User talk:ImperfectlyInformed/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:ImperfectlyInformed. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I undid your revisions on scar

Hello ImperfectlyInformed

I undid your revisions on scar but I reedited to take in your concerns.

I notified that bee venom therapy is alternative (it has evidence presented) & that the Moss and Clifford claim was a patent, and this work was not peer reviewed. This makes the facts even more valid and fair game. The cites are not making any claim that claim anything other than what the facts present.

The cites present the fact that the bee venom has the label alternative, and the scar free healing is not peer reviewed and is a patent, there is no twisting, no bias towards the alternative, no bias towards the patent and no bias towards the what me or you or anyone regard as orthodox. This is interesting encyclopedic knowledge that a reader should read to get a critical and thorough view regarding the topic scar. The reader can now see the and inform himself that the Bee venom is alternative, that the Moss & Clifford work was a patent that was not peer reviewed. Just like he can inform himself with other things in the article.

I respect your view, but as far as I know Wikipedia, is a freely usable public encyclopedia that does not appeal to a subjective authority in what is cited (you mentioned peer reviewed on the Moss and Clifford cite, therefore you took it down). As far as I know Wikipedia is a public resource that does not show bias to any anything you, I or anyone regards as authority as long as the facts are completely valid, not twisted that can be attributed to the article in matter.

There are no facts twisted here, and the reedits to my view are wrote with nothing missleading, no bias, no favor and no malice to anyone. Do you agree? And do you agree they are valid?

--->>>> I probably should have noted you I was going to redit before I did, but it is done now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryvery20 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this to the scar talk page. We need to keep the article stuff on the article page for posterity. Thanks for the response though! II | (t - c) 20:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue IV)

Positively Economics

The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue IV (September 2010)

Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter.

From the editor

After a brief intermission over the Northern hemisphere summer season and the Southern hemisphere's mid-winter, Positively Economics is back. In recent weeks it has been my privilege to work on countering systemic bias with a couple of articles on the economic history of Uganda. Projects like these help, little by little, to open up new areas on knowledge to Western audiences. Indeed, with English in the ascendancy when it comes to second languages, many other audiences too.

Both of the new creations made the front page via the Did you know? section for newly-created or significantly expanded articles. I would encourage other editors, particularly those who like badges, to try to get more economics articles onto the front page through this and other sections. Those with a particularly competitive bent might also wish to consider signing up for the 2011 Wikicup (great for focussing the mind). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New bot

User:LivingBot has just been approved on Wikimedia Commons to compile and upload SVG graphs based on monthly time series of, for example, UK interest rates (illustrated). It will then revisit these on a monthly basis to update them with the latest information. If you would like to bot to create and update a graph for you, get in touch with its operator.

Articles of note

New featured articles:

None

New featured lists:

None

New featured topics:

None

New good articles:

Jevons paradox

Redlinks to be squashed

Skysmith has posted an updated list of missing economics topics. Most will need redirecting or new articles written to blueify them, so, if you can lend a hand with the effort, please do. There are some from virtually all areas of economics and hence to suit all tastes.

Project news

Unassessed articles:
A whole swath of articles have been added to the WikiProject recently, mainly on notable economists. They are yet to be assessed on their talk pages; this also provides a good opportunity to check and improve some of our least monitored articles.
Unsourced BLPs:
Before the articles about economists were added, the project had very few unsourced biographies of living people; now there are a little over a hundred. If we can clear them, however, then it is unlikely that there will be many more. Again, they represent some of our least cared-for articles, and often present good targets for cleaning up.
Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions and requests for help:
- Vanderford-Riley well-being schedule
- New Economic Indicator for Infoboxes
- Beth Hayes

To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PZ Meyers-blog

Hi. please visit the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons-page. I am busy with a discussion on the use of scienceblogs on living persons. Because I saw you were interested in the subject, please join in! Jeff5102 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for "Succinct yet descriptive list of issues and suggestions" on Pending Changes

Thanks for making the Succinct yet descriptive list of issues and suggestions on Pending Changes...great way of breaking it down. The next iteration of mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/v2 Features will probably incorporate some version of this. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It is sort of a precursor to the working summary, and I'm not sure if there's anything in that's not in the summary, but I'm glad it maybe helped you a bit in your worklist. That feedback page was pretty full of rambling comments and I was hoping people could slow down. I wasn't always specific - the highlighting issue was that the "accepted" edits were taller than the regular edits in the history section, which was quite ugly.

