This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 6
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Fyslee. I saw you added two interesting links to the List of Japanese POW camps during World War II - am I right in assuming you have an interest in this field, and if so, could I ask you a favour? I have created a page on the WWII camp at Batu Lintang in Sarawak, and am looking to get it to FA status if possible. It's been up for a military history peer review but I haven't had much feedback. Would you mind casting an eye over it for me? As a sweetener - I see from your userboxes that you like The English Patient. You might like this then! Cheers Jasper3312:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
First the video. Absolutely brilliant! They did a good job. Yes, I love that film, primarily because of Juliette Binoche....;-) [3][4][5] As far as the POW camps, I'm not sure how much help I can offer, since my interest is purely because of my family's history. My parents (missionaries to Korea, Japan, and the Philippines) and two older brothers (one and two years old when captured) were interned in three different camps for the next three years, the last two being Santo Tomas and Los Baños, from which they were delivered in the raid. I was born exactly six years later in Tokyo, to the day and date, so I grew up hearing their stories of imprisonment, hunger, disease, excapes, execustions, deaths, even of being befriended by a guard, and of course the dramatic liberation. While making those edits I discovered that the Batu Lintang camp also had a VERY similar experience (!) with a secret radio. The maker of the radio at Los Baños was a navy guy who has remained a family friend in California ever since, and who later was involved in the development of the Polaris missile. The Japanese didn't know he was military or he would have been in big trouble (and another camp). He was (had been) head of all radio communication west of Hawaii and was (is) an electronic genius. Needless to say he and my father are very old. My Dad's 94 now. -- Fyslee/talk14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, Juliette Binoche. Quite, quite beautiful, but her charms are somewhat lost on me. Now if we're talking Johnny Depp ... (by the way, I was walking by the lake just on Sunday where they filmed all the river scenes for Chocolat - in deepest Wiltshire, UK rather than La Belle France). The story of the raid at Los Baños is amazing, and you are so lucky that all your family were saved. How interesting that you have a family connection - me too, my grandparents were in Batu Lintang (both survived) - Granny only died in 1995, aged 93: I guess surviving a POW/civilian internment camp must mean you're a tough old bird. Adam and Joe, the guys who did the EP spoof have done quite a few other ones, including a cracking pop at Trainspotting. Also, if you're at all in to NWA (which I rather doubt looking at the other music you list on your infoboxes) Adam did a very funny send up of Fuck Tha Policehere Enough. I really ought to go and do some work ... Jasper3315:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Here in Europe her films are uncensored....;-) As far as being a POW, it affected my mother the rest of her life, and in some ways the whole family. She always had eating disorders after that, and our family always ate up and never threw away any food. I inherited those attitudes. -- Fyslee/talk15:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you're in Europe. I assumed you were somewhere off to the left of the gorgeous windswept coast pictured on your user page. Is that near Jenner? My godmother lives there but I've never been to Cali - she tells me it's beautiful. My g/ps and parents would never buy Japanese white goods or cars, and my grandparents never talked to us grandkids about what they'd been through. Luckily my mum got granny to write down her recollections, so we have a record. It makes for grim reading. Jasper3315:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I am originally from southern California, and the picture is one I took this summer. (Jenner is north of San Francisco, while this is south of Monterey and Big Sur.) Our family has a special relationship to the Japanese. On the one hand they experienced being internees, on the other hand my father (son of American missionaries) was born and raised in Korea under Japanese occupation, so he grew up speaking English, Korean, and Japanese. During the Korean war my family fled from Korea to Japan, where my father's language skills could be used. So I got born in Japan instead of Korea. So instead of bitterness towards the Japanese, we have always had a pretty good relationship with them, even while recognizing the extreme gruesomeness of their occupational strategies in some countries, especially China. The Germans didn't even approach it. So my family is a mixed up and interesting American family: Dad/Korea, Mother/Oklahoma, Brother1/Korea, Brother2/Philippines, Myself/Japan. -- Fyslee/talk15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Geography never was my strong point - I shall have a poke about in the Jenner link you gave. And what an interesting mix of birthplaces. I always feel that my parents go from the sublime (Mum: Borneo) to the ridiculous (Dad: Bournemouth) ! Well - must do some work now! It was nice chatting to you, Fyslee. Catch you again sometime. Jasper3315:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that the comment doesn't reflect your original intention in endorsing the RfC that asks that Martinphi to be removed from the discussions. I'm saying that my objection isn't just about original intentions and that it's really about dispute resolvement forking, which is what the RfC has become. In other words, I'm saying that you didn't necessarily endorse the complaint trying to create a dispute fork. I'm using your example that one helps decide the other, without saying you intended that when you endorsed it.
My intention in the beginning was to support an examination of Martin's editing patterns, and I agreed with most of the evidence that was presented. I haven't been closely involved with him, since I don't normally edit those articles, but I had noticed some alarming trends in his comments and editing patterns, trends that revealed he didn't understand NPOV or the purpose of Wikipedia. (Advocacy is not allowed here!) I usually edit articles that are somewhat related to science, in the sense that they are falsifiable. Things that aren't falsifiable don't interest me much, since they are too far out to be even slightly credible. That doesn't mean that none of them can't be examined using scientific methods, which is hopefully why the Parapsychology Association(?) is a member of the AAAS. In spite of this, I am interested in the subject of homeopathy, which is about as pseudoscientific as they come. A belief in homeopathy reveals appallingly little knowledge of physics, chemistry, and logic, and/or a high chance of an immunity to cognitive dissonance, IOW a true believer. There is usually little hope when discussing with them. They cannot be moved.
