Jump to content

User talk:JoeSmack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AIDS refs that are still unused

[edit]

Here is a list of refs that we're shaved from the refs section of AIDS because they were unused in the article. They are still perfectly good sources mostly, so feel free to use them again. JoeSmack (talk)


AIDS topics that need Citing

[edit]

As requested, here is a list of things without sources removed from the AIDS article. Please find such sources so we can put them back in:


  • Patterns of HIV transmission vary in different parts of the world. In Africa, which accounts for an estimated 60% of new HIV infections worldwide, controversy rages over the respective contribution of medical procedures, heterosexual sex and the bush meat trade.
  • In the United States, sex between men, sex between African-Americans and injecting drug use remain prominent sources of new HIV infections, with the fastest growing group being African-American women.
  • The first symptoms of AIDS are AIDS defining illnesses, that are not usually seen in a person with a healthy immune systems.
    • This one is not true - first symptoms are often general: weight loss, diarrhea, pneumonia. [1] Thanks for removing this Joe. BTW you may not want this on your talk page, since you'll be notified every time someone edits it. Rhobite 23:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Awesome job Rhobite. Thanks. :) --- And its ok, i kinda wanted to know when stuff got proven or disproven. JoeSmack (talk) 17:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • In the first decade of the epidemic when no useful conventional treatment was available, a large number of PWAs experimented with alternative therapies of various kinds, including massage, herbal and flower remedies and acupuncture, to either combat the virus or to relieve related symptoms.
  • Blood tranfusions remain a major source of new HIV infections worldwide. WHO estimated in 2000, between 15% and 20% of new HIV infections worldwide were the result of blood transfusions, where the donors were not screened or inadequately screened for HIV. In those countries where improved donor selection and antibody tests have been introduced, the risk of transmitting HIV infection to blood transfusion recipients has been effectively eliminated.
Not quite accurate. According to a 2000 WHO press release Blood Safety... For Too Few, "between 5% and 10% of HIV infections worldwide are transmitted through the transfusion of infected blood and blood products. WHO/UNAIDS estimate that 5.6 million new HIV infections occur annually." This number is consistant with the WHO Global Database on Blood Safety's Summary Report for 1999-1998 which estimates that 43% of the blood supply in developing nations is not screened for HIV or other blood transmissible infections.Carl Henderson 00:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Chances of HIV transmission from infected male to female in a single act of genital sex are quite low: it is estimated that under normal conditions, only about 1 in 1000 acts results in infection.
  • Transmission of virus from females to males is even less likely, but still possible.
Acording to the CDC table SciGuy added Friday, these numbers are correct. I'd suggest a rewrite to say something like, "According to the CDC estimates (reference the table here), chances of HIV transmission from infected male to female in a single act of unprotected genital sex are quite low; it is estimated that under normal conditions, only about 10 in 10,000 acts results in infection. Transmission of virus from females to males is only about half as likely--though still possible. Note that these CDC estimates are averages, and actual odds of transmission of HIV via a single sexual act can be affected by other factors, such as the viral load of the infected partner or the presence of abrasions or sores on the genitals of either of the sexual partners." And if this section is rewritten, it should also be made clear that the CDC figures are based on AIDS in America, and that the methods of transmission elsewhere may not show the same pattern.Carl Henderson 17:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • One study concluded that 7.8% of recently infected men in San Francisco were probably infected through oral sex.
I have a source for this one, too.
Dillon B, Hecht FM, Swanson M et al., Primary HIV infections associated with oral transmission, 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, San Francisco, January 30th-February 2nd, 2000 (abstract 473).
That single 2000 study doesn't tell the whole story, though. The Public Health Agency of Canada has a good (and refenced) summary of various studies concerning oral HIV transmission, Oral Sex and the Risk of HIV Transmission. Research summarized in that May 2004 article demonstrated a wide range of risk estimates. Studies of different cohorts of homosexual males showed that from 3.9% to 16.2% were infected via receptive oral intercourse. Studies of different cohorts of hetrosexual couples showed that anywhere from 0% to 6.7% of heterosexual females were infected via receptive oral intercourse. Finally the PHAC article the overall literature, and found, "exposure to HIV through unprotected oral intercourse as an independent risk factor for HIV acquisition in only three (12.5%) of 24 epidemiological studies designed to examine risk of HIV from different sexual exposures." Carl Henderson 18:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A study of Spanish men who knowingly engaged in oral sex with HIV+ partners identified no cases of oral transmission.
I have the source for this one, too: Evaluating the risk of HIV transmission through unprotected orogenital sex, Del Romero J, Marincovich B, Castilla J et al., AIDS 2002;16(9): 1296-97. Note that the study doesn't just concern Spanish men; the article covers a cohort of "135 seronegative individuals (110 women and 25 men), whose only risk exposure to HIV was unprotected orogenital sex with their infected partner." Carl Henderson 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep in mind these are the things i've removed that need to be cited. There are lots more in the AIDS article, please give those your attention as well. JoeSmack (talk) 18:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Book makers odds?