I'd like to maybe have a discussion with you about Wikipedia features. As you might notice from my userpage ideas, I think tagging edits is necessary and we need move more into Web 2.0 in allowing people to socially tag diffs, officially sign off on diffs as verified, store diffs for future use under various categories (for example, user conduct diffs). I'm not really technically savvy. What do you think of the progress on Liquidthreads out of curiosity?II | (t - c) 19:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP and blogs

II, you recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Is_discussion_of_a_person.27s_work_.22material_about_a_living_person..22. Since you contributed to the thread a few days ago and may no longer be watching it, I thought I'd let you know that I've responded there. --JN 466 18:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on bug 25296

Hi II, could you take a look at Bugzilla:25296 and comment on it? This is a direct result of your "Ugly highlighting" comment in "Succinct yet descriptive list of issues and suggestions". Thanks! -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#About.com sources from Hyde Flippo

Hi ImperfectlyInformed. Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#About.com sources from Hyde Flippo? I want to know if two articles by Hyde Flippo at About.com pass FA 1(c). (I plan to use those sources in Have a nice day.) No one has commented at RSN after one day. Because you provided valuable insight at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com, I hope you can provide advice for these sources as well. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Refs in lead

As long as the content is in the body the lead does not need reffing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If this was a rule, it would be unusually rigid and bureaucratic for Wikipedia (see WP:BURO). Fortunately, the guideline that I cited (see WP:LEADCITE) says this: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads".

The reason that "no cites in the leads" is bad is this: imagine I am a researcher or a journalist. I notice a fact in the lead (say, 60% of people who commit suicide have another mood disorder). I then read the entire article trying to find the source (let's say I'm dumb and don't know CTRL-F, or it doesn't pick up anything for some reason), but am unable to find this fact again (let's imagine someone edited the body without fixing the lead). That reader is then left unable to find the (uncited) fact. The person has to either read through all the literature cited, or go to the talk page and burden our contributors (who, ~~5 years~~ a fair bit of time from the initial draft, quite likely don't know where to find the fact). They have to dig through the history. It is just a bad situation. It's also always an inconvenience - people always have to do more reading than they might want to.

The benefits are: some people think it looks nicer (I do not), and it allows vague generalities to be stated without a source. In return for that, we get frequent requests for sources from our readers, as we did today at major depressive disorder. Plus, we as contributors constantly have to police the lead and the body to see that the proper correspondence is maintained, and we likely make errors. II | (t - c) 03:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed a bit of rambling about meta-analyses - they're similar enough to reviews that it's not worth mentioning the difference.-II

Edits on Saturated fat and Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy

Hi, ImperfectlyInformed,

you've reverted my edits to the Saturated fat page. Could you please check that I've appropriately covered the deleted material on the Controversy page? If so, perhaps you would revert your own reversion?