My intentions haven't changed, but having been a survivor of a RFAR, I know that RfCs, RfMs, and RfARs can end up with unpredictable results. If admins get involved (JzG "Guy" is an admin), they may pick up on other issues that need to be dealt with, and have the authority to do it immediately (including indef. banning). In my RFAR, several editors who witnessed against me revealed their deviousness ("carelessness" or "sloppiness", if we are going to AGF, but I know them well, and their intentions were more with getting rid of me, than about protecting Wikipedia) and their failure to understand the problems caused by the losing party, and failed to understand her lack of ability and willingness to adapt to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thus their editing is under increased scrutiny, and future actions by them can result in swift response from alert admins. (There were many admins involved in that one!) Track records mean alot here. If editors fail to learn and adapt, they get judged accordingly. Other editors who express sympathy for them reveal to others that they suffer the same failings and may also end up getting the same scrutiny and judgment. (Believe me, everyone is now on other's watchlists.) I'm sure that some of my opposers likely regret that they ever got involved in a dispute that didn't originally involve themselves. Fortunately for myself my "judgment" was a "caution" to do what I had already been doing. Even some of the admins didn't understand that I even got a "caution", but I felt it was good enough. I certainly learned from the experience, and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. -- Fyslee/talk21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I was just using it as an example that all of these things are related and hope I didn't imply that it was anything more than an example of someone else thinking so.
Hi there, I saw you added this image back to crop circle. I certainly don't have any strong feelings about the issue, and my reasons for removing it were twofold: first just for aesthetics -- I thought the article was getting a little crowded with images at that point; and secondly, it seemed somewhat of a diversion for the article. The meaning was already expressed in the text, and any reader seeking more information was just a click away from an article dedicated to it. But, as I said, no real strong feelings about it. Regards, — BillCtalk23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel part of the problem may be the inclusion of a very tangentially (disambig.) related topic (pixie rings) without its own heading. There are three paragraphs and two images dealing with pixie rings that are just dumped into it, all of which belong elsewhere, but since there is a slight relationship, it deserves mention, merely to avoid confusion. Maybe that could be done with a shorter mention and link. Then move most of the content and all images to that article, since it isn't already there, and certainly deserves to be there. Maybe a "See also" link would suffice. Pixie rings (nearly always pretty round) and crop circles (which can vary enormously) are not the same thing. I have seen large pixie rings here, one of which has been visited every year for decades by my now-deceased FIL, who plucked huge quantities of mushrooms. Delicious! -- Fyslee/talk06:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quote on Zinfandel, it was very amusing. I think you had mentioned something about adding something on "Zin speak" to the article awhile ago. I think if one of us gets a chance we should figure out a way to mention that on the article. Once my semester is over Ill be able to work on a lot more articles that I have been putting off. Thanks again, have a great day. Christopher Tanner, CCC02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopher
Thanks, it looks much better!
I appreciate you adjusting my boxes. I tried playing around with them but to no avail. Happy Holidays! --Crohnie21:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I put the Werdnabot on my users page to do the archiving for me. My question is this: The links in it are red ink, so do I need to go into history and make the red ink go away by making them internal links? Do I have this set up properly? Thanks again, Frylee, --Crohnie11:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the links are red because the robot hasn't archived anything yet. When it does so, the links will turn blue. You don't need to do anything. -- Fyslee/talk12:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd support merging it. I'm ambivalent about the term "scientific acupuncture," since if it is scientific, it's "needling", not "acupuncture" (which implies meridians and acupuncture points, neither of which are scientifically verifiable entities). -- Fyslee/talk08:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:Greenland
Hi Fyslee
Thanks for your message. I am interested in Greenland but I've never been there myself. I've signed up for WP:Greenland, but - to be frank - I will not have the time to make any Greenland-related edits for the next two-three months since I'll very soon have to reduce my editing time due to work IRL. When I get more time, I'll mostly be able to contribute regarding the politics of Greenland and perhaps a little geography. My main area of contributions relate to Denmark and WP:Denmark has only a limited number of contributors, so my first priority is still the part of Denmark south of the Faroes. I hope WP:Greenland will be a success but I just wish I had more time. Happy editing. ValentinianT / C10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Det forstår jeg godt. Jeg frygter at der ikke er særlig mange Grønlandsk interesserede på den Engelsk Wikipedia, men jeg skal forsøg at samle interessen, ellers må jeg gør hvad jeg kan alene. Mvh. -- Fyslee/talk10:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeg er bange for at der heller ikke er det på den danske. Under alle omstændigheder må du have held og lykke med projektet, og jeg glæder mig til at læse resultatet. Mvh ValentinianT / C13:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Grønland er et stort emne, og det kan beskrives på mange måder. Som en af dem der har nydt den storslået natur og jagtoplevelser, jeg synes det er syndt at naturen ikke bliver fremhævet mere. Jeg håber at jeg kan gøre lidt til at hjælpe på det felt. -- Fyslee/talk13:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hej Fyslee. Jeg har fået din email om wp:greenland. Jeg er interesseret men kan ikke bidrage med nogle former for organisation - jeg kan kun bidrage med artikel indhold omkring emner som, grønlandsk sprog og kultur, og politiske problematikker i forhold til grønlands indfødte folks rettigheder etc.·Maunus··ƛ·11:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.
