Jump to content

User talk:WLU/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Impersonation?

Um, you're not running multiple accounts for any reason, are you? Would you take a look at this note left on my talk page, supposedly signed by you? (It's in response to this pointed message about a blatant, but repeatedly denied, copyvio.)

It might have been an inadvertent mistake, but this user is not "winning friends and influencing people", so I'm not sure how much good faith is appropriate to assume. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

3rr

Sadly he's at four now. I will report it unless you are doing it currently.--Slp1 (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Slp1 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't even notice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Persistance

Yep, I stuffed up. Didn't realise that your sig was at the bottom of the box. Apologies for the whole mess up. And i'm not an AIDS denialist, just someone trying to even up the balance of bias. Anyway, that doesn't matter, sorry again MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is a joke or relationship I am not aware of, it strikes me as extremely uncivil. I don't care if my signature was accidentally included, but I do take umbrage to bastardizing one of the few gestures we can use to acknowledge good works into an insult, irrespective of how WAID took it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You have made your point overtly clear and I'll take it on board for future reference.MrAnderson7 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, could use your help for a sec....

Hi, hope you are well. You put on my user page the hide templates on my welcome page section and esp. the graphics. But they aren't hidden like they should be. I've tried to figure out what the problem is but for the life of me I can't seem to get them to hide under the hide/show bar. Could you help me out? My user page is getting too long and I think some of the things like the welcome page, images, and even the essays could be more useful if they were in a hide box. Sorry I can't think of the proper terminolgy right now, rough night, no sleep. Anyways, if you have time and can help me out I'd appreciate it. I have problems with coding like a lot of what you did to my user page. I have learned a lot though from you working on my page so maybe if you fix it I can figure out why I couldn't. :( ;) Thanks, I'll be in touch. I figure I have two maybe three weeks left before I go on break. As always, take your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie,
The two boxes at the bottom? They're both hidden on my browser, but your barnstar box isn't capturing the Awesome Wikipedian barnstar (if that's not deliberate, you can fix it by moving the {{divhide}} text to the bottom of the section). Sometimes the browsers leave them open (something to do with the cache I think - try holding down control and clicking on the reload button if using internet explorer, or control-shift-R for Mozilla/Firefox). If you're really concerned, I would suggest moving some of the text or useful links to a sub-page, like your talk page archive. Aside from that, the page seems to be OK. The only other thing I can think of is adding |show = no to them, but I really think it's just an issue with your browser and not for most other people's. I'll try to remember to check on my other computer as well.
Speaking of talk page archives, you're up to archive 17 already, but only archive 1 is showing up on your talk page. I assume this is an oversight? The reason you've got so many is MiszaBot is set to create a new page after 60K, which isn't very much. I've got mine set to 250K, which is pretty standard I think. Means you don't have to create links to your archives manually every couple months. I can fix it if you'd like - both the size and the lack of links to each archive (or you could do it yourself, it's good practice!)
So in two-three weeks you're offline for a while? I'm assuming the lack of sleep is worry...keep me posted, via e-mail or talk page. I'll cross my fingers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit I am having trouble a bit following this. Where is the 'reload' button? I do use IE but can't find a anything saying reload, do you mean refresh + control? The Awesome was supposed to be with the rest of the barnstars so I'll take a look. As for the achives, it was set up for me long ago. I know how to adjust the days but no clue about anything else you are talking about. Sorry, pain, sleep dirtuptions, all of it, is making my brain into mush lately. I hope I am making a little sense. I'll try to email you with what is going on lately. But yes I figure two or three weeks before I am gone for whatever time is necessary. I have to admit I hate this part, the waiting, but I still come here to try to give me a break from RL, does that make sense? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It's called "refresh" in IE, correct. Crtl-F5 might work too, I"m not sure. I'll adjust the archiving for you, shouldn't take more than a couple minutes, and I'll try to pop up some diffs and explanations. Pass along an e-mail when you've got the time (and concentration). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In need of mentorship

Hi,

I saw your name over at WP:ADOPT.

I need the advice of an experienced Wikipedian.

I'm currently coordinating development of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, which has grown to around 500 pages, and I am having trouble recruiting editors to help build and improve it. I need some mentorship here.

I also need advice on the guidelines I've been writing for the Outline of Knowledge at User:The Transhumanist/Outline of knowledge. Is it good enough? Did I miss anything important?

My latest effort to recruit help on the outlines is a proposal for a contest between all of the country WikiProjects on Wikipedia (about 200 of them). (Each country has an outline devoted to it, and so I figured it falls within the scope of the corresponding WikiProjects). This will be a very big event, and I'm not sure I'm going about it in the best way.

So you see, I've taken on a lot, and I need as much advice as I can get.

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Parental alienation

You keep taking off valuable links scontent that meets of exceeds all standards for Wikipedia. You falsely claim that the content on the wesbite of the virutal library of the Canadian Children's Rights Council is a copyright violation. It isn't.

You have reduced the web page to nothing in a destructive manner.JaniceMT (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The articles that are linked are from such sources as the Florida Bar Association , The Canadian Bar Association and a study by Nicholas Bala of Queen's university, a professor whose work has been cited 27 times by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The fact that they are part of the virtual library of the canadian Children's Rights Council is beside the point. Look at the content linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceMT (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Convenience_link#Reliability and Wikipedia:Convenience_link#Arguments_against_convenience_links - CCRC regularly edits the storyies, highlighting "important" parts. It hits against all three reasons why particular convenience links should not be used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm on to the 3RR.--Slp1 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Strangely you objected to the list of Canadian court cases webpage which has both favourable and unfavourable cases. Why?

The 2 editors that you refer to obviusly have a slant in favourt of child abusers that perptrate this horrible form of child abuse know as parental alienation. So then , you 2 editors are dfamaging Wikipedia by using your very narrow point of view . Get a life! In any even the section on the Canadian Children's Rights Council on parental alienation is fabulous and gets thousands of visitors daily. It's the most visited website in Canada pertaining to child rights. So then, you condone this form of child abuse!67.204.42.122 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It is with great satisfaction that I finally get to tell someone to fuck off.
Fuck off. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Here here! Probably uncivil, but I don't blame you. I would say that suggesting someone condones child abuse is more uncivil than telling them to f... depart. Alan16 talk 22:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This entire set of puppets has such a poor grasp of policy, I wouldn't be surprised to see a rangeblock applied to the while set of IPs. Still, some good has come out of it. I've wanted the excuse to really, really tell someone to fuck off, and I finally got my chance. Huzzah! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your editing of the parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome webpages is without foundation.

You should really leave these webpages alone unless you are aware of the issues. Numerous advisors to us are the authors of those scholarly papers that you keep taking off. These are vaild content forthose webpages. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. JaniceMT (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of breaking 3RR seem to becoming as viral as swine flu, <sneeze>. I'm being nosy again, but that is what boredom does. Nobody broke any rules... in fact, I can't guarantee that, but nobody broke that rule. Alan16 talk 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

Is this page on your watchlist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are fucking kidding me. "I don't know why I've got this weird topic ban"? "I'm on a voluntary revert restriction"? I'll be intrigued to see how long this will last. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record: I don't appreciate foul language, and I'd hate to see you in trouble over an unfiltered expression of completely understandable shock.
Having said that: I share the sentiment. It's really quite surprising.
I think I've just found a good reason to never take banned users' pages off my watchlist; I only discovered this change because it turned up in my watchlist. As far as I can make out, there was no ArbCom-imposed ban in the first place, and an ANI review turned him down snowball-cold in March. So I'm a bit curious about the procedural end. Perhaps it was all handled in e-mail. It would be convenient if the page contained a big, red "push here to report" button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi WAID, I respect you very highly and will do my best to never use profanity when I'm on your talk page, but for my talk page it is a very useful safety valve for me (sorry). If I get in trouble over it, I'll take my lumps. The occasional rebuke will probably do wonders to keep my civility up. I would try just asking CHL, the good admins usually end up at arbcom and are pretty dedicated to an open process in my experience. I'll always be curious to see what sort of response it would have received if it had gone to ANI, but life is full of mystery. Besides, it's possible that time has brought wisdom and this time will be different. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yup, it was all handled in e-mail -- perfectly understandable, since he couldn't edit even the user talk page. I'm generally well-disposed towards ArbCom, so if this makes them happy, then I'm willing to AGF... or at least to "trust, but verify." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably stupid of me but I asked a question here: User talk:Cool Hand Luke#User:Guido den Broeder. Verbal chat 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your question and concerns are perfectly valid, and your courtesy notice is neutral and conveys no opinions. I'd also stop there and post no more comments on his talk page unless you've got a content-specific concern to address. Guido, as he has in the past, is denying that there ever was a problem and that he was in any way culpable, so it's now arbcom's job to deal with it. I watch with interest. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

