User talk:SusanLarson

Hi! Welcome to my talk page,

Please read these policies before posting:
• Always sign your messages with ~~~~. Please do not post if you are not going to do this.
• Please do not respond to other people's messages here. This has the effect of spilling disputes from other pages onto my talk page, and it is very distracting for me. This talk page is for messages to me, not to the other people who have written here.
• Please create a new heading for new subjects. (IE: == Your subject here ==). To respond to a message under the same subject, find the applicable heading below, press the "Edit" button on the right, and add your message to that section.
• Responses will go on your talk page.

Click here to leave me a new message. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with --~~~~

Archives

1 Jan 2005 - 31 Dec 2005

Vicki Walker

(Continued from 2005Archive#Vicki Walker)

Kind of, but I was wondering if it is possible to push the text up in to the blank area. Do you know what I mean? If not, that's ok. I just thought it would possibly look better if that could be done. Maybe it's that I'm just too picky. Davidpdx 08:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw the changes on the page. Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Hopefully I can find a better picture then the one I've got on there. There's so little time to work on these things anymore. I'm sure you'll hear from me again soon. Davidpdx 11:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Link

Susan, thanks for your reply and I added a link to your site on my website, and I submitted my url under the Cross-dressing category on your site. Thanks for the suggestion! --Athena2006 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

What's going on with the FISA article? Incidently, could you sign your comments with ~~~~? Makes it hard to read the flow of discussions. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries :-) I only ask because I want to get the FISA article more up to date. Basically, my idea is to do what I'm doing with the article USA PATRIOT Act, Title II - document each section and give a broad summary. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hurrah for the dinosaur copyediting marathon!

Thanks and good night! Killdevil 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

I know, I did that once too (and an anon reverted me!) which is why I made sure to say "or error".  :) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Pedro's Tracker

Hi Susan,

Sorry if you saw this article as advertising.

--Flacinhell 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese artists

I'm not sure what you mean by retroactive editing. Could you explain? Perhaps we can move it to a relevant WikiProject so the list is still available, but not in the main namespace? - Mgm|^(talk) 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

List of notable brain tumor patients

Could you be persuaded to reconsider your post at the poll? This particular list has unique educational and research value. Approximately 2500 children are diagnosed with brain tumors each year in the United States alone. This presents thousands of families and schools with the challenges of answering questions. The patients want to feel as normal as possible. Other children may wonder if cancer is contagious or be frightened of the side effects, which often include hair loss and seizures. [1] [2] Relatively few resources put a human face on this illness. Nothing on the Internet covers this particular aspect of the subject nearly as well as this presentation. It offers a starting point for parents and teachers to develop innovative educational techniques. Grade school age children may be interested in the early Osmond Brothers recordings or Elizabeth Taylor's juvenile starring role in National Velvet. High school and college students could write papers about Lance Armstrong or Senator Arlen Specter. I hope our disagreement over List of Japanese artists doesn't color your view of this other subject. Respectfully, Durova 00:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

(* Note: responded on users talk page)

???

Most of the time when i post someting, it puts it in a yellowish box with a blue outline. Also then when I go to my contributions, it says "(top)" by it. Why? - Abhorsen123 15:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

afd

Worry do not about sockpuppets on afd, :) they are usually discounted. By the way, the proper way to add a signature to an unsigned comment is {{unsigned|username|date of post}} as shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronicles of friendship. I'll be away for rest of weekend, but if you need assistance, drop me a note -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nambla Vote

Hi, "Susan." I saw your vote on the NAMBLA discussion page, and couldn't help but be concerned that many of the reasons you have cited for casting your vote have already been discussed and refuted on the talk page. This leads me to believe that you voted on the subject without really knowing what NAMBLA is, what its history is, and without reading any of the discussion on the talk page.

NAMBLA does not "espouse illegal practices" or advocate that anybody break the law. This is made very clear at the NAMBLA home page. NAMBLA is a political and education organization that seeks to inform members of society about a different perspective on relationships between adult and adolescent males (which is NOT pedophilia, since pedophilia is a sexual attraction toward PREPUBESCENT children), and seeks to end the criminalization of those relationships.