[edit]

Joe, I am concerned that that the section reads like the odds on a horse race! In fact there is a reported CDC cluster of a man who infected 30% of the womne he had sex with. A long discussion comparing the odds seems at best reckless and at worst mere specualtion. What are your thoughts? Sci guy 16:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I have given more thought to this issue. I think the CDC table is for populations not individuals. For example, if 10,000 acts of heterosexaul sex with an HIV infected man result in 10 women infected on average. Then 10 million HIV infected men (say in Africa) having sex once a week for a year will result in about 520,000 new HIV infections in women. (10x10,000x52) So even a "low" estimated risk per act can generate many new infections across a population. This provides us with no useful information about the risk to any particular woman. As the CDC cluster from New York shows 30% of the women became infected with HIV, some after as few as 6 exposures. It would be against Wikipedia guidleines to predict the risks of future events, Wikipedia is not crystal ball. The article is not intended to advise on the relative risks of varous sex acts. Sci guy 03:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, I suggest you read the CDC report more closely. It is an unusually well documented study. It supports the epidemiological models that over half of HIV transmission occurs in the weeks following primary HIV infection before antibodies to the virus are produced. It also explains why all the studies or serodiscordant couples have failed to find many seroconversions. Sci guy 16:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repling to your message

[edit]

Thank you for your interest. You will be amused to learn that one of my current projects is the genetics of schizophrenia! My training is in medical research and I have published in several major fields. If they start funding any AIDS research, I may even try that ;) . . . Seriously though, we were all sitting around the lab one day, joking about errors in Wikipedia articles. My collegues claimed this was the inevitable result of no peer review process - I was supporting the concept of open source! So they challenged me to fix the AIDS article. So far they are still laughing!!! But I think we are making progress. Rome was not built in a day Sci guy 15:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the reverts on AIDS...

[edit]

You've just reverted AIDS for the third time today. Please remember the three-revert rule; if you do it again, then you will be blocked. - jredmond 17:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Getting Psychotherapy into This Week's Improvement Drive

[edit]

Hello there! I will have a look at the Psychotherapy article, but I don't think that I have anyting to contribute to it at the moment. I'm not that well-read in psychodynamic theory. Best regards. --Hawol 10:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on Fenice's talk page. You might want to see the note at the bottom of this section]. Maurreen (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky situation. Maybe the best thing would be to put the current nomination back under "Removed", make a new nomination, and put a note at the IDRIVE talk page in case anyone wonders what's up. Maurreen (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Wilson

[edit]