Please do not mess with my talk pages. I will do there what I choose, and at this point I am choosing not to address your comments about the Canadian organization's article there. Look at that article's talk page for my responses in a little while. Thank you for respecting my wishes. • Freechild'sup? 11:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't lecture me and cite tons of ridiculous WP guidelines as you here. Relax and enjoy your editing, and don't take this so seriously - that's one of the things that takes the joy out of WP for so many editors. • Freechild'sup? 11:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have never "messed" with your talk page. I noticed you archived my comments without a response. It is perfectly reasonable to wonder if this was by accident through a unfortunately-timed copy-paste move, and also reasonable to ask for clarification. I deliberately did so with extra civility on both occasions and consider your reply both rude and defensive, but more on that later. I also routinely offer unsolicited comments to editors on their editing and user page set-ups. Sometimes I learn something new, sometimes I pass along a bit of obscure information that I one day found useful (see here for instance). If you had a good reason for mixing the two, I would be keen to learn it simply out of the desire to improve my own editing.
Regarding your quite defensive reply to my posting, you refer my comment as containing "tons of ridiculous guidelines". First, WP:OWN is a policy, not a guideline. RS and SPAM are both guidelines, but that doesn't mean they get to be ignored when they result in an edit that doesn't suit your beliefs. My documentation of the naming issues cites both policy and guidelines, as well as the necessary sources to indicate why I think my point is well-supported (i.e. to indicate it's not just my opinion thrown about without backing).
And now my biggest issue with your comments here. Wikipedia is a wiki. This means anyone can edit. It is also among the highest-profile websites on the internet, and accordingly a huge magnet to both interested readers and POV-pushing soapboxing, self-promoting editors. The policies and guidelines which you so cavalierly dismiss are the only thing that allows editors to sort quality edits and contributions from drek, garbage, nonsense, deliberate but subtle vandalism, and outrageously unjustified bullshit pushed by those with an interest in the outcome. The reason I highlight the policies and guidelines on my talk and user page is because of their importance. I edit wikipedia because I love adding to the quality information that is available freely, I love learning new things and having somewhere to use them, and I am personally offended by people who would subvert the admirable, even beautiful ideals that wikipedia represents to foster their own personal beliefs or further their own personal agenda. Without the P&G, we're Anarchopedia, or no better than an advertising page. I will not "relax and enjoy my editing" if that means I ignore the outright lies, deliberate misrepresentations and willful blindness of editors who think of wikipedia as a public relations entity. The fact that people like me take their editing, sourcing and scrutiny seriously means wikipedia is acutally useful, truthful and honest rather than a steaming pile of bullshit. And the expansion of wikipedia to be a scholarly, useful, informative and current tool for readers is where the joy of wikipedia is for me. Since we're both handing out advice, I advise you to take your editing seriously, because it may one day result in saving someone's life because they use tamoxifen to treat breast cancer instead of vitamin C.
I am replying here to respect your wishes to not mess with your talk page. Note that your failure to respond to the issues I raised will result in me considering similar edits in the future to have no basis on the policies and guidelines and therefore open to removal or reverting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your misinformation provide in editing the Canadian Children's Rights Council

You know nothing about this organization but since you are apparently opposed to it and anything of a masculist or child rights nature You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

We know who you are, by the way.Smith research (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh... "We know who you are"... Sounds very dramatic. 3RR or not 3RR that is the question! Sorry. I'm being nosy and melodramatic again. One revert only. And Smith, you're the same. There is perhaps a little warring going on here, but it isn't repeated reverting. Exeunt. Alan16 talk 22:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made a report to WP:ANI about this edit. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
What when why? Alan16 talk 22:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Here if you're still looking. Thanks for the report Verbal. CCRC IPs, for your interest some of the templates should be substituted. UW-3RR is one of them, as are most of the warnings. Incidentally, outing is taken quite seriously, so the CCRC basically just guaranteed a long, long block for themselves. Congratulations! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You have repeatedly been advised that CCRC is not the Canadian Children's Rights Council. If you were involved with child rights in Canada, you would know this fact. Why do you keep trying to change the legal name to the english part of the legal name and the french translation? 67.204.33.204 (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Will it never end? It seems that we should do a checkuser request per Tim Vickers at ANI. Have you done one before? I haven't and the instructions looks somewhat mystifying. But I will struggle through if you haven't the time or the experience.--Slp1 (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you might have made a sockpuppet inv. request rather than a checkuse request, as Tim advised. Should we try to move it to the checkuser pile do you think? --Slp1 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your aggressive totalitarian feminist edits of the article about the Canadian Children's Rights Council

Your aggresive editing of the articles about the "Canadian Children's Rights Council", "parental alienation" and "parental alienation syndrome" have been fine examples of feminists'work. They have been provided proof of why the Canadian Children's Rights Council needs more funding to get our message across.

I was able to show your edits to 3 potential donors, all wealthy entrepreneurs, who are new funding sources for the CanadianCRC.

Keep up the good work! We need the money.

Sheila M. VP, The Canadian Children's Rights Council —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-MorrisVP (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your first name and admitting to a conflict of interest. I'm surprised you aren't blocked yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If you hover over the name it says "BLOCKED, 42 edits since: 2008-04-01". How did the account bypass a block or am I seeing something that isn't really there? --CrohnieGalTalk 10:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I see the same thing, but I think it's either popups or the regular hover picking up on the old block template from April. It was a 48h block that has since expired. Sometimes the preview or hover is unreliable, thrown off by the images I believe. You have to check the blocklog to really see if they're blocked (and blocklogs are a pain in the ass to check). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice to know and your right, block logs are a pain to look up. :) Good luck with this, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Probably better to ask a more senior OTRS person if you want further detials.Geni 20:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 and WLU editing Canadian Children's Rights Council article

Both of you clearly have your own agenda and have even used an obscure feminist source to support your opinion ( not fact ) that the Canadian Children's Rights Council is not about children's rights.

In viewing the edits both of you have done, you have even chnaged your own edits back to support the bfacts of others who told you that you were providing prejudicial editing to begin with ie CCRC. Have you read what you both have written here and in the edits. You even deleted the CRIN information about the number of members and the number of employees as you keep attacking them.

The website at www.CRIN.org states "No. Staff: 28 Membership No: 2168" and both of you have made derogatory comments about the Canadian Children's Rights Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QPTD (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For the love of Christ, do you people not realize you're sabotaging your own efforts through continuously hammering at other editors? Do you realize you sound like exactly the bunch of loud, angry men you're trying not to appear as? That the longer you keep bitching without reading any policies, the longer the pages will be locked and the less chance you'll have to actually adjust content? Do you realize just how stupid you all look? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Theredspecial

He isn't actually the same person at User:YTCracker. He's just one of Cracker's fans, who came to Wikipedia as a result of canvassing on Cracker's web forum. Pretty lame, but not the same person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, even still. A barnstar given to someone for edit warring on a BLP in favour of the subject of the article, by the subject of the article? Dubious. Feel free to revert, but I'm ill-inclined to do so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Speedy

I removed the spam-y sections of the article and removed the speedy for G12. (Note: notability isn't a speedy deletion criteria.) If you feel that there isn't a notability assertion, your best bet would be to prod it. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you know Guido den Broeder

Have a serving of awesome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Help request

You've got 7K more edits than I do, I don't really see how I can help!

I'm also unclear how the outline of knowledge will improve over categories. I'll try looking into it a bit, but I'm not really interested in a big project right now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you count the additional 16K edits listed at User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive menu?  :)
Well, 2 heads are better than one.
Outlines are a type of list. And while categories have their strengths, lists are superior to categories in many ways. See WP:CLN for details. In a nutshell, outlines are easier (and faster) to browse, easier (and faster) to maintain, easier (and faster) to develop, and completely customizable with many upgrade options. And they can be used as tools as well (categories generally cannot).
I'm just looking for some advice, not a partner in crime. ;)
Any spare time you could spend looking over the system to see how I could best proceed, would be most appreciated.
The Transhumanist 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen that particular guideline page, and the three types of nav aids always bugged me, so I'll look into it. Sorry, but I really don't think I'll have the time to help out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:LeftLegged

This user, from his brief but aggressively confrontational edit history, looks to me to very likely be Research Editor/Abuse truth back again. If you get a chance, take a look and see if you agree. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

'Kay, will start looking into it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not smelling sockpuppet, but certainly someone with the same POV. RE's latest approach is to get a new account, work up the time and contrib history to get past semiprotection, then hit the pages he has a hardon for. Though long, rambling OR assertions were his style in the past, I can't see him typing out lengthy posts when he knows it's not going anywhere, and barely inconveniences any editor that can bother refuting it. Thanks for the notice, I'll try to keep track of it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
My personal POV has no bearing on my editing on WP. I have no interest in replicating my own viewpoint. I know literally close to 100 people who have independently perceived that WP pages related to memory and adult survivors of child abuse are hopelessly skewed very far to one extreme of the spectrum. Among professionals that deal with trauma and child abuse, this is an accepted fact and their are numerous people who are aware of the little gang who is responsible for this. With all due respect, this conversation between yourself and DreamGuy supports my claim that you are acting as gatekeepers. I have been wholly straightforward and dutiful towards WP policy and yet, because you can clearly intuit that I will be trying to represent other viewpoints than the dominant one, you are treating me as if I am dishonest or dishonorable. Please be aware that myself and many others are also keeping an eye on you. LeftLegged (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyone has a POV, and everyone edits with a bias towards it. It's a matter of how well supported it is by sources. Yours just happens to be supported by poor quality, low reliability, unscholarly sources. There's your gate. You may also want to talk to User:ResearchEditor, who is probably one of those 100 people, and ask him to stop sockpuppeting. Your vague threat isn't really helping your case, unlike many of the "CIA controls the world!!!!111!!!!!" crowd I don't think there are many effective conspiracies out there and I'm certainly not worried that I'm being watched by one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you

I saw that you commented on the Cochrane surname page. Are you a Cochrane or a Medical Doctor at the Cochrane Collaboration by any chance?

Do you know where I can find information on Archibald "Archie" Cochrane the founder?

Cheers,

Cedric


PS contact me at CedricTheWelshDragon.