NAMBLA has been "rejected" by ILGA, but not after being a member for over ten years, during which time ILGA's own position statement coincided with NAMBLA's platform on revision of age-of-consent laws (see the section on ILGA in the nambla article). The fact that most gays now hate NAMBLA because right-wingers have used it to paint all gays as child molesters does not have any bearing on whether NAMBLA is classified as a gay or "LGBT" group for encyclopedic purposes -- a classification, I might add, which has already been given to NAMBLA by an online queer encyclopedia called GLBTQ. And quite rightfully so, since many other gay rights gruops in the 1970s and early 1980s supported NAMBLA's platform (again, see the article's subsection entitled "ostracism"). Regards, Corax 16:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I really think you need to understand that this is an encyclopedia. The entries should not be based on what you or anybody else wants, but what the facts dictate. The facts are clear, and they conclusively show that NAMBLA is LGBT. That you find this repugnant is irrelevant. That people continue to argue against it in spite of what the facts dictate is irrelevant. It sounds to me as though you would be better served maintaining a personal web page where you can write whatever you want without letting the facts get in your way. If people want to condemn all gays just because a few of them have supported NAMBLA in the past and continue to do so, that's their prerogative -- just as it is their prerogative to condemn all Muslims because Osama Bin Laden is listed in the "muslims" category here at Wikipedia. Corax 19:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are way off base. Look at the poll on the talk page. If anybody is trying to advance a minority point of view, it's you. Stating that NAMBLA is GLBT is not the same as agreeing with NAMBLA's positions. While not many gays ascribe to NAMBLA's platform, most are honest enough to concede that NAMBLA is GLBT. To answer your questions (which, again, are irrelevant to the issue of whether NAMBLA is LGBT), I have never been a member of NAMBLA, and I do not agree with the platform of totally abolishing all age-of-consent laws. Corax 19:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In case you must know, my interest is in reporting the facts. I have a very low tolerance for people who seek to revise history to suit their political interests. I have an even lower tolerance when those people are my fellow gays, and they're doing it because they think that catapulting anything even remotely related to the sexual rights of gay youth will enable them to win silly rights like "gay marriage" -- which they mistakenly equate with gay liberation. While NAMBLA's views of totally eliminating the age-of-consent are naive (as they stupidly allowed the religious right to portray the group incorrectly as advocating pedophilia and anal sex with toddlers), the modern-day gay assimilationists have totally forgotten that the very goals they are hoping to advance by joining in the attack -- like gay marriage -- are attempts to mimic the very same institutions that have both failed straights and oppressed gays for centuries. Corax 20:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The view that NAMBLA is LGBT is currently supported by 25 people, while the view that it is not is supported by 18 people. My view is hardly a "small minority." You are correct in stating that NAMBLA is extremely unpopular with most gays and almost all gay groups. But that doesn't alter the fact that NAMBLA itself is a gay group anymore than Osama's infamy amongst American Muslims strips him of his classification as a Muslim. As I've said repeatedly, the classification of "LGBT group" is not some status that must be granted by other gay groups. All that one need to be in order to be classifed as LGBT is to deal with gay issues. Since NAMBLA does this (yes, seeking to decriminalize non-coercive sexual relationships between teenage males and adult males IS a gay issue by the gay community's own definition of gay), it is an LGBT organization. The popularity of NAMBLA with most gays has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Corax 20:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in that we are obviously not going to be able to reconcile our views. Clearly you think that the acronym "LGBT" is copywritten by a segment of gays, and that these gays are free to apply this label only to other gays and gay groups of which they approve. I, on the other hand, think that gay is clearly defined in the dictionary and on the wikipedia article, and that if a person or group meets that definition, then it is LGBT. I suppose it's just an honest disagreement, although I'd remind that you that Wikipedia's own definition of LGBT supports my position, not yours. In any case, thanks for being relatively civil while disagreeing with me. Regards, Corax 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re ASS-U-ME

I apologize -- you're right. I didn't think to check your own talk page. This whole cross-user talk business seems a little counter-intuitive to me, but I should remember how it works. Sorry. Clayboy 20:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

Hi Susan,

I sense you got a bit upset on Talk:Dinosaur. I don't mind you archiving that discussion (it seemed to have degenerated anyway), but in general you should avoid archiving current, ongoing discussions (see WP:ARCHIVE). I don't know why you've assumed that people on that page (and yes, it's clear you included me in your comments) were there to push a POV, but I'm saddened that you've simply decided that I'm a deceitful POV-pusher out to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm not! Wikipedia:Assume good faith is good advice. I would hope that you can remember that Wikipedians can argue in favour of including a POV without holding to that POV themselves, and that reasonable people can disagree about the best method of achieving NPOV.

With regard to your self-appointed "arbitration" of the page, I would again encourage you to avoid such an approach in the future — it isn't very wiki, it's inaccurate (you can't self-appoint as an arbiter), and it's very aggressive; people are likely to be irritated and "push back". It's good that you wanted to help mediate a dispute; a better approach would be to have said something like, "Hi, I'm a newcomer to this debate, and having read the arguments it would seem that the biggest bone of contention is X; perhaps we could compromise by doing Y" etc. The job of a mediator is to help facilitate reaching consensus, not settle it themselves. — Matt Crypto 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please realize that the vast majority of wiki users are not disruptive pov pushers. If you looked into either my or matt's edit history, you'd see we've both made many useful contributions to the encyclopedia. And, as for me, this is the first time i've been involved with any type of creationism debate. To be honest, i think creationism is effing ridiculous and don't understand how anyone could not believe in evolution (a recent doonesbury strip summed up my thoughts quite nicely, in which a doctor asks a patient if he wishes his TB to be treated in the form in which god made it or the antibiotic resistant form it's since evolved into). That said, it is most certainly a popular veiwpoint (unfortunately) and thusly should be included. This is, in a way, pov-pushing - but with the overall aim of NPOV. remember that an article with an npov should do its best to cover all popular points of view, lest it be pov through hiding information. As a result, i felt this pov deserved to be addresesd on dinosaur. Also, in the future, please do your best to assume good faith in the future. Even if you had your doubts, a simple run through of our edit history shows us to be good wikipedians with no bad faith simply here to make an encyclopedia. OR, conversely, agents of a creationist plot who've been working on building up our reputation as a good user just so we can orchestrate a massive strike on the dinosaur page to include a brief mention of our views. But Occam's Razor takes care of that debate. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy the disinterested party line from either of you. No one pushes an extreme minority point of view on an article unless they have a personal interest in the subject.