Now it's open for editing by others. You're welcome to try and help it become a featured article. I sought some advice and copied it to the talk page. -- Fyslee/talk20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope we can get more editors to work on it, especially some with experience from Greenland. Even lacking that, it would be an advantage to get more Danish editors on it, simply because most of the information is in Danish. Can you contact other Danes and get them interested? -- Fyslee/talk07:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, I have not yet been to Greenland, but I hope of going there some time in the near furture. I think there is something realxing about northen lights and snow landscapes without foot prints. As to the article, I think it is great, and perhaps thre should be some articles about hunting and fishing in Greenland in general, but I am not the best person to write about theese subjects. Mads AngelboTalk / Contribs13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I can highly recommend a trip to Greenland (and I'm not the slightest bit biased...wink...wink!) Make it a high priority and you'll get there. If you know someone there it's even better, as they can be your guide and take you on boating trips into the fjords. -- Fyslee/talk13:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Which I just realised that it probably hasn't realised yet. When I took an extra look, it claimed that "server time" was 22:42 (Sunday), so it might be a little more than one hour from now. ValentinianT / C22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I gave it a quick look, and this is will unfortunately have to be brief, as I've got to get up very early tomorrow. The things that I noticed were the centred image descriptions and the lists. I personally prefer image descriptions that use the standard format and I prefer images to more consistently use one standard size, around 200 pixels or so. Some editors are concerned about lists breaking the flow of the prose, and if you could convey the same information using slightly more prose-like text, I think that would be a good idea. Just my 2 cents. ValentinianT / C23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am leaving WIKIPEADIA and will never back again. Goodbye.user:debbe,03.05.2007, 12:50 PM IST
Thanks again
For cleaning up my posts in trivia in Wikipedia community. I appreciate any and all help as you know. :) --Crohnie20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Had no idea
I had no idea about the names policy - thanks for the heads up - will choose an alternative, as alas, I am not the girl with the Golden Hair. Thanks again. (Now I have to think up a name...) By the way - is there any way I can change my name but keep my history and watch pages etc or do I need to set everything up anew? AgnethaFaltskog07:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspected it was an innocent mistake. It is possible to change your user name and preserve the edit history. Go here - Wikipedia:Changing username - and follow the directions. You should already have considered what name you'd like, so start trying some names and see if they are taken. Just type "User:whatever you want" in the search box on the left until you find one that isn't taken. -- Fyslee/talk07:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia article
Would you please give your opinion on the trivia section? I added the trivia section in the Wikipedia community and a Mr. Scott seems to think it's crap, he said so. Even though other seem to approve and have even added to it. It doesn't seem to make sense to me that this person is so adament about this section. Thanks, --Crohnie11:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Inspiration of Ellen White
I appreciated your minor edits on Inspiration of Ellen White. Most contributors to the page are overly zealous supporters or detractors who do not attempt to follow Wikipedia policies such as neutrality. If you have any knowledge on the topic, feel free to contribute. My personal POV is that of progressive supporter, although I write in a NPOV manner. Contributions from a policy respecting more conservative supporter and from a policy respecting critic would be very welcome. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin05:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Your "clarification" to the lead of password strength reintroduced the error that I had corrected just several edits earlier. I have modified the clarification so that the intro sentence does not simplify to "strength = weakness". Robert K S10:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I did consider writing something like "refers to the degree of difficulty or ease with which....", but that was too complex and it was unnecessary to mention both, since "degree of" was implied. My edit was more concerned with the grammar than with any question of strength vs weakness. Your current version is fine and is still an improvement over the grammatically confusing version I changed. It looks good now. -- Fyslee/talk11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I interpereted this user's post MastCell's RfA differently. He thinks his block on his old account was unjustified, and I had the same or simliar concerns that the canadate would end up blocking innocent users as a suspected sockpuppet(While MastCell may end up blocking many socks that are not innocent). I don't think this user was trying to make personal attacks on anyone, or troll. Was there any part in particular about the comment that you thought was out of line?--U.S.A.20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm wrong on this. The post that the user made seemed like the user was truley innocent, but now it appears that the user was only trolling.--U.S.A.20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I can understand the concerns raised, but hindsight is not a fair judge. The post contained two elements, the first of which was regarding logical concerns, the second of which was an extended and nasty personal attack. My concerns were with that second part and the tone and charges about motives and of MastCell maybe being employed by the FDA, all of which are personal attacks and libelous, and go far beyond the possibly legitimate concerns that were raised in the first part. If (s)he had just stopped there....but no, he had to go further and start spilling his conspiracy theories all over us. He's misusing Wikipedia to advocate a point, and as a survivor of an RfArb, I know that advocacy is frowned upon very strongly here. Here is the last half, which I find unnecessary and very nasty:
But, the fact that I knows I am not BillyEgo shows the lack of ethics on his part. If he had any real ETHICS he would ignore a sockpuppet of me, because he knows I am not a sockpuppet of BillyEgo. He is using this administrative error to prevent me from providing NPOV, information, and balance to medical articles. MastCell is well-known to be against heath freedom. He believes in draconian regulation and restrictions on what people may purchase and one what they may sell. He doesn't care or doesnt understand that at some point of increasing regulation it begins causing more harm than good. He tries his best to push his pro regulation POV in medical articles. (Maybe he works for the FDA). He knows I am for health freedom. And he knows that I source my edits and provide important information and balance to articles. He knows that I don't POV push but merely provide sourced information. His sole motive is to censor the other side. Make no mistake. The reason that he is seeking adminiship is because of me and others like me. He wants to be able to claim anyone that seems to represent a pro-freedom viewpoint is a sockpuppet of Billy Ego, or me Regulations, and then block them, without even a Checkuser. He is seeking adminship for the sole purpose of being able to block people without a Checkuser. MastCell should be not an adminstrator. He is abusive and unethical, and will be even more so if he is given any power. Reguboard19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Those are some nasty charges and impugning of motives. Such an editor doesn't deserve to be here at all, regardless of POV. -- Fyslee/talk21:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to say good bye, at least for awhile.