Are You A Psychiatrist

Or are you just interested in Psychology?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CedrictheWelshDragon (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I'm new to Wikipedia and I appreciate the help. - Cedric —Preceding unsigned comment added by CedrictheWelshDragon (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

McMartin preschool trial

I just reread McMartin preschool trial, after all that work, it is really well written. It was worth all that fighting we did to keep it well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the work you put into it also. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your contribution to A Scientific Theology

Hi WLU,

Thank you for your contribution to A Scientific Theology - particularly the improvements to the citations. However, with some reservation, I have partially reverted your alteration of the opening sentence.

I have stated my reasons on Talk:A Scientific Theology under the heading Link to Scientific Method and would welcome your response if you feel strongly about this matter.

Regards, Muzhogg (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Kaczynski

WLU,

You were involved in editing Theodore Kaczynski before it was fully protected. Your thoughts and comments would be welcome on the talk page, as nothing much seems to be happening but the page is still locked. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the links that you provided from said user's page, they really aren't necessary and traditionally we just let the templates stand without explanation, both out of respect but more importantly we like to bury the bodies and move on. If someone is interested in the situation it will only take a few clicks on their own to find out. I hope this is agreeable to you. Keegantalk 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks for the note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Acupuncture WHO

I haven't looked deeper, but try doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67159-0

It's a Lancet editorial, "Critics slam draft WHO report on homoeopathy", by Michael McCarthy.




It discusses the report at some length. I have guests arriving soon, so can't research further at this time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting

I also got an accusatory email (that made no sense), but from the other, blocked, editor... SPI report filed. I referred to the email you were sent. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DLA9999. Verbal chat 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

'Kay, if OTRS needs the e-mail I can forward it to them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

IP vandals

It is possible to block a range of IP addresses, but that usually gets a lot of collateral blocks of innocent parties. I gave them a level 3 warning and will try to keep an eye on their contribs. Feel free to ping me if they keep it up and thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they just like vandalizing Canadian articles, eh? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I was not online before, but it looks like the IP stopped for now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you want me to raise this edit at WP:AN/I? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope, in fact I hope they continue believing it :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to participate in University of Washington survey on tool to quickly understand Wikipedians’ reputations

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with some local Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)

Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about our research or research group, please visit our user page. Commprac01 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Additional details about our research group are available here.

Confused re Synthfin's edits

Since I created both Joe Abercrombie's and Patrick Rothfuss's pages, I am confused. Obviously I can't be both of them engaged in a shameless publicity campaign at the same time. Can I? * confused * --Werthead (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I was referring to the fact that Synthfin had claimed that the authors had created both their pages, when a brief look at the contribs will have revealed that I created both of them. I suppose my main issue was that I was concerned that he seemed out only to delete those pages for personal reasons. There is also a 'scandal' going on on Amazon at the moment with a small group of people running amok on the Pat Rothfuss section claiming (with no evidence) that the author has fraudulently posted hundreds of reviews of his own work, and referenced sorting out the author's Wikipedia page, and Synthfin's references to this non-existent 'scandal' suggest a personal agenda which doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia policies. If I am wrong and Synthfin is unaffiliated to these people, I apologise, but it does not look good.--Werthead (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me

Please try to be civil in your edit summaries, especially with new users. That really wasn't necessary. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a new user, that's a sockpuppet of the community-banned editor ResearchEditor, who has a history of editing pages related to satanic ritual abuse, dissociative identity disorder and child abuse in an unacceptably POV manner. Note his sockpuppeting history. His latest habit is to create throw-away accounts like this one and this one. Note that the comment and reversion are exactly the same. If the editor edits any other page, I will report them as a suspected sockpuppet to confirm. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. But I really like telling him to fuck off 'cause he's a douche. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, then the WP:BITE references is moot then and retracted, but the point still stands. Telling people to "fuck off", sockpuppet or not, is exceedingly rude. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, but sockpuppeting is an offence against the community, far ruder than any profanity, and I think RE has lost any right to be offended. His is the only account to whom I direct such edit summaries. I understand your concern, but this keeps me cool over the long-term. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please visit amazon.com

About your recent removing some contents about book swordbird being New York Times BestSeller. Please visit amazon.com and look at the cover page -- it is boldly printed "New York Time Best Seller". If you still are cynical about this cover page, please search new york time's site and find it out. Also the comments of praise from People's magazine can be verified, instead you remove all the good things without doing your homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.184.199 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want that particular bit of information to be on the page, see WP:PROVEIT - it's up to you to provide it and a link to a reliable source to verify. Please don't complain to me, if you think the information is worth including, no-one is stopping you from finding a source and putting it on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Water Ionizer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on water ionizer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair is fair. I can't understand why you couldn't discuss your reversions before you made them in the discussion section, whether the edits were correct or not. Then perhaps someone else could take your cause . MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
User-warning templates are intended to make sure that new editors are aware of the site's policies. They're not meant to "punish" editors or to serve as part of a tit-for-tat reprisal. WLU is obviously aware of the 3-revert rule; it's been about 24 hours since his last revert; and he has long since been participating on the article talk page. Under those circumstances, leaving a templated warning here probably isn't the most constructive approach. MastCell Talk 23:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Not just that, several other editors agree with the edits I have made, and whatsisnehm is the only one who thinks there is merit to his edits. If three other editors revert my changes, I stop making them and discuss on the talk page. New accounts are notably thick on this point, and POV-pushing or COI accounts (such as a nutrition quack or manufacturer hoping to shuck a product) are particularly obstinate. So before you lecture me, consider reading the talk page and whether there is any merit to whatsisnehm's points. I think there is not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration comment wrt cityzen451

Did you actually read what the arbitration was about, it is nothing to do with the silly book I included in a reference, it is about having all my contributions vandalised by an overzealous editor, not the book, yes I agree it is poorly written and nothing special, but in itself it is not the purpose of a further reading section is to be scientifically vetted but to inform, wiki is not a scientific journal it is an encyclpedia. Maybe read the actual content of the dispute.

Cityzen451 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Post new comments on talk pages at the bottom of pages.
Want advice from an experienced editor? Don't call things vandalism if you don't know what vandalism is (a deliberate effort to harm wikipedia). If it's really vandalism, then warn them and report it for follow-up. Don't start arbitration and don't call it vandalism unless it is. MrOllie has 12,000 contributions - I expect he has a much better grasp of things than you do.
Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia based on the most reliable sources that exist on a subject. For psychiatric conditions such as ADHD and dyslexia, that means medically-reliable sources, not popular books. We are not a how-to manual and should not link to them.
Also, if you want people to read your posts, shorten them. This one is fine.
If you are having disputes with another editor, discuss with them on the talk page, and prepare to accept that you may be wrong. You should be attempting to politely learn from other editors and discussing edits on talk pages (which you haven't) rather than pursuing arbitration, the LAST line of dispute resolution. You're wasting people's time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Clearly you are arguing semantics.... given the time of the edits to my work and the extent, and the selectiveness of them, it is vandalism, if not so what it is only a word used out of context wrt to wiki terminology... notwithstanding it was still clearly malicious, given the extent to which selectely he deleted my work and any contribution I have made. In addition his "contribution" appears to be deleting other contributions, and arguing with them, given the discussion on his talk page! PLEASE try to be civil. end of conversation Cityzen451 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually having read the "Guidance" you stuffed down my neck, it is vandalism, breach of concensus, and ignore the rule, means the deletions were not in good faith and the overall effect results in disruption to the Wiki, contributions were and have been deleted, but really more so harrassment and uncivility... rtfm?
More over you quoted the rules as dogma, and in the rules you so condescendingly linked for me state they are not they are guidelines. Cityzen451 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not semantics. Read the first line of WP:VAND. That you don't understand that this is not a semantic argument is an indication of your lack of familiarity with wikipedia. That you're adding external links that are substantially identical to your user name suggests a problem with your user name (and it should be changed) or conflict of interest (and you should cease editing to add these links. The issues as I see them are:
  • MrOllie is, in my opinion as an experienced user reverting potentially problematic links added by a user (you) with a very strong suggestion of conflict of interest [1]
  • You are then failing to discuss on the relevant talk page
  • You have launched a spurious arbitration case well before it is warranted or necessary

[2]

  • You are ignoring the advice of more experienced editors [3], [4],
  • Posting unnecessarily long screeds and unhelpful assertions [5], [6]
  • You aren't reading the policies and guidelines that are pointed out to you [7]
You can feel free to try to keep editing as you are. You will, in a relatively short time, have your contributions rejected, your suggestions ignored, be smacked down by admins, possibly blocked, and add nothing to the encyclopedia for longer than a couple hours. Feel free to prove me wrong by reading and contemplating the policies and guidelines a little longer. Also consider this:
  • You don't have WP:CONSENSUS because no-one else agrees with you. This is pretty clear from the contributions of several editors to a variety of venues.
  • Guidelines exist for good reason. We are urged to ignore the rules only when doing so improves the encyclopedia. It's not something to be done lightly because you think you've got a great idea.
  • If you don't like the policies and guidelines, or the way the community interprets them, you may be contributing to the wrong venue.
  • You have a massive and steep learning curve if you want to contribute over the long term. You are guaranteeing your frustration and eventual departure if you decide to go it alone and ignore the comments of others. Until you know the policies and guidelines, you shouldn't be ignoring them or others' reverts (see WP:BRD). Ever revert and comment you are fighting is an opportunity to truly understand how things actually occur here. If you had posted a friendly question instead of a lengthy rant, you'd know why people aren't letting your edits stand. Right now, I feel more like cramming the rules down your throat than I do patiently explaining them. Hence the reception you are getting.
Read the talk page guidelines, it will make it more likely that people will read your posts thoroughly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said read the manual, your comments are a personal attack, belittling, condescending, antagonistic even threatening. Enough said, you involoved yourself in an attempt to antagonise and your latest comments are proof of that. As I have continually said this is not about the silly book, or revertion of my edits, with particular respect to consensus, I meant all the work and contributions MrOllie has removed without any regard, is disruptive.