What you were pushing was highly POV. It was about the views of a specific sect of Christianity not religion in general, it claimed the beliefs were highly popular, and it claimed 50% of Americans believe part or all of the YEC beliefs which was not backed up by the citation provided as justification which did not specifically mention either YEC or dinosaurs. The article instead ended up with a very NPOV statement of religious disagreement.

You claim one thing I firmly believe another. I don't see either of you convincing me otherwise. This is the last contact I want from either of you on this matter. Future contacts on this matter will be construed as harassment. So let’s let this end gracefully. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 17:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Matt Cryto's response and Jfg284's echo of it.

---

This is solely in response to what these two users placed after on their talk page in response to my Cease and desist contact request. If they had let the matter end gracefully I would have dropped the matter. Here is the full story.

I came to the article in question via the Special:Random feature. I go to random articles and edit them for clarity and word flow. At this article I found a dispute which had been ongoing for several months where the above two users and one or two others were trying to push the following text into an article about dinosaurs.

Advocates of young Earth creationism, a popular position in the United States, have views on dinosaurs which differ from 
mainstream science. Based on Biblical accounts and the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, creationists 
argue that the scientific dating of dinosaur fossils must flawed, that the fossils date from the Great Flood of Noah, and that 
humans and dinosaurs must have at one time coexisted. Some contend that dinosaurs were present on board Noah's Ark, but became 
extinct after the Flood [10]. Virtually no life scientists support these views on dinosaurs [11]. 

The paragraph in question is clearly highly POV and in clear violation of NPOV requirements. Matt Crypto as an Administrator should know better. Jfg284 can be excused since he just started wiki'ing October 29th 2005. If they had attempted to add a neutral paragraph about religious disagreement I seriously doubt that the regular editors of the article nor myself as a non-interested neutral party at the time would have had any objection over it (I had never seen the article before that point and had no opinion on the matter). Instead they attempt to use the dinosaur article as a soapbox for these views, hyping these views instead of presenting them in a more general and neutral manner.

I read the entire discussion including the claims by Matt Crypto that he was pushing this tripe into the article in the interest in NPOV and that he had no personal interest in the matter except NPOV. I call as I see it and it is bullshit. If that was the case this text would not have had the clear POV that the above text did. Here are the steps I took that day and the ones that followed. It may not be how things are generally done but stopped the arguments and reached a consensus.

1. I removed the paragraph in question during a rewrite of the popular culture section for clarity. I stated my reasons on the talk page and made the statement that I would defend it if necessary. This is not a step I took lightly. I debated over it for several hours before finally doing do. At the end I stated “however be aware that re-addition of this material to this article may be considered vandalism.”
2. Matt Crypto raised a fuss over the removal as expected, he also fussed that this is not how things are generally done. I personally at the time could have cared less.
3. Based on the discussions that followed the consensus arose that there should be mention of the religious issues. So I added a religious point of views section to the article under the see also. This section linked to the Young Earth creationism article, the old earth creationism article, and the creationism article.
4. The consensus arose that the views about dinosaurs should be presented which resulted in the article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs being created and added to the see also section.
5. Matt Crypto then started a who appointed you whine.
6. Several users noted the fact that Matt Crypto was the sole user pushing for this information to be included in the article and supporting my efforts and actions to resolve this issue. One only opposed (not Matt Crypto).
7. Jfg284 showed up at this point. Before that he had not made an recent appearance in the talk pages.
8. I issued an invitation to Matt Crypto and the other proponents of the YEC text “So here's a compromise give me a piece of text on religion in general concerning dinosaurs covering not just the YEC, Creationism, and/or Christianity and I will consider it's addition to the article as a neutral party.”
9. Instead of taking me up on my offer to include a piece of neutral text Matt Crypto instead again launches into a diatribe about his disagreements with my attempts to resolve the matter. He also made slurs against my experience as a wikipedian which I took offense to but did not respond to until this point. I was content to let the matter drop. It's a shame they were not also. So I wrote the following text and included it in the article making the religious points of view section stand alone instead of being located under the see also which is where I initially created it.

Various religions may have other views on prehistoric life which differ from scientifically accepted fact. These beliefs can not 
be proved using scientific methods and thus believers accept them on the basis of personal faith. See the following articles for 
specific examples:

It ended up after Edits by Myself, Matt Crypto, Vsmith, and Killdevil as:

Various religious groups have views about dinosaurs that differ from those that are generally accepted as fact by scientists. 
While many mainstream scientists respect these views as faith positions, they argue that religiously-inspired interpretations of 
dinosaurs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny. See the following articles for specific examples and further context:

In conclusion, it is neutral, meets NPOV requirements, and represents the views of all religions with differing points of view not just the YEC'ers unlike the text Matt Crypto was trying to push into the article. I have no problems nor embarrassment about my actions in this case as suggested by Matt Crypto and JFG284. In fact below is the entire text from the point I jumped into the fray. If anyone should be embarrassed it is Matt Crypto who as an administrator should have acted in a more neutral manner which would have eliminated the need for me to intervene in the first place.

