read the whole lot, some may only read what is on the main evidence page. See what Ryan P, and several arbitrators, said here. In any case, the case is close to being concluded now (the proposed decision should be up in a few days to week), so I think leaving the evidence page as it is may be best now (some arbs will have already read the page, so changes at this late stage may end up with different arbs reading different things). Apologies for not making things clearer there. What would be good is if you and Hersfold could work together on this case when he gets back, and deal with the later stages of the case, such as updating the clerk notes, and generally keeping an eye out for things (MBisanz had to revert an IP edit recently, for example). Thanks, and please ask if any of this isn't clear. Carcharoth (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Carcharoth. As a clerk trainee, I've never actually had my own case. The one where I was supposed to learn, my mentor had to become inactive right at the beginning. I still have a lot of learning to do. For this reason, I asked MBisanz for some tips/help (and I think that's why he was also keeping an eye on the page). He let me know about the evidence length and that they were too long. I don't think that either of us had seen that discussion allowing it. I apologize for missing that. I'll make sure that everything's taken care of as far as making sure the editors know that their evidence is okay. hmwith t 20:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notices, and I think that everything is worked out. It looks like I don't have to do as much as I even thought I did. Let me know if there are any further issues, and I'll keep and eye on the pages in the meantime. Thanks for the clarification and explanation of the case. hmwith t 20:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence length

I moved some of my evidence to subpages in my userspace. Can you make a word count again to see if I went under 1000 words? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having the content somewhere else is still the same issue. No matter where it's actually located, it's still the evidence presented by you, and it's still too much content. It's hard to get it short enough, I understand, but you just have to summarize and include the most important details. You can get it under 1000 words and 100 diffs. As it says at the top of the page, "A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point." hmwith t 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per C this may be a bit late, but I noticed your Having the content somewhere else is still the same issue. Thanks for trying to impose these limits, this action is sorely needed. Since (IMHO) the totality of the case pages is unmanageably and unreadably large, I'd like you opinions. What is the difference between the "main evidence", which is limited to 1000 words, and all the rest (supplied by subpages or linked diffs or whatever). Is there some implication that arbcomm is obliged to read the main evidence, but may at will ignore the linked diffs? Again, Abd has mind-boggling volumes of "responses to other evidence" linked as subpages, all apparently still in draft form although the case (so C says) is near completion. Are those pages covered by the 1000 word limit? If not, is it expected that arbcomm will read them? Is this process of subpages, or links to diffs, covered in any way by policy? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence#warnings_and_advices_went_beyond_what_I_can_present_in_the_evidence_page_due_to_length_problems, where there are arbs commenting. It seems that, just for this case, they are going to allow that we use subpages in this way. Whether they will read or not is a different question. To Carcharot's comment I'll add that I linked some of those subpages to support and comment several proposals, so it's a bit too late to remove them. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was a little confused about this. Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@WMC. And, yeah, Abd is bringing the concept a bit too far with free-writing of his ideas instead of analyzing evidence concisely. There is no way that he can finish all those drafts in time. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1000 word/100 diff limit is noted at the top of evidence pages (link), but, as Enric Naval noted, they're stretching the limit a tad for this case. Let me know if you have further questions. hmwith t 20:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@H: thanks for the diff - now you point it out, I'd read it before (but of course there is so much cruft in this case that I can't find anything...). So if I read Ryan rightly, (a) yes there is a 1,000 limit but (b) anyone who likes is free to break it merely by constructing subpages and (c) all the arbs will read all the evidence. The a-b combination is madness; c is not believable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Carcharoth above: "Some arbitrators will read the whole lot, some may only read what is on the main evidence page". hmwith t 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can I restore my 1,300 word evidence directly to the evidence page now without the elaborate links to 12 subpages? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the evidence length is no longer an issue, so feel free to do so. I was going to do it for you, but I didn't want to step on any toes. I apologize for the inconvenience. hmwith t 21:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop talk page

Could you look at here, I'm not sure if this enter inside the functions of clerks, or if this should be handled by an arb due to being related to the case, or if any uninvolved admin will do. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Enric Naval. Right now, I need to further look into the case and try to get caught up. Perhaps someone more informed in the history of the situation would be of better help. I can get back to you though. Thanks, hmwith t 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess that someone will see the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the talk page. hmwith t 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic post