Like I said you are rude, I dont need to discuss this anymore with you, this is exactly what Im getting at.

Cityzen451 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerns With Recent Changes To Baxter Entry

I have concerns with some of the changes/deletions you have recently made to the Baxter International entry, which have resulted in an unbalanced article.

In particular, key factual information about Baxter's business functions (2008 sales, in-depth descriptions) has been removed, even though this information was properly sourced and brought readers a greater understanding about the company. I agree that the history and products sections were not necessary to this entry, but it's important to note that the products section had listed Baxter's therapeutic areas (i.e., hemophilia, vaccines) and did not mention Baxter product names.

What is currently listed under the Baxter International entry places an unfair, unbalanced emphasis on controversies. If the approach you have taken to edit the Baxter entry is advocated by Wikipedia, I would have to assume that similar entries are treated the same way. This calls into question the basic tenants of fairness and equity by which all Wikipedia users must abide.

As a user affiliated with Baxter, I would like to reiterate Baxter's positioning statement (see my user info) which clearly states how we will support the Wikipedia community in its aim to produce a neutral and reliably sourced encyclopedia. In particular - "We fully abide by Wikipedia's three core content policies (i.e., Neutral Point Of View, Verifiability, No Original Research) and will not use Wikipedia for self-promotion."

On the Baxter International discussion page, I have proposed re-including some modified background information on Baxter International to the first section of the entry. In addition, I have proposed removing the final sentence in this section on controversies as they are already covered in depth within the controversies section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGLcomms (talk • contribs)

As a Baxter employee, the best you can do is post notices on the talk page and solicit input. You should not be editing the main page at all, as that's about the clearest example of a conflict of interest as you can get. I will look into what you talk about when I have the time, but remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not a soapbox or vehicle for advertising. Trying to be transparent is reasonable, but fundamentally, because you work for the company, you are not seen as neutral and never can be. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources; frequently those sources (particularly news sources) focus on controversy. The use of self-published sources produced by the company itself are of limited use, and certainly can't be used to fill the page with praise, service and product advertisement. A lengthy list of in-depth sales descriptions is inappropriate. If you feel you are being treated unjustly, feel free to post a comment at the conflict of interest noticeboard, where other editors will review my edits and your objections. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ResearchEditor socks

Yes, please link me to those pages. ResearchEditor always creates account en masse on individual IPs, so CUing one account might open up a whole drawer of sock accounts. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe all the ones I noticed were blocked, but here is the list of the ones I reverted (copied from my contribution log: all times are PDT (UTC -7)):
  • 16:09, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Satanic ritual abuse ‎ (Reverted edits by Acredf (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin)
  • 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m McMartin preschool trial ‎ (Reverted edits by Hmstot (talk) to last version by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )) (top) [rollback]
  • 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Indictment: The McMartin Trial ‎ (Reverted edits by Cpd822 (talk) to last version by Polbot) (top) [rollback]
  • 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Lost in the mall technique ‎ (Reverted edits by Goocom7 (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
  • 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Michelle Remembers ‎ (Reverted edits by Creyell (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin)
  • 15:34, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Day care sex abuse hysteria ‎ (Reverted edits by Starpitx (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin)
  • 15:34, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Elizabeth Loftus ‎ (Reverted edits by Iflgot (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
  • 13:19, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Satanic ritual abuse ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Boimaa identified as vandalism to last revision by JGabbard. (TW))
  • ...
  • 09:36, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) Lost in the mall technique ‎ (remove biased addition from questionable soruces; Undid revision 297599259 by Healen (talk))
  • ...
  • 09:32, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) Day care sex abuse hysteria ‎ (Reverted good faith edits by RSWardt; There are possibly some aspects of that edit which are sourced and satisfy WP:NPOV, but not many, and it clearly violates WP:BLP. (TW))
  • 09:30, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) Elizabeth Loftus ‎ (Reverted good faith edits by Pandam3; Revert removal of relevant information. (TW))
  • ...
  • 09:24, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) Michelle Remembers ‎ (Reverted good faith edits by Caccen; It may be a poor source, but the book, has, in fact, been discredited. (TW))
Note that I started out assuming good faith.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So, the ones not presently on your subpage are:
Unless, of course, some of the socks have been removing or adding to your subpage.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless they managed to snag my password, I think we're good. Thanks for the extras, I'll tell N. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Emotional Freedom Technique

Hi WLU, I've posted a new section on the discussion page of EFT regarding your edits. Talk:Emotional_Freedom_Technique OpinionPerson (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oy, Diana Napolis again

Hi, saw your new addition (Diana Napolis#Personal Beliefs) to the Diana Napolis page.

Um.... technically, she's alive, so it's a WP:BLP concern. As such, I'm not sure we're allowed to use potentially defamatory material about a living person (y'know, assertions about her being crazy) when our only source is a blog. Yes, it's ostensibly her own blog and thus her own words... but unless we can prove it's really hers, it creates a major legal liability problem.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm pretty darn sure that even if it's in (what you think to be) Diana Napolis' own blog, we probably can't use it as a source whatsoever. Especially, but not only, when it makes her look crazy.

Not trying to be a jerk, just getting something off my chest. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not sure and this could be a learning experience for both. I didn't actually say "batshit insane", "completely, obviously crazy" or "wildly nutters, like a field full of filbert trees, where between the rows are peanuts for mixed-use plotting, and used as fertilizer are ground up walnuts". Since it's her blog, describing her beliefs, this is all verifiable, I wouldn't see it as a BLP concern. That the beliefs seem very, very unbelievable, would require a substantial reworking of our understanding of physics on a macro, micro and probably quantum level, as well as biology, psychology, theology, ontology and epistemology, is not commented on and like it says at WP:NPOV (seriously) this is letting the facts speak for themselves through her own words. I've no problem with taking it to WP:BLPN for an opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Certainly you didn't call her insane, the quotes are doing the work quite well. But #1, how do you really really know it's Diana Napolis' blog? If someone else is posting to it just as a trick, then Wikipedia gets in trouble when the real Diana Napolis shows up. And even #2, if it were her, perhaps there is a level of charity that is required when a person makes statements while (appearing) demonstrably psychotic.
For example, if Isaac Newton went completely nuts at the end of his life from mercury poisoning, we wouldn't have a section in his article to the tune of "Newton's later theories about Alexander Pope controlling his mind with a sextant installed in his head". Or, at least, we wouldn't be quoting him personally on the topic. WE certainly wouldn't use a source with uncertain provenance. And he's not even alive anymore.
I mean, when a person's in a deep psychosis, it's hard to tell whether or not they really mean anything they say.
We can ask for adjudication on the matter... want to make a side-bet on the ruling? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that we can get in to BLP concerns on talk pages as well - I'm very careful about not calling her actively crazy, I'm not sure if we get into trouble by saying she is (versus "alleged"-style comments which thinly disguise things). I've made a minor adjustment just in case. As far as it being her blog, that's a question I can't answer but if we can't use it as a source we probably shouldn't link to it either. If it's her I don't know if we can ever confirm - there are a couple of accounts that have contributed to various pages and identify themselves as Napolis - [8] is one, and if I dig in talk:satanic ritual abuse, I can find more. As for any charity, well, we are an encyclopedia and not a PR firm - hiding potentially unpleasant material is dubious in my mind. I mean, we have several verifiable sources stating she's mentally ill, including if not quotes, then summaries of her beliefs, we're again WP:NPOV-ing her beliefs.
Your wager intrigues me. What would be the stakes? I'm about 66% sure that BLP will be OK with it.
If I could find a reliable source for that Newton statement, I'd totally put it on. Totally! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Next step

Some time ago, you suggested that it was perhaps time to seek a topic ban on User: Michael H 34 for tendentious editing[9] on Fathers' rights and related topics. I was still hopeful at that time that further input from other editors might help, but I really don't see any progress and instead simply more (slow) POV edit-warring against consensus and other policies. What do you think? Would a WP:RFCU be worthwhile? or would WP:AN be the right spot? --Slp1 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

AN will be faster, and if well-presented, will probably result in a quick topic ban. RFCU never accomplished anything in my experience, and requires the editor in question to be willing to accept comments and criticisms from other users, take them to heart, and sincerely attempt to do better. This does seem to be pretty clear POV-pushing, the objections are ridiculous, and there is a complete failure to take suggestions from anyone, about anything. There is an ongoing lack of clarity in the comments and replies, and a failure to substantively try to understand the objections of others. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will work on a draft at [10]; if you have any comments or suggestions or the time to work on it that would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't drop in a whole bunch of old stuff - everyone's history has bad edits in it. I think there's plenty in the PAS, PA and FRM pages from the past couple months alone that make the point, adding stuff from 2008 is more to read without having a lot of bearing on the current dispute. Keep it on the draft page, but I wouldn't post it on the actual AN topic unless requested. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, short, sweet and to the point would be best, I imagine. Unfortunately it all takes so long to do, I have found, in my limited experience of these things.--Slp1 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

EAS

Yeah, I saw that after some more EAS was tangentially, if at all related. That's why I put the speedy back up after is was removed, and didn't argue the revert from redirect. You might want to also look at the user creation log same time User:Staggory was created. Also, a User:Simpleton was created. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit, I didn't even know I could do that. Now I've got an erection!
I'm not really sure how it works (lol), but whenever I make the first comment on a user talk page, the creation log gets added to my watchlist. I think. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I may have questions later, you may be unwilling to answer them. I understand completely. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to shoot them by me, either on my talk page, or via email (I think I have it turned on). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered a problem - a new account seems to be created every 30 seconds. Oh well, seemed like a good idea... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unbirthing redirect