I tried to go to an article that should be easy to edit without any nastiness. I was wrong. Check out Wikipedia community and you will see what I am talking about. This person, Ned Scott is out of control and calling me a single purpose account and a meat puppet, which I am neither. I do not need this in my life so I am going. I did bring up his attack to two administrators with hopes something will be done. I hope to talk to you again soon. --Crohnie12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I found the meat puppet accusation, but I can't find any accusation of being a SPA. If that's not accurate, you need to revise it. -- Fyslee/talk14:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
How, I denied it and I went to two administrators about this behavior. He got a warning to be civil on his talk page that he basically blew off. I am going to avoid him for now if possible. I have been told that not much can be done about this. I am not going through the hassles like you had to go through though. He not worth that as far as I am concerned. --Crohnie01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that first "how". Where is the accusation about you being an SPA? -- Fyslee/talk06:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
When submitting users or IP's to WP:AIV please use the {{vandal}} and {{IPvandal}} templates that are provided. They provide quick/easy links for administrators to investigate and take appropriate action. I'd also gently caution instructing adminstrators as to what action to take -- I've found it most productive to point out the problem without suggesting a solution. Just my $.02. /Blaxthos18:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Worth much more than 2 cents! Thanks. I'll keep them here for future use: {{ vandal }} and {{ IPvandal }}
I'm certainly not interested in violating any policies and assumed that the image was available for use in articles. The image is still listed without any indication that it is problematic. Maybe I don't understand the rules well enough. That image is also used in the current article:
I'm just interested in a good image of folding hunting knives and have no particular interest in that particle brand of knife. What needs to be done? -- Fyslee/talk06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep all you have to do is pick a free image, if you look at that one it has a non-free liscense, which means that you can't have the image in your userspace, its fine in article space with the proper rational, so if you plan on moving your copy of your draft to article space someday, just put a colon (:) before the word Image such as [[:Image:3 Vipers 1.jpg]]. I would suggest that you read our fair use policy, specifically the parts of it about nonfree stuff. :) —— Eagle101Need help?06:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (do reply back on my talk page if you have further questions :) )
Example of ref format from Citizendium article on chiropractic
(In the health sciences, subluxation always means that there is a physical dislocation such that the part is completely out of place. In chiropractic subluxations, this is almost never the case. Unless otherwise specified, the word 'subluxation' in this article uses the chiropractic definition.[1])
'The vertebral subluxation complex' from The Chiropractic Resource Organization [1]
'Subluxation degeneration' from The Kansas Chiropractic Foundation [2]
Hartman RL (1995) Spinal nerve chart of possible effects of vertebral subluxations
Dissonant believers
Hello Fyslee. Email me and I'll email you back with an attached peer reviewed paper related to dissonance and persuasion thats not available on the web. BrightonRock10108:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Mixed up edit summary
Oh geez, I'm sorry! I must gotten mixed up in the head when I wrote that edit summary -- it's clear from looking at the diff that it was the anonymous IP editor, not you, who removed that period. Please accept my apologies. --Yksin23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Da nada! Welcome to the club of humans. We're all imperfect. I was just wondering if I had missed something. -- Fyslee/talk06:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fyslee, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Rudolphdvd.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Fyslee/Unidentified Flying Reindeer. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk07:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fyslee, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Sako.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Fyslee/Unidentified Flying Reindeer. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk08:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that it should matter, but the person whose comments influenced your vote change was a meat puppet (one of six) requested by the creator of the article who are all tied to this questionable type of "medicine." The creator of the article is a student at one of the two wiki article schools of Naturopathic medicine. Arbustoo23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I happen to be a skeptic, also about naturopathy, and share your concerns in that regard, but.....THAT fact should not have anything to do with our decision. The rules here apply to all forms of knowledge, and articles and lists often include information about erroneous POV, but fortunately NPOV requires that opposing POV also be presented so the subject gets covered from all angles. I really don't care how MastCell arrived at the vote. He is a highly respected editor, MD, and administrator here. We must not allow our own personal POV about naturopathy to cause us to get involved in POV suppression. That works both ways and is very unwikipedian. -- Fyslee/talk05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Copy-edit