While on this topic: I've just discovered this was off-topic here, obviously I'm way too tired.... comment by Abd in the middle of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop#Wikitrout_3_-_William_M._Connolley_strongly_reminded. I've no idea what lies behind the collapse-box - I dare not look - but is it too much to expect that cruft that even the editor producing it knows full well is cruft be removed from this already over-long page? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I don't see the issue. Maybe I misunderstand your request. Could you further explain? hmwith t 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sory, though it was obvious. The words this was off-topic here suggested to me that the text was probably off topic (though I haven't actually read it, so can't be sure). Shouldn't text that is off topic be removed? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found what you were discussing (link). There's a lot of text. Let me get back to you, hmwith t 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although he says it's off-topic, it's not really. It's fine to stay there. hmwith t 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final death-knell (were one needed) for any kind of limit to cruft on the pages. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed it with an arb, and we came to that decision. I wouldn't worry too much about the effect that it will have on cruft being added to the pages, however. hmwith t 17:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Hafada piercing; Anal jewelry; Victory Field; Labia piercing; Myeloproliferative disease; Guiche; Grove (nature); Human Dartboard; Self-deprecation; Frenum ladder; ArthurFest; Modern primitive; Scalpelling; Research library; Lame; Glans; Reticuloendothelial system; Madison; Industrial piercing

Cleanup: Liar's dice; Dogmatic definition; Plastic surgery
Merge: Frenum piercing; Binge eating disorder; Nipple
Add Sources: Barbell (piercing); Teen Vogue; Shotgunning
Wikify: Rhinoplasty; Martin Frankel; Boston (band)
Expand: Platanaceae; Hamamelidaceae; Tom Scholz

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Cannabis page

Would you be happy to take a look at the recent edits on the Medical Cannabis page? It seems to be under an attack. Thank you kindly. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I protected the page and commented at Talk:Medical cannabis#Problem with Recent Edits. Let me know if you have any further concerns. hmwith t 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. It has been unprotected and one editor as fast and furiously at it again. It is impossible for me to keep up with the edits and from what I have seen, they are not NPOV. the other editor has admitted to being NPOV as he is a scientist working on Marinol. Here is my attempt at solving the conflict, I've asked for some input form an Admin, perhaps you have time? 72.213.23.110 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is taking place again, with editors disregarding discussion page. Using abstracts as refs, removing my work. Please lock the page. This dispute was never resolved before the page was unlocked. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, obviously IP 72.213.23.110 thinks that myself and Chris are sockpuppets or are following some hiden agenda (I believe we are not even living on the same continent). Can you help us to deal with the situation? Thanks. -- Alfie^±Talk 14:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through the talk page and article's history, and I'll try to help with the dispute. hmwith t 17:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently an edit war taking place. Regardless of who is in the right or wrong, the involved editors will be blocked if they continue to revert each others' edits multiple times a day. I've warned 72.213.23.110 and Chris of this. hmwith t 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm going on vacation here soon, but my edits were almost entirely cleaning up references. reformatting using citation templates and replacing press-releases and other self-published sources with citations of the journal articles they were about. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 18:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter exactly what you're doing. Unless it's reverting obvious vandalism, it's an edit war. You need to seek dispute resolution rather than engage in an edit war. hmwith t 18:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't see why a debate began over references in the first place. 72.213.23.110, why are you not a fan of these references? hmwith t 18:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the following posts length, but somethings needed to be said.

People die everyday who could benefit from having real information and data on medical cannabis. I think of the people suffering from AID's, Cancer, and pain who can't access anything but misinformation on the subject. If this article is allowed to be pushed around by people who don't care for Wikipedia's content dispute policy, people will DIE!

This is not just about data, this is about saving people's lives. Information is power, and misinformation is just as powerful.

I apologize for my ridiculous username, and I have considered changing it so people take me seriously. Being a snob about cannabis is nothing to be laughed at. I doubt I would see the same type of treatment I get on Wikipedia if my username was The Wine Snob. I can deal with discrimination, but I do not appreciate not even being included in the discussion because of a name. Unlike alcohol, cannabis does not destroy brain cells besides what happens by inhaling smoke. How dare they treat me like I am not sophisticated, I guarantee I know my medication well, and know what I like, and I see nothing stupid about that. The people I know who use Alcohol are some of the dumbest people I know, yet they put me down because of an herb I use for medication. Unbelievable!

Medical Cannabis refers to the plant matter not the pharmaceutical drugs. While I think some of the main active ingredients in Cannabis should be mentioned in this article, there must be a distinction between studies conducted on the plant's effect on people, and the compounds effects.

Can anyone let me know a place Marijuana is prescribed by doctors in plant form? I think it doesn't exist, yet it is in the first paragraph, highlighting the confusion created by combining the compounds with the plant matter. Can anyone explain how this doesn't confuse the issue?