Thanks,

Eastsidehastings (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the prompt comment! I responded on the talk page; better to keep topical discussions in talk pages for historical record. Hope I'm not coming off as too aggressive - I have a bad tendency to slip into an impolite tone. II | (t - c) 21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Clinical trial

Thanks for starting a reasonable criticism section to Clinical trial. I was thinking I should look for some notable sources of criticism to replace the poor section that I removed ... -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry for the terse tone - my temper on Wikipedia tends to be pretty bad. I know controversy sections are, of course, controversial on Wikipedia (some people think they can always be integrated into other sections), but I don't necessarily agree, so we'll see how it goes. There's a few other things to be discussed, most notably publication bias. II | (t - c) 00:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

TCM

(1)Thanks for comments @ TCM. Do you have suggestions for missing widely used medicinals that are not on the list? If you don't have time to research them, put it on my talk page and I will do so and put it in the article. The example you cited is an obscure plant in TCM useage. But it is an example of a producing a drug using Chinese integrative medicine that is now used in evidence based medicine. It is not used for malaria under TCM theory.
(2)Please read WP:FROG re natural neutraility swings during early development. Wikipedia is not finished and swings from POV to POV.
(3) Toxicity - Under TCM theory, being toxic is considered to make a medicine better, so the most commonly used are all toxic. E.g., under TCM, aconite is called "the King of Herbs", but i Europe it is is called "the Queen of Poisons". Similarly with other herbs. The same for insects used, typically they are ones that are poisonous (scrpion, spider, cenipede, etc.).
(3)Under TCM theory, excreta (phlegm, blood, urine, feces, etc.) are believed to have particularly "strong" healing properties, leading to a list that looks odd to outsiders.
(4) Animals with properties humans want, e.g., tiger's penis, are highly valued, because sympathetic magic plays such a large role. So sex organ related medicinals are highly valued.
(5) TCM may look bizarre to someone not used to it, but the same would be true if no one had ever seen surgery, sausage making, or cheese making (intentionally growing mold?) for someone not used to it. There is also a pretty bizzare theory that generates all this stuff. PPdd (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We will discuss this on the talk page so that it can remain clearly on the record. You may want to copy over your addition to your comment on that page. II | (t - c) 23:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I will merge it with what is already there. I already put most or all of it there.

I already wrote up an Artemisia section after your comment. I actually use Artemesia california for its "efficacy at olfactory stimulation". LOL, but really I do.

I also wanted to ask for your advice, since I saw you might have some medical knowledge. I wrote the anthroposophical medicine article. At first, there were complaints, but I ended up with both sides praising the editing[1], and the NPOV tag being taken off by an AM advocate[2]. The previously highly unstable article has not changes ever since. Similarly, at integrative medicine after my series of edits the tag was removed, but I have just started editing there.

But at TCM there are inherent problems I am encountering. I did doctoral work in math and in philosophy and first heard of TCM in an undergrad metaphysics class because of the "material substance" of a hanged man's soul. When I started editing the article, I first went to google news figuring that I would get the most popular medicinals, but it might be slanted towards sensationalism which I would later correct with more research for RS. On researching, I discovered the problem that toxicity, bodily fluids, and sex organs were the most prized properties, so even more sensationalism. Then after researching for a few months, I came to the conclusion that TCM doctors were just like pre-science western doctors who try to be bizarre in order to be occult and thus impressive, just like all the other quacks at the time worldwide. Since TCM is basically medicinals in popular use, which is kind of like "tea time", coffee, or other social functions in Europe. This daily use is a much larger use than the medical practice. Then it counts for 75% of the practice. Since the systemization is a bunch of hooey, like preLinnaeus taxonomy, what is left is essentially a list. The article will have to live with that. But given the nature of the practice, how to make it not look like an attack article? I wanted to ask at your talk page because I did not want to insult editors at that talk page in discussing this. If you think it is appropriate for there, you have my permission to copy this section over there with my signature intact, but I think some might find it insulting and get defensive, when that is not the intent at all. PPdd (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't help you with anthroposophical medicine - don't have interest in it and I can only focus on so many things at once (something you should consider). As far as your doctoral work in math and philosophy: can you provide evidence for this? If not, please don't mention them. It makes you sound like you have expertise, but there's no real evidence of expertise. I'm having a really hard time believing that you've done doctoral work based on your editing patterns. I studied math and philosophy as well, although not at the doctoral level, and so I know what to generally expect from people with those backgrounds. This segues to my next point: Google News? How does someone who has done doctoral research start with Google News? What about Google Books and Google Scholar? Have you read any books on TCM, cover to cover? More specifically, have you read any books on TCM published by academic publishing companies?