Hi there, I'm a bit snowed under with re-writing the Evolution page at the moment. I'll try to get around to this, but if it needs done rapidly, you'd be best off asking somebody else. Sorry! TimVickers23:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your email of April 13, 2007. I'm sorry I didn't see it until today - I'd forgotten I'd directed my WP email to another address and hadn't logged in there for a while. I'd love to have the energy and time to help you, but am dealing with some job struggles right now. Also, of the topics you mention, hunting and better representation of Greenlandic fauna, I'd have to leave the hunting to you! A special interest I have is Greenland's postage stamps. I've visited Iceland (loved it!) but have not yet been to Greenland. Please keep me informed, and I'll be more available at some point, I hope. Kind Regards, Keesiewondertalk20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
New signature and question
How do you like my new signature given to me as a gift from another editor? I like it. Also, on the Talk Stephan Barrett page, should the confict between Shot and I'clast be removed from the talk page and moved to the individual talk page? Thanks, hope all is well----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That's quite the beautiful sig there! As far as my message, it should stay there. That battle has been waged on all those pages many times, and it has been a public matter for a long time. I'clast shouldn't be allowed to hide it away (not that he's doing it now). -- Fyslee/talk15:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You can try following my instructions here and see if that helps. That page has some good info. You can choose to have one, two, three, or the default four width. Four is apparently too much for your user page, so make multiple galleries with only three in each and see if that works for you. Here is an example using three, two, three:
I'm currently working on this page with multiple galleries: Greenland nature galleries, and will use images from it to illustrate:
I choose to center my galleries and have added <br> codes to force extra space before and after, and have added a centered heading between that last two galleries. You can do whatever you want. I hope that helps. -- Fyslee/talk06:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would give me some feedback about my user page. I am trying to develop it to be appealing in content and also aesthetically attractive. Writing about religious topics is always controversial, and I would like to know if you think anything would be offensive to anyone, or could be improved. I have also invited a few others. Please reply here. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk07:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea; I'm not terribly up-to-speed with what's the current practice/general result of something like this at AfD. Could I suggest the Village Pump to ask, as it has a naturally-far greater amount of users who frequent it than my talk page. Hopefully someone over there would know what's the current standard regarding these. Beyond what I can fathom from WP:LIST (very little, sadly), I can't help you with your question, sorry. Daniel07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL.[1] Wikipedia articles are not:
4. Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.
Greenland nature galleries is not a mere set of media files. It is an illustrated nature guide, arranged in a logical format with identifying information. That is very encyclopedic content. To avoid confusion to folks who might think it would violate the above rule, I recommend giving careful thought to the name. Maybe "Greenland nature (bird/flower/moss) guide" or "Flora and fauna of Greenland". Some of the hunting material might be best split off to allow the topic to be narrowed. And even if folks object to having this guide here I'm sure it'd have a place somewhere in Wikimedia, such as Wikibooks. All in all I think it looks like useful content. ·:·Will Beback·:·07:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Your suggestion is being implemented here:
In reply to this comment - no, I don't see how that could be turned into a Wikipedia-acceptable article and/or list. I don't really see any unifying relationship between the stuff there besides "list of things you might see in Greenland" which would never really fly. Raul65401:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it would make a good list, however since it has little explanatory text it certainly couldn't be described as an article. TimVickers15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Yes, "list" would be the best description for the current format, and I have now changed the heading above to reflect that fact. Of course there is nothing that would prevent it from becoming an article, but it could start as a list. Such galleries and lists are commonplace in paper encyclopedias, but here the links lead directly to the articles, thus making the list a sort of "Grand Central Station" for the subject. (I'm old enough to remember what a book is, so the hyperlinking format of the internet still amazes me!) -- Fyslee/talk15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Fyslee! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule �urbandictionary\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot06:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Request for Third Opinion
template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[9]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria[10] or History of Northeast China[11][12] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Carla Baron, this matter involves an obvious attempt to cover-up criticism of yourself. Such coverups aren't allowed here unless the information is libelous or undocumented. Articles here include criticism. Your misuse of this BLP Noticeboard will not succeed and has only brought more attention to your agenda, which is to keep criticism out of the article.
I suspect there are other third party sources that can also be used to bring balance to the article. If there are issues with the quality (RS, V) of those sources, that is one matter, but covering up criticism violates NPOV, and there is plenty of criticism out there!
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.
This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing.
As we have often seen here, attempts to cover-up documented criticism only results in more unwanted attention and even better referenced criticisms being added to the article in question. We aren't interested in your idea of "truth", but in NPOV coverage of all aspects of the subject. Hagiographic articles are fine in the media or your own website, but are totally inappropriate here.