Once again if they had been content to let the matter drop I would not have had to ensure that this complete and accurate version of the story got out. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 01:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Creationism: a decision of sorts.

---

There are competing theories even about creationism try researching the Gap theory which has no conflict with the existence of dinosaurs. Until you have scientific proof which one is right science, Gap theory, or yours, and since this debate has been raging over a month, I am removing this material.

You may not like this decision however, one has to be made. Since you are free to fork articles and since this article deals with primarily with the science of dinosaurs. This is how it needs to be.

I come to this as a neutral party who came here solely to clarify a article not one with a vested interest either way. I am a Christian and I am a believer. I believe that god in his or her wisdom had enough foresight to make science, the bible, and religion able to peacefully co-exist. This is not a statement against your beliefs only a statement of what is proper for this article.

I have added 3 religious links to the See also section and specifically said for a religious view point see....

You are of course free to add the removed material it to the creationism article or start a divergent dinosaur article. However be aware that re-addition of this material to this article may be considered vandalism. SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Susan for your bold edits and the explanation above. Good work. Vsmith 12:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that removing that paragraph makes this article quite biased. Your use of the word "vandalism" is inappropriate above, but, certainly, removing any reference to young-Earth creationist views on dinosaurs is, in my view, POV pushing. I am not a young-Earth creationist, but I expect Wikipedia to provide me with information on notable human views on topics, no matter wacky or unscientific they might be.

It is unacceptable to decide that religious views about dinosaurs, views which likely have millions of adherents, should not be described in any way on this page. Note that we have plenty of space to describe dinosaurs in comic books, dinosaurs in computer and console games (including naming specific computer games as examples), dinosaurs in film and TV etc.

For reference, this is the paragraph that was removed. It was originally placed at the end of the article, in the "Dinosaurs in popular culture" section. It could in no way be construed as promoting or presenting creationist views as science.

Advocates of young Earth creationism, a popular position in the United States, have views on dinosaurs which differ from mainstream science. Based on Biblical accounts and the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, creationists argue that the scientific dating of dinosaur fossils must flawed, that the fossils date from the Great Flood of Noah, and that humans and dinosaurs must have at one time coexisted. Some contend that dinosaurs were present on board Noah's Ark, but became extinct after the Flood [3]. Virtually no life scientists support these views on dinosaurs [4].

— Matt Crypto 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be cleaner and more straightforward to create a separate article for this information. I linked to an as-yet non-existent article -- "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs". There'd be enough room in this proposed article to discuss the views of young earth creationists, old-earth creationists, and other groups as well, and it could be linked from the pop-culture section in some fashion. Killdevil 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think such an article is a good idea, and I appreciate your suggestion, but it's not clear why we should not also include a brief discussion about it in this article. Normally, "subtopic" pages are used when the subtopic is so large that it can't be treated within the main page, and, instead, a summary section is written, accompanied by a link to the full subtopic page. Alternatively, when dealing with extremist fringe viewpoints, like holocaust denial, it is not appropriate to include such a minority view into the article.