The article will not look like a list. It will look like an encyclopedia article. It will mention significant points about TCM and try to convey the gist of the subject in a summary style. We have a new article List of medicines in traditional Chinese medicine for listing. Also, you should be careful about what you say. You say things that don't seem to have a basis in published references "TCM is basically medicinals in popular use, which is kind of like "tea time". That's perhaps true, but that's not what the article is about. The article should reflect what the sources say, and no sources that I've seen say that. You rely on random websites like Acupuncture Today for your references, even though they often recommend against prescribing the item in question and don't mention significance at all. It looks like you're randomly choosing the most weird herbs. It's particularly astonishing that, even as the article says human parts are no really used, you've managed to start the medicinals section prominently with them and beefed them up so that things like human feces and pubic hair comprises probably 10% or so of the article. The way you're working, it is really an embarrassment to Wikipedia and that's why I'm working to fix it. II | (t - c) 05:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was threatened by Ludwigs2 yesterday that he would massively delete RS content without discussing at talk, and replace it with his false and NRS view that he had previously argued months ago, that TCM is not about the medicinals. He then did so, then started to edit war, then threatened me with causing headaches and implying he had friends to edit war for him. I walked away and complained to a friend when she picked me up. She did edits, and her friends might have, as they all chatted about censorship, the usual edit war talk. But it is too confusing to unravel it all from the edit history in a short time. I noticed repeated massive stylistic changes and deletion of content witout discussion at talk after Ludwigs2's implied threat to have others edit war for him today. The fact is that most TCM is not done by doctors, but by families to themselves, and of the small amount that is done by doctors, 75% is the medicines. Since the medicines are based on superstition and not biology, like pre-Linaean taxonomy, there is no meaningful order to them. So TCM is basically an unordered list. It is based on sympathetic magic, which you can read about in the "metaphor" section, and this explains much of the unusual things. So it is supersition, deliberate bizzareness to attain occult and esoteric look, and lots of sex organs, deliberate toxins, and bodily fluids. If the article is not list like in form, it is a misrepresentation of TCM. All of the "herbs" I listed are the standard ones given as examples at one place or another. I might have left out a handful, and am still checking on that. They are standard either in being used in a lot of alchemical mixes, or as being in the press or literature alot. I will look at your edits today and add back in anything my friend or her friends might have deleted. In general, I have no problem with adding Rs stuff, only with deleting things I would have wanted to know reading a comprehensinve encyclopedia article. As it is now, the entire article can be read in a matter of minutes, and almost all of the info is something I would have wanted to know, so I see no reason to delete any information, so it is unlikely I will not put any of your edits back in if they were deleted, if you have not already done so yourself. Have you travelled in China? (By the way, see why I wanted to talk here, and not on the talk page?) PPdd (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you try not to make so many edits to your posts? Since you don't seem willing really engage in conversation with me, I can't really respond well. Again, you're saying things which are just not verifiable in the literature, which I've been reading for the past couple days. And you didn't respond to my question about reading books on TCM. I have no idea why you keep bringing up Linnaeus and taxonomy, since that has nothing to do with Western medicine. Since I've been looking at the TCM literature for the last couple days, I can feel comfortable saying that you are way off when it comes to understanding what the literature says. Yes, TCM has some problematic approaches to medicine and it certainly has its own prescientific view on disease, similar to the four humors and bleeding in medieval medicine. However, there are a lot of published scholars who say that the theory is not all unscientific. Further, unlike Western medieval medicine - and more similar to Ayurvedic medicine and perhaps Native American medicine - it is also noteworthy for the promise of its herbs, which is consistently reflected in the scientific literature. I don't really care about your direct experiences with Chinese families or anything. I'm interested in sources. I do think a lot of TCM is sold over-the-counter for things like sexual potency, and it is appropriate to mention that as the sources do (so far, you have not been forthcoming with good sources). However, it is not the case that the sources emphasize human penises or feces. Nor does the OTC stuff typically include such things, or deadly chemicals, because the liability is too great. I'm aware of US-listed Chinese companies who are directly involved in this market, e.g. American Oriental Bioengineering. And no, we're not going to make the article comprehensive, meaning that we are not going to with specific detail a dozen random items out of 13,000 that you thought were interesting like human pubic hair or the ass-hide of a donkey, unless a good academic source shows such things are worth mentioning. II | (t - c) 06:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ok. good to know your background. helps know how to communicate. (have you noticed that wiki has more math/phil folks per capita than most campus departments, which are watered down by secretaries and janitors) Sorry about flim flam responding, but ludwigs2 said i have a "facintation with the penis", & my ex saw it and took off, then ended up editing and i got accused of sock by ludwigs. lol, but its been a headache trying to edit with stuff all over wiki i'm having to respond to.