Your proper role here (since you have a conflict of interest) is to ensure that obvious libel or undocumented criticisms are corrected, and that is best done by participating at the article's talk page and convincing other editors to help you do it if they can be convinced by your arguments. If that doesn't work, then you can use this board.
The article should be restored, including the criticism. This attempt to violate NPOV and misuse this board should back-fire big. -- Fyslee/talk06:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Navigation templates don't have their own headers; the editor in question decided to add headers to these kinds of boxes in dozens of articles. Jayjg (talk)21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
BLP Stephen Barrett
Just thought you would want to go back and recheck what you wrote and do a copyedit. Especially at the point where you talk about Bolin in parathesis. It's not a big deal, just a misspelling I think. I hope you are well. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah ha! Okay, here's the diff I asked for [13]. What is the problem? Is it the typo ("his" instead of "he")? I'll go and fix that now. -- Fyslee/talk14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Glad to help. For some reason my internal link didn't work this time so it showed like it did. Yes this is what I was talking about, glad you fixed it. I hope it was ok for me to bring it to your attentions.----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
While you've been a part of the recent discussions and editing of Stephen Barrett, it might be a good idea to contribute to the talk page so you don't look like you're just edit warring. -- Ronz 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
88.91.133.120
This is a common misconception. IP addresses are not the same as accounts and are only blocked permanently if they are an open proxy. IP addresses change frequently, particularly if one is using a commercial internet provider (as opposed to one's workplace or school). As you can see from the DNS lookup this is one IP address in a range, which means that it will eventually be assigned to a different person. That person, who has presumably not vandalised Wikipedia, would probably be upset to find themself unable to edit because of the misbehavior of the IP addresses current owner.
Open proxies and Tor nodes are occasionally blocked indefinitely or for very long spans of time (5 years or more). Additionally, some shared IP addresses that have had particularly abusive histories are softblocked for periods of up to 6 months. Natalie11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Removal of a warning may be taken as an indication that it has been read. Removal is acceptable. Also warnings from involved parties are often functionally indistinguishable from trolling and should be left to an uninvolved party. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You said that Robert C. Beck person's "Protocol" was pseudoscience and will end up killing people.
From some anecdotal accounts, people have been successfully treated for AIDS and other diseases using "The Beck Protocol."
Is this categorically false?
Have you any scientific experimental results that show good or bad outcomes using this protocol?
"Where are your reliable sources?"
I have been researching with an open mind.
Upon close examination, I find that the American Cancer Society has made some misleading statements about alternative medicine such as about Royal Rife.
To my knowledge, there are no laws of physics, chemistry, or biology that would stop some of the Ray Beam Rife frequency treatments from working.
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. None of the dismissing characterizations about Rife's original successful 1934 clinical trial treatments ever bridge the concepts of NMR with the nature of Rife's work.
Rife's research lab results are dismissed out of hand by unqualified non-physicists, non-engineers that claim "no pathogens could possibly be rendered harmless." "Power or energy levels are too low."
Sorry, this is not the scientific method. Where is the experimental results that disprove or support this claim? How would a MD. know what power level was good? What experimental results are there?
Blood electrification does this work "only in-vitro?" The American Cancer Society does not mention such a topic to my knowledge.
U.S. Patents on blood electrification (to counter AIDS tainted donated blood) were issued because the patent applicants were able to demonstrate that both their inventions, and procedures worked.
It is "not out of the realm of possibility" that Blood electrification could be done in-vivo as Robert C. Beck attempts to explain. The Voltage and Current levels used in his specific application to the arteries that he outlines would cause current flows (of magnitudes I am not able to know). That he and his supporters "claim to be curing themselves of various diseases" warrants my investigation into the matter.
A true scientist is "not political" and does not dismiss claims out of hand unless the idea has absolutely no possibility of working (i.e., against the laws of physics). I would not bet my life against this concept working...
A search of the Internet turns up that veterinarians have been treating the joints of horses with some form of magnetic pulsed mechanism, and have been doing so for some time.
Stem cells. "The Body Electric." I downloaded a copy of this book and skimmed it over. It was written by a MD. He was studying healing of bone fractures. He was in the U.S. Veteran's Administration working on war veterans. Some bone fractures would not heal. He investigated this. He made some interesting discoveries that permitted the healing of otherwise non-healing bone fractures.
Genes in stem cells. Gene expression. Electronics. Circuits. I saw a TV news story in Canada in the late 1990s or so about a company that had made an experimental IC that could direct stem cells to express themselves as various types of new forming tissues.
There are so many discoveries being made, it would be foolish / poor-judgement to dismiss anything out of hand without some proper, unbiased scientific research or experimental investigation.
I do not mean to offend your genteel sensibilities with anything that I have ever written, and am sorry if I have. Oldspammer09:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You have definitely not offended me. I don't have to prove or disprove Beck's or Rife's theories. The burden of proof is on you and them. Where is the proof (anecdotes are not legitimate for this)? If you can find published scientific evidence that is listed at PubMed, you will stand much stronger when discussing these matters.