There are several things that you did wrong. The first, and most serious, is that you executed a "cut-and-paste" move, which is strictly forbidden as it destroys the page history — now I will have to go and fix this. See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page before doing any more moves. Next, you did not clean up any of the redirects and at least a dozen articles are now pointing to the wrong Lois Wilson. Finally, you should not have put the new Lois Wilson article at Lois Wilson, but rather at Lois Wilson (alanon) or something like that, and put the disambig page at Lois Wilson. I am not happy about having to clean up this mess, but I will take care of it. Fawcett5 18:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ahem. i didn't mean to do anything wrong there, just never done it before. however, there is no need to be rude. i'll make sure not to do it the way i did ever again. thanks. JoeSmack (talk) 18:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

OK Joe, I think this is more or less untangled now. Your Lois Wilson is now Lois Wilson (activist). Regards, Fawcett5 19:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Again, sorry for the intanglement. Nice picture you found there too. :) ... JoeSmack (talk) 19:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joe. Actually, I did not mean to bite, so apologies if I seemed overly terse. Checking all of your recent contributions, I see no evidence that the category was ever created. It should have appeared immediately — probably something went wrong. It seems like such a category is probably needed, but I caution you to carefully read WP:Categorization to see exactly where it should fit into the categorization scheme. It might potentially conflict with Category:Addiction and Category:Substance-related disorders. Probably those two cats should be merged - its currently a bit of a mess. Anyway, Alcohol abuse should PROBABLY be made a subcategory of one of these others. And note that generally only the most specific category should be used in any given article. As for the |* convention, it refers to alphabetization. For peoples names especially, use Category:whatever|Lastname, firstname inorder that things appear in the correct order in the category. Fawcett5 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I created the cat myself, as a subcat of Category:Substance-related disorders. You will want to go through the articles you added and remove the SRD cat unless the article is relevant than to more than just alcohol abuse. Fawcett5 20:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will do this is short order; I appreciate the info on categories. I understand them much better now. :) ...JoeSmack (talk) 20:38, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Psychotherapy

[edit]

You have previously voted for Psychotherapy on WP:IDRIVE. It did not make it there, it was removed correctly because the date was wrong. I have renominated it on the new Wikipedia:Medicine Collaboration of the Week however. Please add your supporting vote there. Best wishes--Fenice 21:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlberg

[edit]

Joe, thank you for the invitation. I'm afraid that I lack the knowledge to contribute anything of substance to Kohlberg's stages of moral development. I know that that will sound strange given my lambasting of your 'examples' section, but so be it. Incidentally, I wouldn't oppose an 'examples' section that was properly argued and explained. --goethean ॐ 19:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS/HIV : Replying to your message

[edit]

Your depth of knowledge surrounding HIV/AIDS is quite impressive. Do you happen to work in the field? JoeSmack (talk) 20:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do work in the field of HIV. I hope that what I change isn't too drastic. --Grcampbell 20:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapy

[edit]

Where are you getting information that it is illegal for MSW's, CADC's, and RNs/APNs to practice psychotherapy? siafu 20:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Translation of the Week

[edit]

Three revert violation

[edit]

Joe you appear to have reverted the HIV article three times within three hours! I suggest you restore you latest revert!

There are guidelines for the introdution to an article and I suggest you read them. Text like this is just NOT wiki "(HIV causes AIDS); see Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome for more information on this later servere stage of HIV." 203.123.69.213 16:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that I keep my lastest revert, as I can as long as it is 3 or less in 24 hours. "Text like this is just NOT wiki" eh?. My lord, it is like divine light has clued me into how wrong that phrase was, I'm going to change it RIGHT away!
Go away sockpuppet, shoo. JoeSmack (talk) 17:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sci guy

[edit]

Hi JoeSmack, I saw you reverted Sci guy (talk · contribs) here. I have very similar experiences with Sci guy. He has rather unorthodox views of HIV/AIDS and frequently deletes evidence of others disagreeing with him. Would you agree a request for comment is in order, specifically to address his refactoring of critical talk page posts? JFW | T@lk 16:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence? His own talk page, earlier and more. Refactoring one's own talkpage is bad form if this involves unresolved issues. JFW | T@lk 19:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to start an RFC, but as I have not recently been involved, it may be better if it was you who filed the RFC. JFW | T@lk 21:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlberg

[edit]

It appears that you have misread the article history... I have only moved Kohlberg to Category:American psychologists; the pictures were removed by 72.4.46.253, an anonymous user. Regards, GregorB 19:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS

[edit]

Hi

I have seen you adding good stuff to both the HIV and AIDS articles (amongst others). I thought you'd like to know that AIDS has been nominated for a Medicine Collaboration of the Week and we could do with your support and help in making the AIDS article of decent quality for December 1, 2005. Can we count on your support? --Bob 18:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Lord

[edit]

Oh! Another former Clan Lord player! Zarutian 02:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlberg

[edit]

Explain what "age triggered" means, as there was nothing of the sort at the stages article. Don't just revert someone's work like that without discussion. --DanielCD 04:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read anything by Robert Kegan? I read The Evolving Self, and it's really excellent; covers Piaget, Kohlberg, and goes beyond. I'd be interested to hear your take on it if you're familiar with it. --DanielCD 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that's the one with the foundations. Talks about the "evolutionary truce" (evolution meaning evolution of the individual over the lifetime), in the sense of stages being a sort of truce that holds for a time until life events demand a change. Fascinating quotes from kids who are kind of in the gray area of change...like kids say "it kinda goes out of their head and into my head in some way and I can see what's in their head"...etc. Lots I could say, but I'll spare you ;)). Definitely great reading if you appreciate the work of Piaget and Kohnlberg (and Fowler and others). I just found Fowler's book on Amazon and am pondering... do I have time for another book right now?? --DanielCD 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Bot

[edit]

Please make sure it doesn't replace regional spellings of english an example being color and colour. You might want to triple check the policy on spelling bots, I don't think they're terribly favoured here. Thanks! Tawker 20:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fully-automated spelling bots are forbidden on Wikipedia: because of regional variations, the large number of personal names, and the use of scientific and foreign-language terms, a spelling bot is effectively an automated vandal. Any spelling bot needs to have a human making the final decision on each and every spelling fix. --Carnildo 03:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject C++

[edit]

The WikiProject C++ aims to increase the quality of C++-related articles on Wikipedia, and has discovered that you have participated in the editing of them! So don't hesitate, join us! --Deryck C. 15:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bot flag

[edit]

JoeSmack wrote:

Hi there Gurch! I wanted to let you know that you need to apply for a bot flag to be running such frequent edits. Wikipedia:Bots is the place to check this out; for now you can put your name under 'bots running without a flag'. Until you get this flag, please keep your edits to no more than a few a minute. Thanks! JoeSmack Talk 18:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I am a little confused about this.

The page seems to use the term 'bot' to describe all mass-editing, regardless of whether or not it is done automatically. I have never considered my account to be a 'bot' before. There is no program code interacting with the wiki in any way; my edits are all done manually. Certainly there is no 'unsupervised' editing. So does that mean that edits only become 'bot' when they reach a certain arbitrary speed? Sounds like a bit of a wooly definition to me.

Also, what exactly does a 'bot flag' do? The page you referred me to seems to imply that you have to create a new account for this, and that account should be separate from your user account. Is it necessary to create a new account? I understand that this should be so for automated bots, as their users are not necessarily there, but when I am making edits manually, I don't see why I should be forced to use a different name, just because I am editing more quickly. Does this 'flag' apply any other restrictions, and would it prevent me editing normally?