Age 14 UCLA math undergrad under Ernst Straus, phil under Alonzo Church, stats under Charles Stone. Stanf stats under Charles Stein, then Bradley Efron, phil Ian Hacking and Patrick Suppes. stayed on there 11 years doing phil of stats and mathematical data analysis, then joined circus (really), then... then odds & ends @ caltech 2005-2207, then ethics @mit in 2007. then as xerophytic fiels botanist, became chief american scientist for giant western chinese conglomerate at east edge of gobi, & they also make pharmaceuticals from tcm stuff (and whisky) till now. also do some entertainment related stuff. Where did you do phil?
when i came to article there were almost no refs. now almost all of the refs are from google scholar. i used google news to see what was being discussed there, as opposed to the books i had read. google scholar is good for abstracts of studies and reviews on particular stuff, google news is good for ecological stuff, which was all that was on the list when i came to the article and started. that's why i said "google news" and "started". lots of chinese literature comments on tcm, and i put something about this on the talk page but no one replied at all.
I bring up linnaeus because before him, books on flora were simple lists, or organized by leaf shape and other meaningless methods (although I collect caudiciforms and morphological classificatio nis coming back into vogue a la convergent evolution style). same deal with tcm. no meaningful classification. they typically classified substances by symptom, but their idea of symptom is dominated by strange metaphysical entities, astrology, and superstition, and alchemy for mixing the meds in to what they call prescriptions. so instead of doing a meaningless organizatoin based on a false world view, i used their notion of "animal, mineral, vegetable" (its not quite that, but close) human parts is a category in the Bencao Gangmu, the main text still used today. there is a big split in china between "politically correct" public image sensitive docs, like user:herbxue, and true traditional ones.
"published scholars who say that the theory is not all unscientific"? give me the sources and i'd like to read about that.
"promise of herbs" is no better than promise of any other plants. and if they have something useful, it is usually not the way used under tcm, nor in sufficient dosage in tcm meds to be useful. you are thinking of Chinese integrative medicine, not tcm.
direct experience with families is important because tcm was historically practiced in-house or in-family, not by docs. needs sources but good place to find out what to look for sources on.
i am part native american (apache). our medicine is superstitious nonsense, deliberately made complex to have a secret society of medicine men.
otc in america is way different than otc in asia. and otc is different than the black market. again, google news on that. (just rubbing it in, of course google scholar is best over all:) )
feces in licorice is used in tcm dentistry for mouth sores. if you read the sources i put in, oddly, this might be a rare case where it works, since licorice adds somthing to the feces.
as i recall, ass hide glue pellets are quite common. so is human placenta. and common is not the only criteria. e.g., tiger penis is not common, but is the priciest stuff. and deer penis is not as commonly bought, but is very expensive and is often the centerpiece display along with big sharks fin.
i only mentioned anthroposophical medicine because i knew nothing about it and was asked to help npov the article. it was an edit warred article, everyone complained about my edits, and at the end, everyone was happy and unanimously had the pov tag taken off, and it has not changed since. it is definetely not worth your time to read.
if i knew you had math phil background, i would have stepped back a while. i thought you were part of the team of socks coming in to do a public relatoins coup. ludwigs2 is not a good choice for a rewrite. he is the worst choice of any experienced editor i have met here. i am not exaggerating.
common could mean common in traditional back country practice (like the gobi), common in public image consious practice, common in america, commonly discussed, commonly criticized, etc.
i put a very good book in a section below, to highlight it. its the best i have read on this.