Do you really think you should do what you did to the unbirthing article? You redirected it to vorarephilia, which has no information about unbirthing, and you didn't put some of the unbirthing content there. This is tantamount to deleting, and you need to do an AfD for that. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that discuss unbirthing? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
That's another point entirely. I only just found out about unbirthing, moments after first hearing of vorarephilia, when I saw unbirthing in the paraphilia infobox. So I click the link to the unbirthing article from the vore article, and find it's a redirect to the vore article. It's not approrpriate to redirect to an article that has no information on the subject. And if you're not going to merge some information to the article when you redirect it, what you're doing is deleting an article. I'm sure you know that deleting an article isn't supposed to be done unilaterally. Deleting an article all on your own, or doing a redirect to an aritcle that doesn't mention the subject, or merging without actually doing the work, are all no less a violation of policy than having an article with no reliable sources. Unbirthing certainly exists, I was able to google it and find a robust amount of fic and art in the furry genre that features the paraphilia as it was described in the unbirthing article that you stealth deleted. -- AvatarMN (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
None of which are reliable sources. It's basically something made up one day, by removing all the unsourced information, the page contents are removed, and it's a magnet for people who want to spread their fetish. I've no objection to the redirect being deleted, nor do I object to removing all the links to the page. I was bold, but certainly within the mores of the community. Until you find actual reliable sources justifying the page (and considering vorarephilia doesn't have any, I can't see unbirthing having any), replacing the page is inappropriate. People really interested can go to wikifur or google for more info, the thresholds here are notability and reliable sources. This one lacks both. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You deleted an article unilaterally. That's a no-no. That's really all I'm saying. I have no doubt an AfD would result in the article's deletion, but you were supposed to put it to AfD, not do what you did. The redirect was stealth deleting, and that's wrong. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no stake, btw. I never edited the vore or rebirthing articles, nor any furry related article, nor any paraphilia article. I don't much care about furry fandom. I just heard someone mention vore, and came to Wikipedia to see what it was, and then saw "unbirthing" next to it in the paraphilia infobox, and discovered that the link was useless because of what you'd done when I looked at the history. Then I thought... hey, that ain't right. And told you. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

The Spamstar of Glory
To WLU for diligence and for your tireless efforts in keeping Wikipedia articles clear of spam and other nonsense. --Hu12 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! --Hu12 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'll add it to my collection. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Shermer

Michael Shermer does sloppy research in a number of areas. My favorite is how he avoids the problems of shared near, to exact, visual hallucinations in folie a deux. (You'll find this in abnormal psycholgy text books. Shermer has a degree in psychology.) There are clues this may be the product of anxiety and telepathy or emotional contagion. Shermer's testing of remote viewers is a joke.[11][12] He was not prepared. His statement and the statements of other ignorant so-called skeptics that the Bible is fiction is rubbish. Certainly Shermer knows better than to go along with this uninformed crowd; make all his friends happy and not rock the boat. But that doesn't sell magazines does it? Kazuba (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why you've left this note here. I don't really have a reply or see any obvious action to take based on it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

About Dooble

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Browsers/Dooble.shtml - well, here is no review but there is some coverage. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 10:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Add it to the page, see if the admin declines it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

?

Are you a sir or a ma'am? I do not wish to be rude or offend, and I cannot seem to find the information. Apologies if I'm dense and its somewhere blazingly obvious. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll butt in with this, currently my favourite edit of 2009. A greater laugh may be gained in context, and the knowledge that they were all blocked for sockpuppetry!--Slp1 (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh thank you! WLU is a straight male lesbian. Its all clear now. :-) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! that's now my second favourite edit of the year. :-) to you too.--Slp1 (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
KC, I am indeed male. I've even got a userbox to say so. I was going to cruelly mock you for not realizing this, until I reviewed my user page and noticed I had it buried in a divbox :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
So... why are you hiding your manhood? Was there a childhood trauma? Do you suffer from womb envy? Its ok; we like you anyway. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 09:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdented) Oh, boy, I cannot wait to see WLU response to this KC.:) It's nice to see a couple of editors having 'fun' with each other. Ok WLU, your turn. Be well both of you, your both good people in my book, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it's because my manhood is worth having to work a little bit to find out more about it. The mystery makes me more enticing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, smooth comeback. :-) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm what happens when Ex-lax gets diarrhoea. I'm what happens when Jack Bauer needs a little help. I'm what happens when the terrorists lose. That's how awesome I am. Yeah.
Incidentally, I shouldn't be given attention. It encourages me. I think it's obvious why that's a bad thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WLU. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ mazca talk 13:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike Warnke

I have added comments on the Talk:Mike_Warnke page as to why the satanic ritual abuse categories you have added twice should not be added. Please comment on it there. In short, those were unsubstantiated claims that he made and were later proven as lies. He should not be linked to the topic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Will comment there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I've not spoken to you in a while, so I thought I'd pop round and say hi - I also have a question, but that is of course just a coincidence. As you seem to know a lot about policy, I thought you're the person to ask the following: what is the policy on red-links? So hello, and thanks. Alan16 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RED would be what you're looking for. I hate 'em, but others like 'em - gives you an idea of how popular the link would be (by the number of incoming pages to the redlink), promotes the creation of pages and some other nonsense (IMO). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
Thanks. Alan16 (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
De nada, always happy with a policy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

template

Great template on SRA, keep it up! RichardJ Christie (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot parameter for Sword of Truth forum

In the future when changing bots to archive discussion, please put the same timer that the original creater of the bot function initiated. The page you changed is a forum for a very mildly active task force, therefore a timer as short as 20 days will remove messages well before they reach the concerned individuals. Thanks for the overzealous changes, but, no thanks.

Besides why are you getting rid of WerdnaBot, it works fine? SADADS (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Phagophilia

>Previously phagophilia was a redirect to vorarephilia, while now it is a separate article. Either way, it's currently inappropriate. That it was a redirect was why I reverted the inclusion of the wikilink. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside a question of redirects, I don't following the reasoning why linking the two is "inappropriate". For example, if the John Adams article links to his son, John Quincy Adams, and JQA links to his father, JA, there is a 'circular link'.
By the same reasoning, I don't following why fascination with chewing in considered a wrongful circular link to a fascination with eating? Or, are you saying redirect (which I wasn't aware of) is somehow related? What am I missing?
Thank you for clarification. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
NOW I understand. I hadn't realized a redirect was involved linking back to the same page. Thanks for the clarification.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BHRT

See article's discussion pageHillinpa (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse image

According to the image page, the copyright is expired, so if that's legit copyvio shouldn't be an issue. I removed it because I don't think it's particularly connected to the article, especially not enough for the intro. It doesn't depict the subject at hand, it's just a fanciful early-20th-century image of a "black mass". Perhaps you could argue that it could be used elsewhere in the article, but the caption doesn't indicate why the image is relevant.--Cúchullain t/c 23:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The caption is much better, but it should not go in the lede, and it should only be included in the article if that material is actually discussed in the article. To me, the image doesn't address the key part of the moral panic, which is child abuse, and as such it's not any more useful than any other image of "Satanic" activity.--Cúchullain t/c 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I will respond on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 13:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Tales&diff=300831298&oldid=282385135 Here you said "removed external links (should be English only)" - To my knowledge this is not correct. We not only link to non English external links, but we also use non-English sources too. If there are too many external links, generally only the English ones are kept, but in this case this is the only External link. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding WP:EL:

  • the section "Links Normally to be Avoided" says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:"
  • Wikipedia:EL#Non-English_language_content says "may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" - We are talking about an official website, and we are talking about a website in the subject's original language.
  • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Non-English-language_sites says "Webpages in English are highly preferred. Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in the following cases: when the website is the subject of the article"

Therefore the external link needs to stay. And this is an official site about the subject, not a simple sales link. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Histamine

Well, there's always User:Immature Basophil... he's clearly a new user and not in any way a sockpuppet, but I like the cut of his jib. MastCell Talk 00:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry, I did specify admin. Any admin sock accounts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiley

I made a suggestion on the discussion page of the Suzanne Somers article (forgive, I've been off W for a while, I forgot how to reference pages) that the phrase "so-called Wiley Protocol" was biased and needed to be corrected. I also made a comment on the Wiley Protocol discussion page about the progress of the WP and how far out of whack the article is now. I'll be in London for a week ending November 5. Let me know if you're around for a beer Neil Raden (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

London, UK? Not much chance of that. London, Ontario? Slightly greater chance, but really not much more. I'll have a look at the pages (Talk:Suzanne Somers and talk:Wiley Protocol?) and give an opinion. I'll try to do so tomorrow, I don't edit nearly so much these days. I also have a couple more recent sources that mention Wiley, review articles which is good, so I'll see if I can read and digest them in order to add to the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought it was UK. Anyway, let me know about the new material. Also, what is the Wikipedia POV on a doctor giving a testimonial on YouTube? Neil Raden (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Testimonials in general are not reliable sources for any medical articles (WP:MEDRS) and YouTube would fall into a self-published source. Wiley Protocol is a medical article, pretty much every strong positive claim needs to adhere to MEDRS and be cited to a journal article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

WLU, I note your recent edit to Conversion therapy [13]. You've probably noticed that that article is in the middle of a dispute that doesn't look as though it will be resolved quickly. I understand if you are reluctant to comment on those disputes, however, any comment by editors who have not been involved in previous arguments there over article content would be extremely helpful. BG talk 06:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I did notice but doubt I'll get a chance to comment as there is a lot there and I've a couple other pages I'm trying to deal with right now where I know the page history and disputes. You may try asking either User:Slp1 or User:FisherQueen - both are very good people to work with, very experienced admins, and FQ is interested in LGBT issues, Slp1 in psychological ones. There's also the inevitable RFC if need be. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to squat

I have a problem with several of your edits to squat. My problem is that some people have made sane edits that you have reverted without comment.