In addition, I don't want to go naming names, but User:Fuhghettaboutit and User:Cmdrjameson have been doing exactly the same thing as me [2] [3], at the same speed, using their own user names, since before I started editing, and nobody seems to have said a word to them about bot accounts. I checked their history thoroughly before I began mass-editing, and assumed this meant that a precedent had been set and it was OK. Thanks for your help -- Gurch 19:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your comments have cleared things up a bit. I shall add a message to Wikipedia talk:Bots -- Gurch 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my message was there for a week and nobody said anything, so I'm assuming nobody has any objections and proceeding as before -- Gurch 10:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: incorrect bot flag

[edit]

Hi Joe. I got your message on my talk page that I "need to apply for a bot flag" (for my bot). Most of the following text was posted in response there, but I am reposting it here in the interest of clarity. I understand why you might think that my edits are done with a bot, as I suppose few have worked out a system for making quick edits by hand as I have, but I am not a bot, nor am I running a bot and my edits are all done 100% manually (and you can notice that occasionally I make mistakes if you look carefully, such as not hitting minor every so often). I also sometimes stop and make other changes that strike me such as boldfacing the article's subject and usually put that in the edit summary. I find the process very relaxing and I can now do it in my sleep but I also don't make the types of mistakes bots do because it is purely manual.

This is how it is done:

Go to the Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings and do a search for a particular common spelling error. Say nothern (northern). Now right click on the first article containing the error, hit edit this page and minimize. Move on to the next. Do this for say 25 articles (don't open too many, over 30 and your computer [or at least mine] will run sluggishly). Each article is now minimized on your screen's taskbar. The number of windows that can be seen as minimized in the taskbar are always the same, on my computer eight; on another computer I use its fourteen (it depends on the screen size). Now click on all the articles that are minimized by running along them on the taskbar left clicking and you have eight open windows (each one will now automatically appear in a series as you minimize the one before it).

Now in the first first article, type into the edit summary what you are doing, I always use the format: incorrect spelling--->correct spelling (for our example, nothen--->northern). Highlight that and click copy (control + c) so it is in your notepad (another words, every time you paste, that same edit summary text will appear (paste using control + v, which is blindingly faster than right clicking and choosing paste if you are used to it).

Now click edit from your internet explorer menu--->click find (on This Page) and type in the incorrect word (nothern), in the search box that appears (after the first search the word is automatically in the find (on This Page) for all future iterations. All this set up takes about 20 seconds (not inclusive of opening up the 25 windows). As soon as the word is found (immediately) click in it at the right spot, (between the "o" and "t" in nothern hit "r" to correct make the spelling correction, put your cursor in the edit summary, hit control + v (to paste nothen--->northern) hit This is a minor edit box and Save page, immediately minimize, the next window is open automatically on your page (the reason minimizing again is key is because there is lag time while the save is occurring; if you wait for each page to save and then move on to next the process is almost half as slow), repeat and rinse till all eight pages are corrected and minimized.

As soon as you see your desktop, you know that you've gotten to the end of the series. Now just click on the eight pages that are minimized and have finished saving, by running along them on the taskbar left clicking (they will now all be open again on your screen); put your cursor over the close window "x" button and click eight times to close all eight now corrected and saved pages. As soon as you have done this, there are eight more unedited pages in your task bar. Open up the next eight and repeat.

Once you're used to it, it's easy and I wish more people knew how to do it because it can get some things done very quickly and in a manner no bot could ever replicate because of the human factor. An example might be the common misspelling, pharoah (pharaoh). I did a revert of all these, and you'll see that I did it very quickly, but you'll also see that there's a blues musician named Pharoah Sanders whose name is spelled, of course "Pharoah" A bot would make the mistake and carry it over into the 100 articles his name appears in.