Interestingly, Wikipedia is not about "truth", but about documentable opinions and facts. If you can provide evidence from published WP:V and WP:RS (read those pages completely) that Beck is notable (it should be possible, if not only from alternative medicine sources, but also from sources where he is criticized), you might be able to save the article in an abbreviated form. From there you can build it up using such good sources. You must not advocate his ideas, just document the opinions that exist, both for and against. WP:NPOV requires both POV. If you can do that, even I will back up the inclusion of total nonsense. -- Fyslee/talk09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes it is a chicken or the egg problem. If there is no wiki article at all, then fewer people will learn about the subject and less interest will be generated, etc.
Trouble with some branches of the scientific community are that they are too political. As such, Rife's or Beck's results shall be prevented if anything.
http://www.Rife.org/ have lots of historical texts showing his experimental results for inspection.
From what I understand from documentary videos about Rife, there were 3 or so sets of clinical trials carried out by various M.D.s during 1934 to 1937 or so.
1934 is widely reported as 100% success rate but on only 16 patients. But according to the video, the overall success rate at treating incurable, final hopeless stages of cancer was about 90%.
Rife had a lot of trouble with the AMA. The corrupt head of it was eventually convicted of racketeering charges. The AMA only started to get after Rife some years after the first few clinical trials. Supposedly, police raids, and fire consumed a lot of the research and equipment.
JAMA would have rejected all of the "Rife group's" submissions.
Apparently, in the late 1930s and onwards, MDs using Rife's equipment were threatened by the AMA not to use the devices or lose their license to practice medicine. Eventually, in the late 1950s California AMA branch had the health department declare the machinery unsafe although all scientific labs checking the equipment said it was fine. AMA investigators were then free to make calls to police to raid doctor's offices to confiscate such equipment.
John F. Crane a partner of Rife's got himself into a jam where he was prevented from providing evidence to defend himself in court. Rife gave a sworn statement from Mexico but it was ruled inadmissible as was anything Crane tried. Crane served 3 years in prison only because the appeals court reduced his sentence down from much more.
There is no monetary incentive for MDs to examine Rife's claims--they might lose business if it proved effective. Worse yet, the drug companies would be in trouble if it proven. I was and may still be an investor in drug stocks.
According to web pages, the AMA was hounding Bob C. Beck too--trying to entrap him into prescribing medical treatment to a number of undercover agents. So much so that Beck had told his friends and close contacts not to publish his contact information that might lead these people to bother him further.
The equipment is not too expensive. The Protcol book warns that it is not a cure for all things. Anyone reading it should consult their physician. It has recommended treatment schedules so as not to over do anything. But, a user could over treat themselves. Other conditions could develop. The equipment could go faulty. But this is exactly the same as taking prescribed drugs: the patient could take too many, or too few, or not often enough or other abuses.
One concern that Beck had was that expressed in the book "Emerging Viruses: AIDS & EBOLA -- Nature, Accident or Intentional?" by Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H. 1996. Some autocratic group might engineer a means of population control for the rest of us. Oldspammer11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahh! Thanks for the clarification. Where is the info on the page? I looked and didn't see it. I would suggest AvB remove such info, because if people like User:Ilena get hold of it, they can make life miserable for him. -- Fyslee/talk06:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll post in a sec... Old user page and recently. You should note that Avb hasn't gone to great lengths to hide any of this. He has openly shared his medical condition, his religious beliefs, the size of his family, and where they holiday. I really have respect for Avb's openness and have no intention of posting information he hasn't posted himself. ॐ Metta Bubblepuff07:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Then let him do it himself. You doing it borders on a bannable offense. Editors who dug into my own user page history and published the information here (and used my honesty against me!) were severely warned and one banned. I have since gotten that information oversighted. My family should not be endangered because I was open and honest. People's openness should be respected, not used against them. BTW, he stated that he is holding a sabbatical from his work on that site, which is probably why he said he did not have a problem with that issue. -- Fyslee/talk07:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
All that aside. I've also got diffs where you recognise your particular vest interested and have hence refrained from certain articles. I'm suprised you object to me saying you have admited an interest. I'll happily strike my comments myself if you want to discuss it here. ॐ Metta Bubblepuff07:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Admitting an interest is not the same as having a Wiki COI. I would like to discuss this with you, but preferably by email. Just click the link at the left side of this page. Send me the diffs and we can discuss them. There are still malicious editors very active here, including their socks, and other malicious persons who keep an eye on what I write and may publish it off-wiki. -- Fyslee/talk07:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I wholy agree that interest doesn't equate to conflict. But I think you know there's more to it than that and hence your willingness to discuss it off project. There must be some facility to discuss this within the project without harassing anyone, no? ॐ Metta Bubblepuff07:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing to hide from honest and honorable persons, but we are dealing with people who take innocent information, personal details, irrelevant facts, minor imperfections and failings, etc., and use them in personal attacks in a very unfair manner. My openness has been used against me and I have learned from being so naive as to expect that Wikipedia editors are honorable persons. Not all of them are such. Besides them, lurkers who read our comments can do the same. -- Fyslee/talk08:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Your refactoring of editors opinions is unacceptable and disruptive. Please refrain. I'm