TCM List

I redirected the TCM list article as CFORK, and wanted to notice you here in the off chance that you were not wathcing an aritcle you created. I am sure your intentions are to improve WP. I do not know your background, and sometimes that is helpful. If you are not familiar with TCM, then I ask that you not do grand changes to the article. It is highly misleading not to demonstrate the utterly different kind of thinking involved in it, and try to paint it like a western style medicine. The commonly used or discussed medicines listed all tie in to examples from the theory section I am working on. MOS says that an editor should not come in and wholesale change the style over that of the first major contributor, which is me. And the stylistic structure was there before me. How were you thinking of illustrating all of the concepts in the symptoms section (Hot, wet, damp, moist, cold, coolness, 5 phases , tastes, shen, directions, planets, solstice, alchemy, rivers, etc.), and their interactions, without the corresponding medicinal elements as examples? Note that Calus for whom Ludwigs2 is an agent, just got lying about his and Herbxue's monetary COI which is driving all the sudden nonconsensus changes. Calus pointed to this[3], as the reason the 10 socks and meats all suddenly showed up "to fix the image of TCM". But that post is dated Feb 8, and they all showed up to "change the way wikipedia makes TCM look" before Feb. 8. Ah, the reasoning skills of TCM praqctitioners with a monetary COI. This is just one in a series of such. PPdd (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That link is an explanation of what reminded me of my intention to edit on WP, having created my account in 2008. I did not point to that as the reason why other people showed up. Please stop twisting my words. There is no grand conspiracy here, and I am not part of any group. Please AGF.Calus (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to show a few examples of medicinals that correspond to different concepts, go ahead. But do it based on an academic book. So far you haven't done any of that. You're adding things from random websites like yinyanghouse.com and those just don't cut it, so they have to be cut out. II | (t - c) 20:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was building up the article. I don't know what happened to the construction tag I put on three months ago. Most of it was from my memory, and I put sources that said the same as what I rememebered. I have not had access to my library for several months. I refer you to one book I have based alot on in a section below. PPdd (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice

There is an open sock investigation concerining the IP's who prevented your edits on TCM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PPdd and a notice to admins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Problems_at_Traditional_Chinese_medicine_.28TCM.29 . Feel free to comment. Calus (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New book on TCM from Harvard

If you want background on TCM, there is a fascinating recent book out of Princeton & Harvard on TCM’s still used central classic text, the Bencao Gangmu by Li Shizhen - The Monkey and the Inkpot: Natural History and its Transformations in Early Modern China[4] by Carla Nappi. PPdd (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

(This request for arbitration was initiated by User:Aquib american muslim, not by me.)

Spacepotato (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And in case you're wondering why you're late to the party, it is because Aam tagged User:II not you initially William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin D

Your recent edit to Vitamin D adds a ref name of "Vleth", but you did not actually add the source to go with that name. COuld you revisit the article and add the information? Thanks. - Salamurai (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like someone else fixed my mistake. I guess I should have been wearing my glasses... II | (t - c) 02:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

oh heck, it never occurred to me it was a typo! Sorry for being a bother. - Salamurai (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maajid Nawaz

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Maajid Nawaz. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Commented. II | (t - c) 04:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Commented. II | (t - c) 04:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Juice Plus

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Juice Plus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Commented on this. II | (t - c) 04:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wedge strategy

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Wedge strategy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed prior to my comment. II | (t - c) 04:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lump sum

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lump sum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Responded to this. II | (t - c) 04:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AlgoSec

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:AlgoSec. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh, already expired... wish Wikipedia could get its technical act together... II | (t - c) 16:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi I^2!