I understand that there is some type of software flagging me as a bot based on the number of edits per time period, but that software is incorrectly assuming that I must be using a bot when I am not. All of the text set forth in Wikipedia:Bots is clearly intended to provide policy guidance on actual bots and to limit the destruction an automatic process can cause and is never even hints that it is applicable to a flesh and blood editor who has created a false positive by making edits that superficially resemble a bot based of number per minute (but if inspected closely, there would be found numeorus points of divergence). And I quote from the policy introduction: 'Bots are automatic processes interacting with Wikipedia over the World Wide Web." I am not amenable to that policy. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Er, thanks for the message (on Fuhughettaboutit's talk page). It's nice to know that you're OK with the whole thing and you appreciate our contributions. I'm leaving my bot request up for now just to see what happens, but if nothing materializes, I won't take it further -- Gurch 18:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:HIV Genome.JPG

[edit]
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:HIV Genome.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:LawrenceKohlberg3.jpg

[edit]
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:LawrenceKohlberg3.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 14:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:LawrenceKohlberg5.jpg

[edit]
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:LawrenceKohlberg5.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 14:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe bot edit summary typo

[edit]

Hello your bot listed this in an edit summary:

(typo fix: "existance" to "extistence" using AWB)

I should mention that it actually properly corrected the spelling, but I thought you might want to fix the typo in the edit summary so it doens't scare people when they first see it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kinda strange because I misspelled "existence" in a different way. [4] , so both of the versions on the edit summary were misspelled- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

[edit]

Your bot is really nice! Went into my article and did some changes I never saw!

Kudos. Colonel Marksman 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlberg

[edit]

Hi Joe. I'd be glad to check it out -- one of my profs, Chuck Levine, was a good friend of Kohlberg himself, and wrote a book with him. So I know a bit in that direction. Lucidish 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Habermas and Kant. The Habermas influence was, I think, during the last decade of Kohlberg's life. If he has anything to say about it in print, it should be in the book "Moral stages : a current formulation and a response to critics by Lawrence Kohlberg, Charles Levine, Alexandra Hewer. Basel ; New York : Karger, 1983." If it isn't in there, then we'd have to scrap the stuff I wrote in the wiki; but IIRC that book includes a treatment and discussion of Habermas' critiques. And anyway, Kohlberg was prolific. His work makes up volumes.
My source for both bits of info (Habermas and Kant) was Levine in conversation or lecture, so that's a preliminary kind of verification.
Levine considers Kohlberg to be what he calls "Neo-Kantian" because of the respect-for-persons thing. I was never able to tease out of Levine a precise or rigorous statement of what "Neo-Kantianism" means. But one thing that I do know is that the phrase "respect for persons" fits perfectly as an interpretation of one of the formulations of Kant's categorical imperative, namely, "always treat others as ends in themselves, and never just as a means". This kind of maxim acts as the telos of the system, the normative end-goal through which the previous stages can be formulated.
The precise meaning of Kohlberg's ideas about the end-goal is puzzling, and might seem like an argument against himself at first blush. But he had a lot to say, and it takes some effort and patience to discern what he may have meant. On the one hand, he thinks behavior should be governed by universal ethical principles at 6; on the other, that it must occur through communicative reason. If I were to synthesize something from the above on the basis of what I've been taught, I think that Kohlberg would say that the process by which stage 6 reasoning occurs is always, and must always be, through respectful dialogue with others (i.e., respect for persons); but that the content of such dialogue will always, as it happens, be a consensus agreement (or a universally valid principle).
Another aspect which this article neglects btw is the relationship between the moral stages and community, which was a part of the Kohlberg project that was not completed.
Got to go to bed now, might add more info tomorrow. Lucidish 03:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the monograph, and yeah, that's the impression I'm getting as well. Habermas's points about 'discursive will formation' is consistent with Kohlberg's sympathies with the Eriksonian "integrity" stage, and 'discourse ethics' one possible way of formulating 'respect for persons' in light of the 'moral musical chairs' notion (of reciprocity).
This book is actually a pretty rich and compact resource, after perusing it for the second time. It contains a great deal of material on the meta-ethics which would enhance the "theoretical foundations" section of the wiki, and also the 'critics' section. Lucidish 05:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Levine, I can't think of anyone. Although there was a book published on this topic that I skimme onced, I don't recall what it was. IIRC it may have been Following Kohlberg : liberalism and the practice of democratic community / Donald R.C. Reed. Publisher Notre Dame, Ind. : University of Notre Dame Press, c1997. So aside from this book, and from the Levine/Hewer/Kohlberg monograph which has a chapter on these issues, I'm not sure how much more help I can be. It's exam period so I have to restrain myself from undertaking the research project (though, under most circumstances, that's what I would do). Lucidish 17:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spelling mistake ideas