  1. [14]: You undeleted "the deeper the squat, the greater the training effect but also the greater the risk of injury."

I took out that sentence because there is no citation supporting that statement, and it is quite widely disputed. Even if you found a citation, it wouldn't be enough to have a sentence like that in the article. I've read many articles that say that squatting below parallel is injurious, but I've also read many that say it is safer. Since many qualified accounts differ, you just can't state something like that as fact. Personally, I think it's safer because I go below parallel and it feels better. I'm sure you think you are right because you have gone below parallel and it hurts you. The point is that there is no consensus. At least I posted a topic in the discussion explaining why I took the sentence out. In fact, there should be a section in the article describing the discrepancy of opinions among qualified people.

  1. [15]: You undeleted "(even with proper form, conventional squats run the risk of injury[1])"

This wasn't my edit, but I saw this one too. You know, I don't care whether this is true. Actually, the reason it should be deleted is that it is redundant. The statement before the above statement says that doing squats properly minimizes the risk of injury, clearly implying that there is still a risk of injury. Otherwise the statement would have read "doing squats properly eliminates the risk of injury," but since it says minimizes, your addition is redundant. There is also the implication that there is risk of injury simply because any exercise has a risk of injury, however trivial. Whoever deleted that sentence was just trying to make the article sound better and reflect a more encyclopedic style.

These are not big deals, but Wikipedia is not a resource on how to train effectively; the statements should be purely objective or describe the subjectivity of a common viewpoint. Wikipedia is not a bodybuilder website. I mean, what do you even mean by "the greater the training effect"? You might be able to say "the greater the range of motion," but that would be obvious. Just because it's an article about squatting, doesn't mean you can use a substandard vocabulary or writing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesemonkyloma (talk • contribs) September 26, 2009

Both these statements are sourced, to books published by Human Kinetics (publisher). If you have another source that is reliable but disputes this, then we can discuss. These edits are not based on my personal experience, they are based on books. You are also misusing WP:CONSENSUS since there has been neither dispute nor discussion on the talk page. The essential point is that any unsourced statement can be removed per WP:PROVEIT, but a sourced statement can not be unless it is demonstrated to be undue weight, outdated, inaccurate (using reliable sources).
Wikipedia should not be a source of effective training information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I Don't care that the second statement is sourced! It is redundant! I know it's true, did you even read what I said? It's not about whether it's a fact or whatever, it's just about the style of the page, and that sentence doesn't belong. And for the first statement, did you actually check the discussion page before saying there was no discussion about it? I said something about deleting it and saying it's not true, and someone agreed with me by saying "there is little research to substantiate the claim that proper full squatting increases any risk of injury." That is discussion right there! And I just read the consensus page... since I'm disagreeing with you right now and there is a discussion on the discussion page that means there is not a consensus. I'm sure your book is a reliable source but that doesn't mean it's right. And if you are going to put something like that in the article you have to explain why, you can't just say it's injurious. If your source is truly reliable they should give a reason for squatting below parallel to cause injury. It's virtually meaningless to say that without explanation. What could possibly cause that anyway? Sockigami (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Your signature is confusing and makes it harder to tell who posts what comment - when I looked for your post I was looking for something signed by Chesemonkyloma, in the month of September. That's not there. It is standard to match user name and signature, and I would suggest you do so. I can't find your reply or discussion on the talk page because it is a huge mess with a variety of posts and replies intermixed - new posts should go at the bottom and I don't feel like re-reading the entire page. Your contributions show no edits to talk:squat (exercise) so again I can't tell what you actually wrote. But having read the final section of the talk page, my comment is exactly the same - the statements you are insisting is wrong is sourced to a reliable publisher. Without another source disputing this, there is no basis to change the page. Consensus is not two statements by two anonymous IPs which contradict a reliable source. A reliable source overcomes bare opinion.
The two sentences are not redundant. Proper from minimizes the risk of injury, but it is still present even if squats are done properly. That's not redundant, that's a clear statement that squats are risky no matter what precautions are taken. As for the why, we can see results without knowing why (i.e. the Broad street pump). And again, sourced beats out opinion. If I can find a source explaining why, I will certainly put it in.
Your statement about a reliable book being wrong means you should read WP:V. Wikipedia reports what is verifiable, not truth. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You changed my whole page with spelling error as well

  1. [16]

I don't know what the real problem is. Please help me edit it. I saw one of the comments that there was a conflict of interest because my Username is DrErikaTS. I am not the subject nor related to her. If one of the problems is my username, how can i correct that? Can I delete this page and start a new one with a different username? Thank you.DrErikaTS (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're not the subject or related to her, then why do you have her name as your user name? If you are not Dr. Schwartz, then you should immediately change it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you suppressing the truth and trying to confuse readers of Wiki?

Magnetic viewing film contains nickel flakes. These particles are not nano-scale and their reference on the Ferrofluid page is completely false. Do not propagate lies.

Consider this your warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

++Pinestone 9-29-2009 10:49 EST++ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinestone (talk • contribs) 02:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:VAND, WP:PROVEIT and WP:RS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Howdy

Hi, after taking a peek at your talk page I thought having a thread about absolutely nothing might be enjoyable. ;) I am just now slowly getting back to doing things here. I still can't go out without someone taking me and then I get exhausted when I do. My computer is my escape from life right now. Sad but true. I'm healing well though I do get very impatient and want to be healed now. Patience isn't a vertue of mine, oh well. I hope I see you around though, take care, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's always a good day when your talk page has a new message accusing you of censorship. Means you're pissing off the right people. I'm surprised to see you back online so quickly! Very pleased to see this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I can only do a little at a time these days, esp. the typing bit. I have started physical therapy though it should be called something more like torture therapy. It's so hard to do right now but they say it will get easier. I have gotten most of the use of my right side back and my left leg. My left arm is going to take longer though. But I am working hard. I'll try to drop you a email and fill you in a bit. Overall I am doing fabulously, at least that's what everyone keeps telling me. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 15:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Finally some good medical news! Physical therapy is supposed to be tough. Remember how limited you are right now, and what you can't do. That way three months from now you can think back and compare how much more mobile you are and see that it's all worth it.
You may be able to look into voice-dictation for computers if typing is hard. I can't imagine it's good for you considering the work you had done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You sound like my husband with saying how I will feel in 3 months. You'd think with all the surgeries I've had I'd be more patient. ;) Actually working my limbs are really good for me. It's just not good if it causes pain, well more pain then what I already have. Ok that sounds weird so I hope you understand what I mean. :) I do feel good though about how far I've come since Fri will mark just 3 weeks since surgery. So actually I am doing really well. I even did the floors today, swifter, dry today, tomorrow hopefully I get to wash them. Hubby can only do so much you know! :) Later, watching a movie, Shogun. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"Get to wash them"? You must be bored to put it that way :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
WLU, you might as well admit that you've never been seriously ill before. Being able to do boring, routine things like a normal, capable, competent adult is definitely a 'get to'. Having someone else wash the floors while you voluntarily laze in bed is fun, but doing it because you have no other practical choice is dull, disempowering, and frustrating beyond words.
CrohnieGal, congratulations on your recovery so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, and I'm very grateful for my health. I'm glad she's able to talk to us again and extremely glad that it's been this quick - much faster than she had feared! I hope your recovery continues and you start to find housework boring again :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with a repeat-offender

Back in June, you gave user 81.86.142.211 their "final" warning for spam, well they're at it again, just thought I'd give you a heads up if you wanna do something about this. Eik Corell 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they'll do anything now that the time is over, but it might be worth looking into blacklisting the site. I'll see about doing so in a bit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Acupuncture sourcing

I reverted your removal of sources because more good sources are generally better in controversial topics. (see edit summary) regards, Middle 8 (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the text since it is dishonest to make it look like it's good for all osteoarthritis since they're only about the knee, removed the less specific English one and the Hebrew language one for accessibility and specificity and combined it to one reference only since it is unnecessary and ugly to have four references after a statement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the Peritoneal Dialysis Page

WLU -

Thank you for your message. However, I am a little confused as to why you removed all of our additions to the Peritoneal Dialysis Article page. We feel that we have followed all of Wikipedia's guidelines with regards to updating Wikipedia pages. We posted all of our changes/additions on the Peritoneal Dialysis Discussion Page for one week to gather comments. We have signed each of our Discussion Page entries, and have filled out the "Edit Summary" field for each posting. When we did not receive any comments/concerns, we updated the Peritoneal Dialysis Article Page with these additions. Furthermore, all of our information was cited.

I do not understand why you felt it was necessary to unilaterally delete our additions and revert back to an older (and much less expansive) version of the article, without seeking input from the Wikipedia community. We feel you have taken out important information, and have essentially made the Peritoneal Dialysis Article a stub page, instead of a full article. For example, you deleted the entire section regarding who can be treated with peritoneal dialysis, the section on peritoneal dialysis solutions, many of the steps that should be completed before starting and while on PD (getting trained by a dialysis clinic staff, monitoring your weight and blood pressure, etc) and deleted the cited fact that patients treated with peritoneal dialysis may keep their remaining (or residual) kidney function longer than those treated with convestional hemodialysis. Furthermore, your entry had several spelling and grammar mistakes (many of which have been subsequently fixed by other users).