It is refreshing to read a comment written with some compassion and with some obvious concern about pointing an offender (here, me) in the direction of virtue.

The quotation from was nicely chosen. Alas, its advice was rarely followed by Schopenhauer himself.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you accepted the advice gracefully despite its perhaps unnecessarily harsh tone, and I do understand that you're probably under a lot of stress right now with the whole tirade of comments. I know it's tough dealing with us simpletons, but I hope you can endeavor to use a respectful and friendly tone, and if you can, I hope you don't give up Wikipedia! It really needs smart people. II | (t - c) 05:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foxconn

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Foxconn. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Good editing

You are very smart in seeing that laws like the Ledbetter Act, while important to Ms. Ledbetter, are trivial parts of President Obama's biography and inclusion makes the Wikipedia article bad. Important legislation include Obama's health care package, which he campaigned hard for or his proposals to close Gitmo. These should be included but not all the legislation.

One guy says Ledbetter was the first. That is because complex legislation, like the health care stuff takes time. So the first is a trivial, easy to pass law. That is almost proof of its non-notability.

People, like you, need to speak out because there are those with bad editorial judgement, like Scjessey, that bully and ruin the Wikipedia article. BAMP (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, since you're around - what made you decide to start editing again a day ago, right when this Balloon fellow started editing again? II | (t - c) 23:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Responded to this. II | (t - c) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conduit (publisher network and platform)

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Conduit (publisher network and platform). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Responded to this. II | (t - c) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Responded to this.

Please comment on Talk:Kodak

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kodak. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi. Even during an election, referring to Orangemarlin as a "crotchety old man" is a personal attack. If you wrote that on an ArbCom case page, it would be removed by clerks. As for MastCell, at no stage has he sought to excuse Orangemarlin's incivility. On the abortion workshop page he wrote this; and on the PD talk page he wrote this. If you insist on accusing others of being careless or making personal attacks, perhaps it might be an idea to be a little more careful yourself. Thanks,Mathsci (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the measured tone, and I'll admit that I haven't been following the politics around here enough lately to discuss it very informatively. There's a thin line between being descriptive and attacking. Orangemarlin often presents himself as being old and clearly angry. He's upset about pseudoscience and he makes no secret of it. The meaning of crotchety is irritable; the meaning of irritable is prone to anger. I don't think it's an unfair characterization. But I appreciate your feedback and realize that it is better not to throw stones from glass houses, so I will try to be more careful.II | (t - c) 19:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amigo Energy

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amigo Energy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Stale by the time I got to it. II | (t - c) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey

I'm crotchety. But I'm far from old. Fuck. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah, sorry about not letting you know directly about those comments. I was afraid I'd just be cursed out and I don't really need that right now. If I hadn't been drunk off my ass that night/morning, I probably wouldn't have wrote them. I don't like having to get all critical on people and I really don't like people getting all critical on me. As far as age - I was trying to make it sound better. If you're a young guy or an old man, hot-headed or curmudgeonly behavior is relatively acceptable. If you're just middle-aged, then in order to avoid plain grumpiness it would probably have to be tacked down to a mid-life crisis or something. Honestly, I thought you said were an old fart a few times, but if the actuarial life tables say you've got plenty of time left, I'm glad to hear it. I was born the year when Tetris was first created. Even if you're a fair bit over twice my age you're not really old as far as I'm concerned. II | (t - c) 03:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Art Pope