[edit]

Hi, thanks for the ideas. I don't think I'm short on misspellings, though; I have a list of about 3,000 disctinct typos which, according to Google, add up to roughly 40,000 individual errors. (And by the time all of them are corrected, I imagine another 40,000 will have appeared).

You're right that I've not been doing as much recently (I think your bot has caught up with me in terms of corrections, congratulations for that). This is mainly because I have a degree to pass, and the exams start in two weeks. It'll be over soon enough, though.

However I am working on one or two small things. A while ago I remember reading a discussion on your talk page concerning whether it was efficient to correct only one misspelling with each edit. Until now this is the way that my corrections have worked, and I believe yours work in a similar way. I have rewritten the software I originally coded back in February so that, when given an article, it will check against a whole list of misspellings (the aforementioned 3,000) and make as many corrections as possible. There are a few small problems that need to be ironed out (if you look at my latest contributions you can see the test edits I have been doing) but it seems to be working well.

I'm also trying to put together a Recent Changes filtering tool, rather like VandalFighter, but aside from some nice colour schemes, I haven't got very far yet – Gurch 18:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, VandalProof sounds good, I'll give it a try at some point.
I have never used AWB myself, as I have no need for it, so I don't know precisely how it works, but I think the difference is that my program, unlike AWB, was written specifically with spellchecking in mind. It can't do any of the fancy tidying and cleanup work that AWB can, but it does seem to be more effective with misspellings.
The mechanism is nothing special – essentially it has two lists, a list of articles and a list of misspellings. Unlike AWB it cannot import a list straight from a category, though this is something I might add at some point. It can import a list from a Google search, which is how I have been doing things up until now. Originally the program simply went through the list looking at each article in turn and searching for whatever was specified for the Google search – so, for example, if you told it to search for "refered", it would Google it, then search for "refered" in each of the results. Now, I have modified it so that rather than searching for one word, it searches for everything in the second list, one item at a time. This does slow things down a bit, it takes several seconds to search a long article 3,000 times, whereas searching it once was almost instant. When the search is complete, it presents the results (if any) to the user, listing each word it has identified and a short (~100 character) extract from the article to make its context clear. The user can then cycle through these results and choose whether or not to correct them, and if so, which correction to use. The corrections are stored in the same list as the mispellings, and in some cases there are several options – for example, "ther" corrects to "there", "their", "the", "other" or "then". Once the user has made their selection, the program will edit the article accordingly, then list each of the misspelled words in the edit summary. As a result, unlike AWB, the edit summary is set entirely automatically, eliminating the risk of incorrect edit summaries (a problem which I'm sure your arm hairs are painfully aware of).

I am sure Martin could modify AWB to do this, though of course it would be of limited use to most AWB users (and he probably has better things to do with his time).

At the moment I can't really release the program, as it is written in VBA and using an MS Access (.mdb) database. This helps no end with development, but does mean that you need Access in order to run it. If I do decide to release it at some point I will convert it to a more convenient format – Gurch 16:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spellcheck

[edit]

Using a dictionary file MOD 11:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Regex

[edit]