Most of the studies on the compounds effects should be removed, as they do not pertain to the medical cannabis in plant form. The lack of studies on the plants effects on patients is a tragedy, but that is the price we pay when we stop science from studying topics because of laws.

The whole reason states in the USA are passing "medical marijuana laws" is because the pharmaceutical compounds legally available do not work as well as the plant matter. Having a focus on anything but the plant does a disservice to the community, because it is most likely a symbiosis of multiple compounds found in the plant creating the relief, and not patented compounds the pharmacies can replicate.

I apologize for this long post, but does anyone understand my points?

Thanks for reading, --The Pot Snob (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TPS (I hope that you don't mind me calling you that, but it's easy), I have had cannabis pages watchlisted long enough to know that you are a big contributor, and I have respect for you. I am not knowledgeable enough in the scientific background of the situation to weigh in on the matter, but I can try to supervise a discussion. I suggest asking for a totally neutral third opinion or a request for comment on the matter. What do you think? hmwith t 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I apologize for the long response, but this is very important to the future of Wikipedia:

I have been watching this article since 2007, and have tried to give my input on improving it. Because I obviously have a POV on the issue, I have not made any real edits myself. I do hope my contributions in the discussion have helped shape the article to fit more with reality.

I appreciate the supervision of this discussion, as it would seem that those editing this article are particularly mean to me and 72. In my opinion it would not take much money for someone to be paid to constantly go in changing this article, as there is so much money being made in both the pharmaceutical industry and the drug war.

Finding an individual without a point of view on the medical cannabis issue seems like it will be hard to find. Whoever claims to not have a POV on this issue should be screened by both sides, so that we can really see if they have no POV.

An investigation led by the Palo Alto research center here in Silicon Valley just stated that they conclude Wikipedia is turning into a government like organization where people who make less edits, are more likely to have their content reversed. It is obvious, this has just happened to 72. Chris came in and made hundreds of edits in a short time, and completely vandalized the article, but because of the number of edits, none have been reversed. I find this disturbing. Here is the link to the Cnet article on the subject: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10309840-71.html?tag=mncol.

How does an editor like myself or 72 compete against someone who is obviously paid to edit on Wikipedia all day long? Don't you think the first result in search engines for medical marijuana would be something you would want to control if you were making money off of it being illegal?

In my opinion, the edits being done on this article are being done by politically and economically motivated people.

All we want for his article is an objective review of the medical benefits of the use of marijuana as an alternative medical therapy. Medical and Legal status in various countries should be included but should not be the focal point of the article.

As you realize, the topic of marijuana, and in particular medical marijuana is a very high profile subject. I believe that it is extremely important to maintain the objectivity of this article to maintain the credibility of Wikipedia as an objective resource on the Web. Any exposed wrong doing in this article will quickly become world headlines and a media issue, and could in turn do underlying damage to reputation of Wikipedia. If it was found that those editing this article were found to have been part of an organized political or economic campaign to manipulate the information being delivered to the general public, the reputation of Wikipedia as a resource on the Web would come into question.

I would really appreciate you becoming a supervisor of this article, thank you very much for reading.