Our aim is to provide people detailed and accurate (well-cited) information on peritoneal dialysis. With this in mind, we appreciate your addition of photos as they give people a good visual as to what dialysis looks like.

We feel our content is medically accurate and a benefit to the Wikipedia audience. I want to understand your motives as I want to add back in the content that I worked hard to create. I consulted with Nephrologists and nurses to create the content so I am confident that it is accurate.

Regards,

Renaldialysis (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Your" version contained a large volume of unsourced information, you added links to websites sponsored by your own company (making it a conflict of interest issue), and it wasn't a revert to a previous version of the page, it was a removal of unsourced information and a replacement with a substantial volume of medically reliable information linked by inline citations, making it much more trustworthy. Your company makes equipment for dialysis. That's fundamentally a conflict of interest. In addition, your links to medical articles are to primary sources rather than the secondary sources that should be used. There are issues of selective citations, undue weight on certain articles, the over-generalization of results of individual studies, the use of "should" throughout and the overall tone of the page. Rather than picking through the information bit by bit with these issues in mind, it was easier to start fresh and build using information from reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Renaldialysis, you say above that your edits are well-cited, but I saw many paragraphs added without inline citation. Can you explain (here, on my talk page, on your talk page, on the article's talk page) why you think your edits are "well-cited" whole sections contain zero citations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
In addition, they were citations to primary source journals, when we are enjoined to use secondary sources (note that WP:MEDRS gives specific meanings to these terms that are beyond what a naive read might suggest) and often discussed results as if they applied to whole populations (i.e. a study that examined just the elderly was used to source the idea that PD could be used by "anyone"). In addition, you replaced large blocks of unsourced text, which you are not supposed to do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Day care abuse hysteria....

I just wanted to notify you that I made a slight formatting change to your comment for clarity. Knowing that this may be contentious, I'm here say I'm fine with you reverting it if you're not okay with it. I just wanted the little conversation there to be as clear as possible, as we're having a bit of difficulty convincing some that there is relative consensus amongst editors who are judiciously applying policy (i.e., not sockpuppets and other users perseverating on a single point).

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Speaking of clarity, your signature is not - that seems like it would create more readability issues on more pages than a misplaced colon. Have you considered adopting a more conventional spacing to it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean... is my signature appearing oddly formatted to you? It's only formatted with regular text on one line; how do you see it? For me, it shows my name (Peace ...), then a peace symbol, then "I'm listening..." linking to my talk page. Is that not how it's displaying for others? It may have something to do with my browser?
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
PS, just so you know I didn't just add a colon to your contribution for formatting, I added a Support: (that's what I thought may be contentious).
It's not that, it's that your signature starts on a new line, lead by four colons (20 spaces). Standard communication on talk pages means one extra colon for each reply, adding five spaces, to allow for easier reading. Extra spaces and lines are usually used to indicate new types of discussions, quotations, extracts, and general breaks in the flow of the conversation. Your signature, though very distinct, I'm sure that's why you choose to include it the way you do, really makes reading talk pages more confusing, at least for me. Spaces like that threaded through the text makes it look like a series of interrupted replies, out-of-order responses, breaks for individual comments, etc. It makes it harder to parse the page. If no-one else has ever mentioned it, perhaps it's just me. Or, your contrib count is around 1K, it's possible that not too many regulars have seen it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA

There is a complaint about you here. Are they socks, employees, or just acolytes? :) Verbal chat 16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI, I'll look into it and get back to you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"Hi, I'm the press agent and lawyer for Dr. Erika's hormone initiative, which has no scientific evidence to support it, and I'd like to complain about you editing her page in such a way that it points out that there is no evidence to support it. Oh, there's no indication that she's notable in any way, and can I please talk about how the mean old pharmaceutical industry wants to keep bioidentical hormones, which are in no way dangerous or overpriced, out of the hands of good citizens who will pay me lots of money to spout off unjustified claims about miracle cures while ignoring safety data and claiming pharmaceutical companies lie to you because they charge you less money than me for their products while not forcing expensive, unnecessary custom compounding that makes me money...I'm sorry, what was I saying? Oh, yeah, he's a big meanie!" WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1421 Undo

You recently undid an edit of mine with the somewhat cryptic (to me) comment, "um, that's not how we do criticism; I'll chose as my reason WP:OR". The OR you are referring to is my interpretive comments about the credulous and anti-academic Guardian review of the book, true? If so, then to avoid OR, I'd have to find a reviewer (notable!) of the review? :-) Do you have any suggestions as how we can include material that shows the role of the media in making Menzies' scam into the big thing it has become? I have started a topic on the 1421 talk page about this and I'd appreciate your participation there. Jojalozzo 02:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreed888 (talk • contribs)

You've hit my reasoning on the head, and there's a couple other points - I chose the most obvious one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

osteoarthritis acupuncture effectiveness

I reverted your edit because that review you sourced was previously rejected in Acupuncture for being outdated. The newers reviews will suffice.99.255.196.199 (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'll be reverting your review. It's one year old, it's actually the same year as the reviews you included. So your objection is pretty baseless. It's also in the very prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine. Citing only one side of the issue is blatantly inappropriate undue weight. There is a controversy, both sides should be there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, I saw the review before and it was older previously. It looks like they updated it. It also looks like your paraphrased summary is pretty skewed though as 3 reviews are positive and 1 is negative, yet your paraphrased summary doesn't reflect that. A better summary would be: "The majority of recent reviews support the use of acupuncture in osteoarthritis of the knee, although one review claims negative results." Honestly, I doubt you'll agree though because this isn't the first time that you have paraphrased in a biased manner or outright deleted my reviews because "only one was necessary". I actually went to the editor's assistance page and he was appalled someone would do something like that.99.255.196.199 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I just realized that it was the same review and 2 of the reviews I sourced were newer. Yes, it is only 1 year older, but that was the exact reason given to me for why my sourced reviews were deleted (you weren't involved in this argument) in the acupuncture article- that there was a newer review 2 years later. Anyway, I corrected the wording to make it more balanced. I'm still not sure why you removed that other review as a reference though- the one in Israel. Even if the study is in Hebrew, the abstract was still in English and clearly stated its support for acupuncture's effectiveness in OA. Oh well.99.255.196.199 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Does everybody agree that acupuncture is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis? No. Ergo, there is disagreement, ergo it should be represented. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AT/RE

WLU, I sympathize with your frustration at how much work you've had to do because of the many AT/RE socks. But AT is not editing now, and it's not helpful to bring up that old stuff that's not happening now when addressing the issues in the articles as they are now (unless of course, a new sock appears, that would be different).

If you consider that the articles have incorrect information, or non-reliable sources, it doesn't matter who added that info in the past, what matters is if it's right for the article - let's look at the details and figure it out. As I said, I do understand your annoyance at the extra work of responding to the sock incidents. But please, let's approach the current issues by directly referring to sources.