However, I would argue that the young earth dinosaur view is, while a minority POV, not a fringe POV (it's fringe science, of course, but that's a different matter), therefore we cannot competely farm it out to a sub page. By NPOV, we should include some mention of a view held by millions of people, particularly since we discuss other popular understandings of dinosaurs (computer games etc). A paragraph as suggested above is neither disproportionate nor misleading, and I'm at a loss to find a good faith explanation as to why it is opposed so strongly. — Matt Crypto 14:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the reason it is opposed so strongly here is that the young earth creationist viewpoint is completely antithetical to the rest of the knowledge presented. It's the yang to the yin of most dinosaur epistemology. It's similar to presenting a holocaust-denier paragraph in a holocaust article, in that it has a nullifying effect on the rest of the dinosaur article's information. This is, of course, not to say that the young earth viewpoint is an evil extremist viewpoint, just that it stands in total opposition to all other facts in the article. By contrast, the popular culture information presented dovetails reasonably well with the scientific knowledge presented. I think it's particularly useful to show how more recent depictions in pop culture have tended to reflect some aspects of the changing scientific understanding of dinosaurs. Killdevil 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the young earth viewpoint stands in "total opposition", but the point of NPOV is, surely, that opposing viewpoints are represented? And we're not talking about a disproportional representation, either. The paragraph in question fits into the context of the bulk of the article. For example, it starts by saying that this particular view "differs from mainstream science", and ends by saying that "virtually no life scientists support these views on dinosaurs". While the POV is obviously in opposition, the proposed paragraph would be quite well integrated with the rest of the article. You argue that it's particularly useful to "show how more recent depictions in pop culture have tended to reflect some aspects of the changing scientific understanding of dinosaurs". True, but to some extent, the scientific understanding of dinosaurs, coupled with the fact that they get much popular attention, have had a large impact on popular belief about creationism, too. This is largely the reason why young Earth creationists spend so much time on the topic. — Matt Crypto 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The placement of an NPOV banner on the top of the page is unfortunate, to say the least. I don't know if SusanLarson's authority is sufficiant to unilaterally keep the previously agreed upon paragraph out of this article, and I don't know if a single dissenter (Matt Crypto) is enough to warrent flagging the entire entry. This is really getting way out of hand.Dinoguy2 18:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins do not have any more authority than regular users about the content of articles, but I hope we would reach consensus. I'm sorry to push this, but I believe NPOV is important. — Matt Crypto 18:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the three current talk sections devoted to this discussion, I conclude that _only_ Matt Crypto has supported inclusion of a full paragraph devoted to Creationism and Dinosaurs. One or two other users have supported including a link to a separate "Dinosaurs and Creationism" article, which I have provided. In fact, there's ample opportunity to learn about Creationist views via the new See Also links to religious viewpoints. I'm sorry, Matt -- you are really a lone dissenting voice here. In view of this lack of support by the community, I'd ask you to remove your NPOV banner from the top of the article. Why not re-add your Young Earth paragraph to the new Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs article, to create a stub we can add to?Killdevil 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that any significant point of view should ever be excluded which is why in my grounds for making the decision I recommended that a fork be created for those who believe as some of the Young earth people do that dinosaurs either did not exist or were simply artistic decorations created by god to give his/her creations something to do with their time in the living world. I felt the religious points of view section was a valid compromise and is one which allows these alternative religious viewpoints significant exposure via this article while at the same time not ignoring the massive evidence that science has gathered in the field of paleontology. I am eager to read the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article when it is ready, you can be assured that there religion takes the front seat. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect, it would be helpful if you didn't style your "decision" as a binding decree, as it is not. Wikipedia is about discussion, compromise and working towards consensus. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why the unusual measure of relegating religious views to a completely different article is at all necessary. To me, it seems very POV indeed. Arguments presented so far include the assertion that this article is about dinosaur science, which it is not exclusively, and that creationist views on dinosaurs are "political", which is hardly a reason for omitting a point of view held by a large number of people. In your paragraph above, you seem to reason that since creationist views have no "scientific proof", they should be removed. However, Wikipedia does not adopt a scientific point of view. We document human beliefs and understanding of topics, and we document opposing views. — Matt Crypto 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that the Wikipedia is about discussion, compromise and working towards consensus. That being said at some point someone has to step in, hopefully a independent party with no vested interest in the matter, someone who will listen to what both sides have stated and make a decision on the matter in question. Once the decision is made it must also be enforced. That is a role I saw needed to be fulfilled in this article. I stepped forward to do so, I hope in the end you find my solution in this dispute to be one that works for all parties as that was my sole intention in this matter.

Before my edits the religious viewpoints on this subject were buried in the text of the popular culture section. Now it stands on it's own and it is listed in the table of contents of the article for those looking for material of that nature to find. This of course increases it's visibility, and in my opinion fulfills the need for presenting alternative points of view about this article. This lets the various religiously oriented articles expound on the matter at a length that would in the end not be acceptable to the regular editors in this article. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Who appointed you to decide the argument for us? I'm afraid I found your comments to be remarkably presumptuous. "Consensus" does not mean that the decision is taken by "an independent party with no vested interest in the matter"; moreover, I don't wish to call you a liar, but you do have a point of view on this, and you should realise that it will inevitably colour your judgement. Matt Crypto 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As an intersted bystander I completely agree with Susans decision to remove the YEC text from this article.--nixie 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As an interested bystander I completely disagree with Susans decision to remove the YEC text from this article. This is not a science textbook. RossNixon 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed it is not a science text book, however the material in question is still capable of being presented in the article about YEC which is directly linked under the religous points of view section of the See Also. Thank you for expressing your opinion on this matter. Your input is valued. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You're being patronising, please don't. You're not making an argument here; you're proclaiming, and it's quite irritating. Yes, the material is capable of being presented in a seperate article. That doesn't, however, mean it is the best way to write about dinosaurs from the NPOV. A view held by millions deserves a paragraph in the article about that topic, period. Matt Crypto 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not being patronizing. As for proclaiming in this instance you are correct. You made the argument. I simply listened to both sides as recorded in the talk page here over the course of a month and weighed what both sides said and attempted to find a mutually agreeable solution. You get your exposure for your YEC group and the other religious perspectives on Dinosaurs. The other side really doesn't get anything except things as they were before the addition of the YEC material with the exception of the addition religious point of view section. No one side lost and no one side had a clear win. Before the article had a paragraph on religious points of view which was buried in the mass of the pop culture section. Now there are links to 4 full articles of information on the religious perspectives including one specifically on the religious perspectives on dinosaurs.