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Art Pope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Supported the initiator's request by saying that Art Pope's political activities (conservative) should be discussed in the article. II | (t - c) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Initiator wanted the lead to state that women commit domestic violence more often than men; though the thread was stale by the time I looked at it, I think he was overruled (hopefully!). II | (t - c) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not interested in this. II | (t - c) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Capitalism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Capitalism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Did not respond; somewhat ambivalent; huge mess of a talk page section page; and initiation did not reasonably summarize the dispute. Action rather than words are necessary. II | (t - c) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thermodynamic equilibrium

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thermodynamic equilibrium. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Did not respond; not sure about this. II | (t - c) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, "obviously"...

... a WP:CONSENSUS is not the same thing as wikt:unanimity, so "if someone disagrees" it does not mean that you can't have a consensus. Have a WP:TROUT and get a clue.[5] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you self-reverted, simultaneous with this comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment had nothing to do with it. If the IP had provided some sort of decent sort of explanation, I wouldn't have self-reverted. As far as consensus - Wikipedia uses a sort of doublespeak. Wiktionary:Consensus, from Latin, meaning "agreement, accordance, unanimity". Even under Wikipedia's loose meaning of consensus, if there's 3 people involved, and one disagrees, you cannot have consensus. It just doesn't make sense. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't operate on consensus, and the IP didn't present any sort of reasonable argument. II | (t - c) 02:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it did (hence "simultaneous" not 'as the result of'). "Consensus", in Wikipedia is used as a term of art, rather than a slavish subordination to a dictionary definition (in the same way that terms like "notability" and "original research" are). Given that WP:CONSENSUS explicitly suggests WP:3O as a method of building a consensus, "if there's 3 people involved, and one disagrees" is apparently a consensus. And in any case, at the time of the revert there were four people involved: IRWolfie- & AndyTheGrump (in the original redirect thread), the IP & myself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for having a snappish tone; there's no reason for it. Certainly there was nothing wrong with you taking direct action in support of IRWolfie's redirect - in fact it was a good thing. The article needed to go.

Still, I'm personally biased against using consensus as a 'term of art'. "Notable" has obvious flex to it. Consensus does not, really. Our user histories date back to approximately the same time (2007), so we probably have similar experience. Wikipedia's editorial decision-making is dominated by a complex mix of politics and administrative rulings, persistence, and hopefully logic.

I've been in many situations where 2 people agreed with one conclusion, and the third disagreed, but the third person's preference prevailed. Why? Persistence, partly. But also, clearly embedded in the term 'consensus' is that the third person's opinion matters a lot, and a simple majority can't just ignore someone. Using the word consensus is, in fact, very protective of the minorities. II | (t - c) 05:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vacuum

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vacuum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Did not comment; ambivalent with regard to the initiator's question as to whether to put complex cutting-edge ideas in the lead. II | (t - c) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian rupee

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indian rupee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Did not comment per WP:SNOW against the initiator. II | (t - c) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Commented against the initiator; trivial request. II | (t - c) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Personal injury protection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emotional distress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tokyo Two

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tokyo Two. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello ImperfectlyInformed. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Interim dividend

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Interim dividend. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Water Fluoridation in Northern Ireland

Hi--

Thanks for starting the "Fluoridation by country" article.

At 04:52, 14 August 2008‎ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country you wrote:

"The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in two small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years. By 1999, fluoridation ceased in those two areas, as well."

I am trying to track down a reference for that. Can you provide one?

If not, can you provide some lead(s) such as the names of the two small localities or the names of people or organizations that were involved?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CountMacula (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A comment for you on Talk:Alkaline diet

Nice job on Alkaline diet. I have added some more information that could be considered. Any attempts to rectify any of this bias in previous times have resulted loss of life (by many) and edit history vanishing. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marketing mix

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marketing mix. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beef Products Inc.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beef Products Inc.. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Galata

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Galata. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)