really not interested in your games of escalating what should be a simple situation. ॐ Metta Bubblepuff22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:REFACTORing is standard practice, especially when BLP issues are involved, and they do apply to editors, especially when they also come in the form of personal attacks, which your misleading statement was. Place yourself in my shoes. If I lied about you, how would you feel? You claim to be a Buddhist, IIRC, but you are anything but peaceful. Please do not repeat the false charges that were never proven in the RfArb. Some people seem to believe in "guilt by accusation", but that's not the way it works. Please reword it to "POV". That would be accurate. -- Fyslee/talk22:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You weren't refactoring BLP information. You were refactoring my fair and reasonable opinion. My opinion wasn't a personal attack nor uncivil. My statement was "Fyslee doesn't hide his conflict" and although I'm starting to doubt the accuracy of my statement you still have no business changing my edits. ॐ Metta Bubblepuff22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To me it is a BLP violation. I know best about myself. The charges were never proven. Read the rules. I can -- and all editors "must" -- immediately remove potentially libelous statements and unsourced negative information. BLP applies to all living persons, including editors, and applies to all of Wikimedia publications, including personal userspace. 3RR does not apply to removal of such information, but does apply to the one who includes or restores it. -- Fyslee/talk23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for maintaining a constant vigil on the above page. However, I feel you are overdoing it. You did two more removals of Allen Forest (a government owned zoo and one of the largest in north India) and Lal Imli (BIC) again a government owned factory of british era which was exporting worldwide (in fact Lal Imli / BIC were considered for assurances of quality but lost its name due to trade-unionism in 60s and 70s). This places are of real importance for anyone who knows Kanpur properly. Please clarify or else I will have to revert anyhow. Just coz I did not get time to write up pages for these places, does not mean I cant do so later. --Bobby Awasthi19:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bobby. The purpose of limiting inclusion only to notable persons, institutions, or whatever.... is a matter of principle. That article was at one time filled with numerous listings of unknown persons, businesses, my aunt and her grand-uncle and their pet dogs, etc.... There was absolutely no control over whether the additions were nonsense, vandalism or were worthy and Wiki-legitimate candidates for inclusion. Since Wikipedia forbids such indiscriminate lists (we are being lenient and "looking through our fingers" already), this is the only way to ensure that Wikipedia's listnotability requirement for inclusion is met. Even if the article is a stub, the subject can be included. Just do that and there will be no problem. If we once again start allowing red links and unreferenced additions, then we will quickly be back to the chaotic days where this article was as reliable and safe a place as the worst back alley in a Bombay slum market place. Kanpur deserves better and this article is an important "face" for Kanpur to the world. -- Fyslee/talk19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have responded: [14][15] This is one of those cases that illustrates why it's not a good idea to stick one's nose into other people's arguments, especially when one already has a history of very contentious and vigorous attempts to smear Barrett. The Om symbol ( ॐ ) at the beginning of her signature seems to be nothing but a symbol without any intentions of peace, goodwill, or AGF. The conspiracy theory mentality does weird things to people, making them think that the ends justify the means. Anything goes as long as it will damage their imagined foe. -- Fyslee/talk10:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee. Please refrain from discussing my religious beliefs in any way. I'm in the process of getting that information completely wiped from wikipedia and consider it a matter of strictest privacy. ॐ Metta Bubblepuff04:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As you wish. You don't have to worry about me digging anything up from your user page edit history and publicizing it (as you did to AvB). What's on your user page itself is another matter, but I have no intention of escalating this matter. I will only respond to any escalations you have made or continue to make. I will of course defend myself. If you let this thing die out, I will be satisfied. I got what I wanted, and that was a removal of the false COI charge from the talk page. Notice that I respect your wishes, in contrast to your original refusal to respect mine and AvB's wishes. Metta means something, and it would be good to remember that. -- Fyslee/talk16:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Your decline to accept Mediation (“Stephen Barrett”)?
Several editors (including you if I remember it right) have complained about the lengthy and stalled discussion on Talk:Stephen Barrett about Barrett’s board certification. Deadlocks like these are paralyzing Wikipedia and I take it for granted that a Dispute Resolution would be welcome by all parties involved in the controversy. Now a recent request for Mediation was rejected [16] because you declined. The result of your refusal to accept mediation is that the dispute will continue. Please explain your grounds for not accepting the DR mechanism. MaxPont13:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was one of the ones who declined before the case was closed. Others were prepared to do the same but didn't make it. One decline was enough, and I was number two out of three. I declined simply because this was yet another of Levine2112's refusals to face the obvous fact that without a new situation (outside of Wikipedia), new sources, and contextual information, there was no way he was going to get a consensus. The proper alternative is to lay this on the shelf and wait until those conditions are met sometime in the future. Instead, a continuation of this debate is simple disruption and stubborn refusal to accept reality. Anything/anyone that/who plays along with his agenda in the face of a lack of new situation is participating in it. That's why I saw his mediation ploy for what it was. His disruption is going to cost him and those who support him. It's time to disengage and get on with other things. -- Fyslee/talk16:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-2007-05-15T01:41:00.000Z-Image:3_Vipers_1.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-17T07:53:00.000Z-Image:Rudolphdvd.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-17T08:10:00.000Z-Image:Sako.jpg){kind=link}