Religious points of view

• Religious perspectives on dinosaurs
• Creationism
• Old Earth creationism
• Young Earth creationism

In the end this is a win for your side, their side, and the wikipedia community as a whole. I hope you can come to see this with time. That in the end is the goal of all mediations. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 07:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, who appointed you to be mediator, and gave you authority to decide the outcome of this debate? Nobody. You have to engage in discussion like everyone else, I'm afraid. I don't agree that the current state is a "win" for Wikipedia, because it does not satisfy NPOV. Religious points of view should be discussed in this article, because Wikipedia is a human encyclopedia, not a science encyclopedia, and some religions have strong and notable viewpoints on dinosaurs. I'm not saying the article should be transformed into a great creationist billboard, but a paragraph or so discussing religious viewpoints of dinosaurs is not inappropriate. To say that it must be excluded is POV, surely? What does the article lose by including a paragraph or so on religious aspects of dinosaurs? (By the way, I don't appreciate you casting this in terms of "my side" and "their side" -- hopefully, we're Wikipedians trying to improve an encyclopedia, not factions pushing our ideologies. And, if you hadn't noticed, I don't adhere to YEC creationism, so, talking about "my YEC group" is not accurate). Matt Crypto 10:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I appointed myself, I was a neutral party with no irons in the fire. I came here doing a random article cleanup and saw a debate which had continued far too long. Why? Because certain parties are unwilling and are still unwilling to compromise. I keep an eye on this article solely to defend the mediation other than that I have no interest in the matter. You stated the article needs to show the counter arguments to dinosaurs. The religious points of view section satisfies that argument. You are free to make what ever arguments against dinosaurs in the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article. It is prominantly displayed in the Dinosaurs article, listed in the table of contents, and clearly presents multiple other points of view in the article. Please clearly list exactly what this solution does not provide you? -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 23:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with SusanLarson's evaluations. We have offered Matt Crypto several times that he could write about this issue in a separate article, if he really felt it was so necessary to document it. He refused the offer, and not only insisted on his and only his proposal of a whole paragraph in this article, but also proceeded to insert it in the article while the discusssion was still going on, with dozens of users against it. Way to go, Matt! Real consensus-minded! Now with your self-proclaimed knowledge of the subject, you better start contributing to the new article, otherwise I will conclude it was just a lot of warm air from your side. Fedor 10:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your unhelpful, hostile and sarcastic response, particularly when your comments are untrue. There were in no way "dozens" of users who had expressed opposition to the paragraph when I first inserted it. You'll note that I readily engaged in discussion after that point, and removed an "NPOV" tag myself when requested by a user who argued that there was no consensus for it. If you took the time to read above, you'll notice that I explicitly did not self-proclaim to be an expert in this topic. I said above that, "I neither have the inclination or ability to write an entire entry on the topic", but that "I know enough about creationism to be able to research and write a paragraph about creationist views on dinosaurs." My argument is that moving the material to a different page does not satisfy the NPOV policy. — Matt Crypto 11:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Susan, the reason the solution does not satisfy me is that the usual procedure on Wikipedia is to include material on the main page, unless it's either A) so volumous that most of it needs to be split off to a different page; or B) it is so fringe and insignificant a view that it does not merit a mention. The onus is on you to argue why religious viewpoints on dinosaurs should be sub-paged. My theory is that it's simple anti-creationist bias manifesting itself. — Matt Crypto 11:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, it's one paragraph! The article's got a long article warning, and we're splitting hairs that five sentences gives undue weight to a topic? And, what's more, it gives this "undue weight" directly after paragraphs detatiling jurrasic park and video games? I don't understand what the problem is, that's the main reason I haven't been contributing to this discussion in the past. I just don't understand the otehr side of the argument, which makes it difficult for me to imagine myself coming to a compromise. However, realizing that it seems to be Crypto v. The World on this issue, and knowing that my two cents wont aid in his fight that much either, I feel like this is fight that just has to be given up.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 11:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect it's simply anti-creationism, and there's not much you can do bar file an RfC. Personally, I don't care enough to put any more effort into this debate (I'm not a Young-Earth creationist advocate), but it seems pretty darn clear that there's an NPOV problem here. The arguments about "this page is about dinosaur science", and "the creationist POV is propaganda" and "to be consistent, you'd add a paragraph about creationist POV into every prehistorical animal" have all been quite clearly answered above. — Matt Crypto 11:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am no friend of creationism, but it seems to me that all aspects of dinosaurs deserve at least a paragraph in the main article. Then, if there is more to say, create a separate article and a link. Matt's paragraph looked 90% okay to me. –Shoaler (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was trying to say, but much better articulated. I get the impression that people are dismissing creationism as a theory (which is totally understandable, because its clearly bs), and are thus opposed to it being on the article. I can't see one good reason to leave it out.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against creationism, nor young earth or old. So your argument is that because it isn't in the article you are not getting the exposure you feel the matter deserves? Is there something keeping people from finding it in the religious viewpoints section, or is it because the material is located on the sub page that reading it is now optional based on the desires of the individual person reading the article? The objection I see from the other side is that once you have the information here then what stops endless expansion of the 5 lines and the argument that the material should be also allowed on every single individual dinosaur article since it's on the main subject article. I see one more problem the information you wish to include is for a small branch of christanity only and it is not about religion in general. Do all christians or all religions feel identically as the YEC'ers? I seem to recall something from the catholic church on evolution and religion. [5] I believe it was fine with it. In conclusion, nothing stops you from using the prominently linked religion and dinosaurs article to state your viewpoints in as much depth as you wish. The Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to evangelize. God gave mankind free will, it seems prideful that some want to prevent people from being able to choose to use it. So here's a compromise give me a piece of text on religon in general concerning dinosaurs covering not just the YEC, Creationism, and/or christianity and I will consider it's addition to the article as a neutral party. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, you use the phrase "your viewpoints", which suggests you haven't followed this debate as closely as you should. Neither I, nor Shoaler, nor Jfg284 actually hold to Young-Earth creationism, and have expressed such on this page. We are not trying to make this article into a soapbox. We are trying to make it NPOV. NPOV means documenting all significant views to their appropriate extent. Currently, I believe that removing any discussion of the material to another article is biased. Why should we do this? I haven't seen anyone argue that the material would be expanded beyond 5 lines, but that's not an argument against the current proposal -- that's an argument against something else that's not being proposed. You can always revert if it starts being enlarged beyond what's warranted. Similarly, I'm not arguing that every specific dinosaur article should include such a paragraph, because I don't believe that creationists make specific arguments about individual species. But, again, that's not an argument that affects this article.