--The Pot Snob (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns. I'll ask a few other admins to help out as well in order to make sure that things remain NPOV. hmwith t 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72.213.23.110 has been complaining about me. so if you think i'm being paid by big pharma, look through my contributions. i'm editing all kinds of different pages, not just stuff related to pharmaceuticals and definitely not just stuff about marijuana. i may have reverted 72's revert and violated the edit war rules, but i haven't been changing any pov stuff. honestly, 72's a newbie and it shows. he came into the article complaining about legitimate edits as if he owned the article on his second day. 72 is the one that has only edited one article and clearly has an agenda, not me. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were involved with any of those things. There's a conflict here, and my talk page isn't the best place to sort it out. I continue to believe that all parties should go through dispute resolution to clear it up. hmwith t 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Hmwith, I don't see any conflict here except for bad behavior and false allegations made by The Pot Snob and 72 against good faith editors. Dispute resolution isn't needed here. What is needed is for The Pot Snob and 72 to stop making personal attacks. Just above this comment, we have an example of this nonsense, with The Pot Snob saying, "How does an editor like myself or 72 compete against someone who is obviously paid to edit on Wikipedia all day long?" These types of comments are simply out of line and The Pot Snob and 72 need to stop their obstructionism immediately. Alfie and Chris Capoccia have done nothing but improve Wikipedia, while The Pot Snob and 72 are nothing but SPA's who have a history of POV pushing. Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've spent a few more hours and searched a bit further through the hundreds of ref changes Chris made, and have posted them on the bottom here. I have again requested a reversion to before the changes so that we as a group can discuss ref changes. There are too many for any one person to go through, but I feel there is sufficient reason for some oversight to these changes. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, I have no more power over the page than any other editor. Check out WP:DR for the best way to handle it if no one can reach consensus on the talk page. hmwith t 00:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody, just discovered by chance that The Pot Snob opened a new frontline here. Slowly I'm fed up with conspiracy theories and false assertions. My homewiki is WP:DE and regularily if I check an article there, I have a look at WP:EN also. In June 2009 the FDA redesigned their website, and I found out that almost all links are broken. I opened a thread at WP:MED. In the following we found out, that more than 2000 links are broken and are slowly working on corrections. The progress report is here. Going through the broken links I found the article Medical cannabis (which I did not know before). I have written just a few articles myself, but I'm used to correct typos, references, and mistakes. So that's my first edit (natural, I'm coming from Austria). Since I'm working in this field I thought 250 indications are quite a lot, and posted at the talk page — which released the avalanche. Fuck, I'm not paid big Big Pharma to ruin the article, but I'm a self-employed consultant. Three clicks from my User page you would have found even my scientific CV. I consider it a little bit weired that you watched the article since 2007 and never edited yourself. Have a look at WP:5P, especially WP:OWNER, but also WP:BEBOLD. You said you have a POV, fine, but in such a case keep away also from the talk page. Or do you see yourself as a special kinde of Éminence grise? At the German Wikipedia there are a lot of nitpickers around fighting over a single word sometimes — but today I've read the entire talk page and must confess that I have never seen anything like this before. So please initiate a dispute resolution as soon as possible — right now your attitudes are driving potential editors away. At least I'm halfway out of the door already. Then you can have your baby back. —Alfie^±Talk 01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the objection was to all of your reference updating. When I look through, I can't see any issues, but I trust that 72 and TPS have well-meaning concerns. If I can figure out what those concerns are exactly, I can evaluate the edits. I want a NPOV article, and it seems that everyone commenting here does. It only has become an issue, because different people have different ideas of what is NPOV. hmwith t 05:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objective: WP:MEDRS (browse through July's version). —Alfie^±Talk 10:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This version? For what am I looking: fixing of FDA refs? hmwith t 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion caused (language is a virus): I ment that the July version of the Medical cannabis article contained a lot of references which I considered not to be in conformity with WP:MEDRS. That was the my objective for a suggested clean-up. —Alfie^±Talk 16:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's seem noncontroversial enough on the surface. Can you think of reasons that editors wouldn't agree with what you were doing? hmwith t 16:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First: I forgot to answer your question about FDA-links. That's how I discovered the article (just to show that I don't have a hidden agenda). The link is currently ref.#109 (the second indication of Marinol from 1992). I found it on MastCells's broken link-page. Actually I didn't fix it back then, because the reference is only available at the webarchive (and I wasn't in the mood for search). I fixed it yesterday, and posted today a small tutorial at User:MastCell/FDA_links#BBS. Second: No; I'm really open-minded, but I don't see reasons. Only suspicions and the like. Actually there are two editors against (TBS and IP-72) and three pro (Chris, Viriditas, and me). BTW, it's strange to me that TPS never edited the article him/herself. Even when he/she comes up with a suggestion at the talk page, and I told him, yes, go for it, he/she didn't. He/she only start lengthy essays how important it is that the article essentially remains untouched. —Alfie^±Talk 16:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense enough, but why are some seeing reference-replacing a harming the article? hmwith t 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. ;-) —Alfie^±Talk 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to answer whether it is a conflict of interest to have a Marinol scientist editing this page? What are the Wikipedia guidelines for this? 72.213.23.110 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't necessarily have a COI. It depends if his primary concern is building an NPOV encyclopedia or promoting the product. If you have concerns, 72, you can make a post at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. hmwith t 00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie66 has clearly said, "I haven't seen a single capsule of Marinol in my entire life." Why are the personal attacks allowed to continue? Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marinol needs to have its own page separate from medical cannabis. This article needs to maintain a plant focus. The edits being done in regards to studies on marinol have no place here. Obviously the article has become very confusing for someone trying to learn about the plant matter in smoked or edible form as an alternative therapy. This is why there is disagreement on the edits, and the very foundation of this article.