I gained most of my regex knowledge by reading articles on Google (keyword: regex, regexes, regexs, regexp, etc.) and by practice. The best way to practice is to add a line of code to your monobook.js to show and find-and-replace tab next to "edit this page" at the top. Martin has one at User:Bluemoose/monobook.js/replacetab.js. You can also use Mozilla Firefox's javascript console and type in commands such as "1231".match(/1/) to see what it returns. I can't figure out, though, why your list of regexes doesn't appear for me. When I went to User:JoeSmack/regex, I saw nothing. I clicked "edit this page" and "saw" nothing but I could tell there was invisible text because control+A plus control+C and then a control+V in Microsoft Word let me see the regex. I then just did a find-and-replace to remove the /b's and add a \b to the beginning and end. Do you have the same problem with the text being "invisible"? --M@thwiz2020 01:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, odd. I went back now and it works fine. --M@thwiz2020 01:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typos

[edit]

Hi Joe, I left the regex running all day, so far it has found 4600, and still going strong, I'll have to stop it soon, but evidently that massive regex is very slow for it to process (normal scans take ~5 minutes!), it's no problem, just disappointing that I'm not able to complete it all. Also, a portion of the typos look like they've already been corrected (often by your bot), so a more up-to-date data base would be helpful. I assume you use the "skip if doesnt contain" option in AWB so it quickly skips articles with no typo, if not then it would be a good idea. Also, I saw one that was a legitimate "typo", it was a foreign word, so a little care must be taken, of course.

I'll look into some optimisation to make it run a bit quicker, but I think there isnt much that can be done as the regex is so big, apart from get a quicker computer, but that might be a bit extreme.

Do you want me to post the list somewhere, or email it? if email, then email me, and I'll reply with the txt file. thanks Martin 19:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I was just about to stop it and go to bed, and it finished with 9000 results, which is pretty good. Martin 22:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallaudet U -- reply

[edit]

Joe: I've replied to your questions on my own talk page, as per Wikiquette. --Micahbrwn 19:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've replied again. Micahbrwn 02:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've responded to your question re: the ASLPI Micahbrwn 07:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: regex question

[edit]

What do you mean by not checking with wiki comments? Do you mean not fixing/finding stuff inside nowiki tags, any tags, or what? I just need to know so I can write an efficient regex. --M@thwiz2020 21:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just tried running your new regex on the datadump I used before, it seems to pick up a lot less than the older one, I suspect it is because of the spaces that have been added, because this will stop the typo being picked up if it is next to a comma for example rather than a space. Is this how you want it to be? Martin 09:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left it running anyway, it's found about 750 so far, I imagine it will finish with about 1000 or so, which is probably about right, as I assume most from before have been fixed. Would it be useful to remember the false positives, so on future runs you could eliminate them before you begin? For example we could have an option in AWB whereby when you click "ignore" it writes the name of the article to a file, and then you can subtract these from the next scan? Saving having to check the same ones over again. Martin 16:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should just be in the same folder as the executable, did you enable the option in the menu? Martin 09:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll improve it in the next version, I think a button to add to the false positives list is better than adding all ignored articles, because sometimes articles are ignored for other reasons. Martin 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlberg comments

[edit]

Sure, the diagram can be modified. Sounds like a good idea. About stage 5&6 VOP / SPL, I'll have to take another look at my class notes when I get home. Lucidish 16:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took you up on the suggestion of changing "rational" to "instrumental", but I couldn't bring myself to change stage 6. That's just the best phrasing that my notes can give me: stage five isn't about mutual respect, but about contracts, while six is about communicative ethics and all that. If you can think of better phrasing, then I'd be happy to change it, but until then... Lucidish 22:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.. I think the difference is that at stage 6 the idea of mutual respect is something the person is explicitly aware of, while in 5 it's not. For what that's worth. You're right that communicative ethics should probably be in there, but it's easy to explain, really. It's just the idea that morality comes out of dialogue, and so dialogue ought to be treated as a kind of sacred cow. Lucidish 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kohlberg_1969.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS

[edit]

Show me the redundancy --Bob 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for you to wikify my article as I do not know how to do all that fancy smancy stuff. Thank you very much.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeSmack/Archive_1&oldid=1136175238"