And, once again, I urge you to drop your attitude that you have some special authority concerning this article ("I will consider its addition to the article"). The article is not yours, and you are no more neutral a party than I. This is not how Wikipedia works. Please stop presenting yourself as the arbiter of this article's content. You are not. — Matt Crypto 10:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In this case I am the arbiter. I was not annointed, I appointed myself because I am neutral contrary to your claims otherwise. I didn't come here to espouse one side or the other. I was uninvolved in the debate over the additions and was am not a regular editor to the article. I only listened to what both sides said and made a decision. As a neutral party I am of course willing to be flexible to an extent and have listened to your arguments. See below -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you have declined to present a NPOV text on religion in general where it relates to dinosaurs I have added one. It is neutral and represents the religious point of view without representing any one group or sect. This paragraph should not be expanded or significantly edited without first discussing it here. I will keep an eye on the article it now lives in my watch list. I review every edit to it. If I feel someone is attempting to insert bias or a specific groups views I will remove it.

The official NPOV policy deals with this section nicely. It seems applicable to this situation.

What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?

No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own

This is my resolution of the religious matter in relation to this article. Once again I will defend this decision as needed. I hope it won't be necessary. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am the final arbiter of this article, not you, and I will defend my decision, which is binding and final. Any edits to the contrary will be considered vandalism...etc, etc. (that is, this is not how Wikipedia works, because as soon as two people decide that they both are self-appointed arbiters, then the system breaks, no? Just because you have been previously uninvolved in the debates does not make you a neutral party; that's faulty reasoning. Being involved in a debate or otherwise has nothing to do with neutrality.) — Matt Crypto 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To respond to your quoting of NPOV, it's helpful to understand the reasoning behind this advice. On first glance, by NPOV, Creationism could, in theory, touch on every article that mentions evolution: horses, whales, frogs, toads etc. This is obviously undesireable for a couple of reasons: it would be very cumbersome, and in actual fact creationists don't really have any specific arguments about these animals, other than the general principle that they disagree with evolution. Mentioning creationist arguments in these cases would be off-topic. However, when it comes to dinosaurs, it turns out that creationists make a big deal about addressing these animals specifically. Above, I provided links to DVDs, books, websites, exhibits in "museums", etc. So, yes, most of the time, creationist arguments aren't notable enough apply to specific animal articles, but in the case of dinosaurs, we must mention them, because they are specifically and ardently addressed. — Matt Crypto 20:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It works that way in this instance because you have been unwilling to compromise at all. Religous issues are mentioned in the article.

Religions views

---

Various religions may have other views on prehistoric life which differ from scientifically accepted fact. These beliefs can not be proved using scientific methods and thus believers accept them on the basis of personal faith. See the following articles for specific examples:

• Religious perspectives on dinosaurs
• Creationism
• Old Earth creationism
• Young Earth creationism

It's NPOV, it covers the issue, and it gives a nod to the religious disagreement on the subject this fullfilling the requirements of npov. The prior text was not NPOV as it stated the view was popular, it stated a specific view held by a subsect of a single religion. This covers it from all angles. If you still have issues I invite you to request a formal arbitration on the matter. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 22:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, it seems you've only been here a little over a month, which I guess means you haven't had time to see how disputes typically play out on Wikipedia. For one user to self-appoint themselves as an arbiter of a dispute is very much against Wikipedia culture. Even the "official" Wikipedia Arbitration Committee do not have content disputes in their remit (just behaviour disputes). Honestly, I suggest you avoid approaching things in this way in future. The fact is, you do not have the authority, and at best, you'll be ignored; at worst, you'll provoke people.

You assert that I've been unwilling to compromise at all. Well, the paragraph I suggested we include was a compromise on what I felt should be included: I worded it so as to stress that the creationist POV was non-mainstream science (perhaps even to the point of POV itself). The alternative — not to treat religious views on dinosaurs at all — doesn't seem acceptable to me under NPOV, so I haven't been able to compromise about that.