The article is to large, and needs to be more to the point. "as well as synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other cannabinoids." removed from the first sentence would alter the meaning of the article enough to shorten it to acceptable levels. Any one agree? --The Pot Snob (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is too large, but the pharmaceutical extracts have nothing to do with the length problem. I've addressed this issue on the talk page several times, and you have only agreed to split out the material you don't like rather than adhering to WP:SUMMARY across the board. The fact is, the current problems with article length have nothing to do with Marinol or Sativex, but with the recent studies, history, and national availabilities, all of which require splitting/summary style. Strangely, you have not addressed my requests in regard to these sections, even though I have been been repeatedly making them for some time now. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're now getting into a constructive discussion about the article itself. This is good. Let's move it to Talk:Medical cannabis. hmwith t 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How were you involved with the Abd/WMC arbitration?

I'm not quite clear on your statement at the case's /Workshop, where you state that you "took too much initiative with the case, and it was not well-received". I don't understand quite what you mean there. I can only find one edit to the talk page of the /Workshop ([1]) and a small number of formatting-related cleanup edits to the /Workshop itself. What initiative did you take, and where was it not well received? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom asked me to sub for Hersfold while he was gone (as a clerk). I did so. I asked another clerk for advice (MBisanz) and he noted that the evidences of several users were too long. I noted that was so on the evidence page, asking users to shorten their sections. You can read more about the discussion that ensued at User talk:Hmwith/August09#Abd-WMC case. Cheers, hmwith t 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold returned shortly thereafter, so I didn't get to deal with the workshop page much. hmwith t 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Konop

I don't understand? What part of my edits are poorly sourced or otherwise breaking Wikipedia standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.39.190 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and other self-published sources cannot be used as references (see WP:SPS). hmwith t 15:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the blog cited contained video of an event, I figured that was an acceptable source, if not I can cite it to the toledo blade's story on the video. The other cited content can also be cited to blade articles however those articles site those blogs/videos anyway so I figured it was better to cite the original source and not a second hand account. Also, the current version contains POV issues that have been discussed earlier on the page and in edit comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.39.190 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information can be reevaluated and added if it has a reliable source. Feel free to look for them hmwith t 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though I already have, and did. Could you please reevaluate the edit I made, I understand that the second paragraph contains citations that maybe unacceptable, but the other parts seem to be not only more neutral than the current version but contain better citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.39.190 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the most recent version of the article that you had edited (here), I see a few unreliable sources: TMZ, Gawker, and Blogspot (all blogs/self-published sources). hmwith t 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said "I understand that the second paragraph contains citations that maybe unacceptable" but the rest of the edit seems to be more suitable than whats currently on the page, or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.39.190 (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can reword things and add any information sourced by the Blade or similar news outlets to the article. I simply went in and removed unsourced information. Feel free make any good faith edits to the page along those lines, and I'll check them out. hmwith t 16:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can't make the edits at this time. Another administrator has now protected the article for 3 months. hmwith t 16:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting new pages

Thanks for your advice at the Village Pump. Perhaps it was the wrong place to go, so I'll come here instead. Maybe I didn't ask the question correctly. I have never actually started a new wikipedia article, but I have seen other editors doing it and it seems that it is just a case of knowing what buttons to press on the computer. I don't actually need any help as such with the contents or organization. All I need is a summary article entitled 'The Currencies of the British Empire'. The idea would be to have a structured system of summary sections with links going out to the more detailed articles, many of which have already been written. It is more of an indexing project that I had in mind, because sometimes there are regional issues which can't properly be expressed in individual articles. Such a summary article would be of use to numismatists, philatelists, and historians. It would only be of minor interest to modern economists and financiers.

I'm sure that there is a way of simply starting a new page, but I just don't know what buttons to press on the computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tombe (talk • contribs)

Oh, I see. Let me break this down:

Click this red link: Currencies of the British Empire (you can also bring up the page by searching for the title).
The search page will say, "You may create the page "Currencies of the British Empire", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered." Click again on the red article name.
Then, edit away!

Let me know if you have any further questions at all. Good luck! hmwith t 16:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot. I think I've got the idea. I'll try and get it going later with an appropriate introduction. David Tombe (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you can't put out the finished article at once, I'd suggest starting it in your userspace (perhaps at User:David Tombe/Currencies of the British Empire). That way, you can work on it at your own leisure and put it out into the mainspace when it's finished. hmwith t 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/Incidents#AllStarEcho restricted

As you participated at the above discussion, this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the heads up. I commented there. hmwith t 14:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Hi, I was wondering if you could provide me with a copy of a deleted article I created a while ago? it would be most appreciated.. South Bay (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, what's the name of the article? hmwith t 14:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was something close to L.A insurance, but not exactly sure.. South Bay (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the article to your userspace for you to work on: User:South Bay/L.A Insurance. hmwith t 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]