I've modified your addition. If you have issues with it, I invite you to request formal arbitration on the matter. No, actually, scratch that; I invite you to discuss it as collegial Wikipedians. — Matt Crypto 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure you can be considered a "neutral party" any more, susan...you've been part of this discussion for quite some time now, and seemed to have formed your own opinion of how this matter should be treated. You may have been at one point a neutral party, but now by all arguments are as much an opinioned party as anyone here..--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I came here to do cleanup on a random article and instead got drawn into a childish and pointless argument about a matter instigated by 2 or 3 people who came here with the specific intention for forcing their POV on this article under the guise of making the article more NPOV. The Wikipedia could benefit without those type of individuals, they should think seriously about that. It is clear that some people here believe that the Wikipedia is a soapbox for their beliefs, publicly stated or not. Oh well in the end "true" NPOV was satisfied, not the pretend kind that they came here to spread. That is all that matters. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 02:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yuck. Again, you make the same mistake, perhaps deliberately. As I've told you before, these views on dinosaurs aren't shared by myself or the other two users who supported the inclusion of a note about religious views -- so we're not "forcing" our POV or using this as a "soapbox" for our "beliefs". At least have the honesty to call me a liar, if you don't believe me, rather than ignoring things that don't fit with your preconceived ideas about motives. Moreover, "Wikipedia could benefit without those type of individuals"? Go read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:NPOV. — Matt Crypto 09:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, suzy, lets try and keep it civil (and dont forget to assume good faith rather than accusing us of being some shady operatives of a creationist conspiracy hell bent on a 5 sentence paragraph in an article of 60 kb). The point is, there are at least 4 users who have supported some variation of a paragraph, so the discussion is certainly not over. And as for the "we put it here, we'll have to put it on every single page in wikipedia", that's nothing but a slippery slope. Focus on this article, that's what this article's talk page is for. The point is, this isnt about the evolutionary development of horses, which is rarely (if ever) directly addressed by creationists. Dinosaurs, however, are often directly addressed due to the fact that their very well known creatures who died out completely before the earth even existed (according to their dogma). As a result, it's a direct threat to the concept of creationism, and as a result of that, its often directly addressed. Rarely is the Tricerotops or T Rex or what have you directly addressed; therefore there's no need to get that specific in those articles. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 13:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not name any names. That was intentional. If you apply that to yourself that is not my fault. As for assuming good faith that got worn away during the course of this farce. The people involved know it, I know it, and anyone else reading this talk know certain people did not come here to push NPOV they came here to push a specific pov. Nothing personal just the facts. Oh wait facts is a bad word so I guess I better use theory. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (at this point they started the Dinosaur section here on my talk page so I ask them to stop contacting me regarding this.)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs

Hi, I got the Dinosaur article to the main page, & as a result, watch who edits it closely. Seeing you have a keen interest in dinosaurs, due to your extensive edits to the dinosaur article, I'd like to suggest that you join Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, as we have few members & even fewer specialists. We'd love for you to join. If you decide to do so, enter your name on our participants list & slap one of those dinosaur user boxes on your user page. Thanks, Spawn Man 07:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, as you may have noticed, I posted the message above. I have one thing to say to you: You have guts! Not many people would be able to write their whole life story & about how they're a trans sexual & post that they're a Christian on the same page. Because, lets face it, Christians aren't really all that nice. They often think they're above everyone. Being a fellow Christian, I often feel ashamed by my religion, as they often exclude people in situations like yours. Basically, if they don't understand it, disown it! I tend to embrace everyone no matter what they're like. I scrolled down your user page & noticed something about being in the navy. I read the whole section & scrolled to the top of the page. I read your whole biography! It was quite amasing to read the ups & downs of somebody's whole life! I really enjoyed the whole thing, even though it took me quite a while to get through it all. Although I'm not trans sexual, & don't intend to be, I feel with your story. I too was a "loner" & a "geek" at school & was bullied & angry. I would love if we could share a few conversations. Hopefully you haven't left Wikipedia after your last discussions, as I've noticed you haven't edited since January. May I ask a few questions about your autobiography? Why did the guy who eventually got you fired from the navy want to get you fired in the first place? What did you do that finally got you fired? Why did the old man set you up with someone & how did you feel? I don't want to sound ignorant, but I don't know if once you become a transexual, do you still like women or do you like men? Thanks, Spawn Man 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC). P.S., yes, shaving does make facial hair grow more rapidly, as I found out too when I was younger.... :)

Psst

I'm trying to build support for this nomination in iuts last few days. Please check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Léon-Bernard Giot

Just for your information, I wanted to let you know that I've nominated this article for deletion due to a number of issues, which are outlined on the discussion page and the deletion page. As an anglophone who lives in France, this is clearly a case of "autopromotion" and this fellow's name and his school keeps popping up in all sorts of odd places on the French version of Wikipédia. If you read French, please have a look at the article's "PàS" entry [6]for more information. Musikfabrik 15:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Eric Van

I noticed that you voted to keep Eric Van when it went up for AFD in January. Someone put it up for deletion again; if you're still interested in the subject, please take a look. Thanks. Stilgar135 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pareve

Hi everybody, we are importer and distributor of wild pacific salmon from Canada. It has a kosher certification, but also pareve.

Now is our question: what is pareve?

Can somebody help out and mail us at: scalibre@gmail.com

Many thanks, Judith and Max —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.194.93 (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hi Susan :) I know it's been quite sometime since you've edited. I do hope you'll see this cup of tea! I just wanted you to know that your contributions are valuable to making Wikipedia what it is, and I do hope you'll participate with a new edit or article. Thank you for your contributions - past and future! SarahStierch (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi SusanLarson! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi SusanLarson! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

System testing

Your help is needed. Will you help steer the direction of this article that you have contributed to? See discussion at Talk:System_testing#What_is_the_intended_scope_of_this_article? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)