Regarding this change you made at the day care article [17], there are of course scholars who agree with your edit summary, but there is no wide consensus that children can easily be made to report abuse that did not happen. There are ongoing debates with scholars supporting both sides of that question - one side or the other should not be written off by Wikipedia. (As far as the day care reports, I've not studied those yet, so I'm not addressing the day care cases in particular here, I'm referring to the question about reliability of children's reports in general, that does not have wide scientific consensus.) --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this page is about a coherent set of allegations that was the product of a moral panic, embedded in a specific time, place and social setting. It's notabout allegations of sexual abuse in day care in general. These allegations had a specific set of both circumstances, and details (cannibalism, satanic rituals, bizarre or impossible claims, all made after long periods of denial and interrogation). The current page title aside (and the consensus will probably support a change back to "hysteria"), this isn't about false or true allegations, it's about that specific period of time which is now over. I see the presence of those statements and references as tangential, and placing undue emphasis on the idea that there was truth to these allegations that was missed. But I also trust you to deal with it fairly, so if you think it is currently integrated in the best way possible in a manner that doesn't place undue weight on the reality of all statements made by children in the course of vigorous, leading and unrelenting questioning, then I'm OK with it (and despite the qualifiers, I do mean it sincerely - I have great confidence in your fairness to the sources and understanding of Wikipedia's mandate and mores). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(Thanks for your collegial comments)... I agree that that discussion is tangential in that article. That whole section is tangential though, I added a talk page note about that. If the general discussion of reliability of child accusations of abuse is included, then it needs sources that show the dimensions of the debate. But that section diverges from the article into the realm of synthesis because it's not based on sources specific to the moral panic and how it happened. I recommend that sub-section be removed or rewritten completely, with a focus on what happened in the questioning of the children in those particular incidents. The topic of whether or not children can be influenced during questioning to accuse someone of abuse that did not happen is a much wider topic. While it's appropriate to discuss reliable reports that children's testimony may have been influenced, and/or misinterpreted, during those investigations, to go into the underlying science of how that happened is beyond the scope of that article. If it does go into that science, then all the sides have to be presented with scientific support. I think that's off-track for an article about a cultural event (moral panic) and should be left out of it.
On a related issue, while there is no doubt there was a moral panic at that time, that does not mean that sexual abuse of children doesn't occur in day care. With the article being focused on the moral panic rather than the cases themselves, it's important not to imply that all accusations of child sexual abuse in day care should be tossed aside. I did a quick Google News search just now and found plenty of present-day reports of arrests and convictions of sexual abuse that happened in day care settings. Some reports include admissions by the perpetrators, and there's even one where the abuse was recorded on video. There are also recent convictions of day care operators or their husbands using the children in their care for making child pornography. This is not a moral panic, these are simply present-day criminal cases. Examples: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] -- That's not in-depth research by any means, it's just a casual news search, and there are many more current examples easily found. I'm not saying there was no moral panic where the media sensationalized the extent of the problem, but that does not mean that abuse in day care does not happen, and the article should not be made to give that impression. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Certainly sexual abuse of children happens in daycare, but like stranger danger it's certainly far, far less common than intrafamilial incest. Even the report produced by Finkelhor that's waved about as the definitive evaluation of child sexual abuse in day care states this, and apparently it included the children from McMartin, where there are indications that the only abuse that occurred was of Judy Johnson's son by her former husband (Satan's Silence and De Young's book I believe). If this is true, then the rates are even lower! And what distinguishes the moral panic of the mid-90s again is the sensationalistic and improbable nature of them - high levels of female victimisers, bizarre rituals, the nature of the sexual activities, etc. There's so much overlap with the SRA issue that they're, if not the same thing, then certainly outcomes of similar processes. I'd rather turn the page from a list-style article to an article-style article, but I'd have to re-read a bunch of books and focus on it for a while. If you're really interested in the issue, I would highly recommend Ceci and Bruck, Satan's Silence and De Young's Day Care Sex Abuse Moral Panic (or whatever the names are). Particularly the latter is crucial in documenting the issues. Ceci and Bruck in particular weaves together the science that existed at the time with seven actual incidents, making it about the moral panic and therefore preventing us from needing to synthesize. Anyway, all this is somewhat tangential, I'll comment on the talk page. Thanks for the note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
" like stranger danger it's certainly far, far less common than intrafamilial incest" - yes, no doubt about that. "making it about the moral panic and therefore preventing us from needing to synthesize." - that's exactly what I'm suggesting be done with that section in the article. I've added a comment on the talk page there. I don't think we have a disagreement about the topic, my concern is just that we not give the wrong idea about what's happening when children make accusations of abuse (when not related to a moral panic situation). That section of the article as it is now, does not make it clear that it is about the moral panic of the time rather than those broader questions about the reliability in general of childrens' reports of abuse, that's the only reason it caught my attention. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but also think that there's a lot of sources that could be used to explicitly state why this set of incidents was indeed a moral panic, and why this set of incidents resulted in flawed allegations based on little more than the projections, techniques and expectations of the interviewers. If you read the sources I recommend - De Young, Nathan & Snedeker, Ceci and Bruck, I think you'll see that there's a context, theory and explanation behind at least some of the ones mentioned on the page. But you need to read them to see it - and I know it's hard to make the time to read a whole book if you're not really interested in the subject. I think the time and situation is fascinating, so reading the books is a pleasure for me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormomone replacement therapy

"We" includes the other 3 or more editors who weighed in previously on the discussion (which you referred me to who share much the same opinion as my own (SandyGeorgia, Hillenpa, and QuizzicalBee, as well as unsigned IP). I don't believe that any of us are espousing any particular POV (...well maybe not all...), but all of us seem to think that there are two valid definitions of the term BHRT, one of which you believe in wholeheartedly, the other which the rest of us seem to believe is older, and less inflammatory, and should be a significant part of this article, while you wish to ignore it.

I have never had a Wikipedia account before. I just know how to read instructions and distill information: a good quality in an editor, yes?

I have read most of the preceding discussion in Talk. Yes, this has been discussed before, and the consensus view seems to be more in line with my view, which is why I am mystified as to why you cannot see that this is not an attempt to slant the POV, we are trying to disambiguate the marketing scheme definition and the pharmaceutical definition of this term.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from the personal comments and accusations. You have so far accused me of touting WP:the truth, of violating copyright, of WP:original research, and violating WP:reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverpa (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, QB hasn't weighed in since my last comment, SandyGeorgia, given the sources would almost certainly agree with me, and I haven't heard from Hillenpa in a while on top of most of his/her comments disagreeing (in much the same way as yourself) with the sources and the policies and guidelines. So you're not really representing consensus here. And you're still missing my point about WP:NPOV - what do most sources say? Sources override opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

John Todd (occultist) - any interest?

The article on John Todd (occultist) is at AfD right now. It'll almost certainly survive, don't worry. However, it looks like some people are signing up to help rescue the article, clean it up, find more reliable sources. As you've been involved in the Satanic Ritual Abuse article, would you have an interest in this John Todd article? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy right now, so if others are stepping up, I'll have to decline. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No prob. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Low Level Laser Therapy

OK, thanks for the clarification, some of my links may not have been appropriate. Can you kindly tell me how these are not meeting the guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodabill (talk • contribs) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. The Laser Therapy Handbook - Tuner, Jan and Hode, Lars,
  2. Practical Pain Management Journal
  3. NAALT - North American Association for Laser Therapy
  4. ASLMS - The American Society of Lasers in Surgery and Medicine
  5. Laser and light therapy conferences
  6. SLMS - Swedish Medical Laser Society - "Laser World
  7. Apollo Physical Therapy Products
Please refer to WP:ELNO, since I'm basically giving you the numbers corresponding to the reason why I think they are inappropriate.
  1. I didn't remove this one, DGG did [26]. I do agree with him however, this isn't a link to the book, it is a sales site - ELNO point 5
  2. I assume this is supposed to be a link to here. It's not a journal specializing in laser therapy, therefore ELNO point 13; it's also inappropriate as a source for a medical page as it's not pubmed indexed and does not appear to be of sufficiently high quality for use as a source or an external link
  3. There is already a world association for laser therapy link; the org with the broadest mandate should be the only one, otherwise every regional association adds their own link and this clogs the page and EL section.
  4. Ditto 3
  5. This is a link to a single conference, which will one day be over. It's spamming for the conference (ELNO 4), not substantially related to the topic (ELNO 13 - it would be appropriate for a page about the conference, if it was notable, but it's not going to add to the encyclopedic content of the page, and that's what we're here for), it can't be a reliable source and won't result in any useful information (ELNO 1). Arguably ELNO 14 as well - it's not a sales site, but it's close.
  6. Ditto 3
  7. Wikipedia is not a sales vehicle. ELNO 14, and WP:SOAP point 5. This will never be an acceptable link for the page, and stuff like this tends to piss off editors. Including me.
Also note that I removed the laser wiki per ELNO 12. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarifications!--bb 03:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodabill (talk • contribs)

Re: quotes

For video games we're sourcing, it's the dialogue that's most important. I prefer to have the evidence plainly put out for the reader and just use the citation information afterwords. There was nothing technically "wrong" with your edits, it's just a stylistic preference. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Apologies for not making this clear, but this user has exercised his right to vanish from the English Wikipedia - so please do not establish any further links between his old and his new name. This will not, of course, affect his status as a banned user. Cheers — Dan | talk 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know. Seems like a rather bizarre idea, but the RTV is a right. Please delete my redirect. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you're interested

Hi WLU, User:Samir got in contact with me on my talk page. He wants to get the Crohn's disease article to FA status no later than next year. If I remember correctly he is a GI so his help will mean a lot to the article. I thought maybe you would like to join in and help get it there, hopefully it can be done before the end of the year. Just thought you might have an interest. Talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oi, I doubt I can add much to a GI working on an FA. I'll post a note on his talk page in case he needs a proofreader, but I don't know enough to really help that much. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi WLU, thanks for your kind note. Appreciate your offer to help. What I think I'll do is when I get a bit freer in the next little bit is to round out the medical content and smooth over references, images and alt-text, and bring it to FAC. Would appreciate your proof-reading very much at that time. Kind regards -- Samir 05:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi WLU and Samir, I think the two of you will compliment each other amazingly well. Samir, sorry about the white spaces with some of the images I added. I don't know how to adjust them to prevent that from happening so I'll be watching how you do it so I can learn how to. If there is something specific you need or should I say want me to do drop by and let me know. If I can't do it I'll be the first to say so. As WLU is always reminding me, I am trying to be bolder in article space which is something I lack, boldness I mean. ;) WLU, keep harping on me because I am timid again a bit since I've made a couple of bloopers since I've come back from surgery. I am trying to get back into the swing of things but I still get tired and that's when I've made my errors. I look forward to all of this I must say though.  :)--CrohnieGalTalk 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I see the whitespace you're talking about, it's because you're not specifying a pixel width, so the image uses the default size (the image as it appears on its image page, which in this case is quite large as well as being tall and skinny). I reduced the image and floated it to the left, which will help somewhat, but the short paragraphs means some troubles. The images can be reduced by specifying a horizontal width in the [[Image:Image.jpg]] code, in the form of pixels - add |100px for an image 100 pixels wide, |50px for 50, etc. Always remember that it's specifying the width - a tall, skinny image will be better with a low number because the overall image will be small (such as I've already done) while a short, wide image will be better with a higher number, so it won't be so short you can't see the vertical details. The whitespace appears because you've got an image in each section - normally the bottom of the image just pushes into the next section without issue. When there's images in the next section, the text below the image in the edit pane can't start until the bottom of the image from the section above it has ended. Because of things like text size, section length, location in the section, browser type, magnification, window width, etc. you can never get this perfect - what looks good on your screen will probably be full of problems on another. By staggering them (alternating |left and |right) you can help a little (again something I tried) but that's not really in keeping with WP:IMAGE and looks kinda funny. In this page it's mostly an issue because of the number of images concentrated in two abutting sections. Move them up or down the page into different sections and it won't be a concern, but then they're not necessarily used the best way (or you can reorder the sections, but that's out of keeping with WP:MEDMOS). I saw a couple other minor things I could have fixed, but I'm kinda out of time today. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, helpful as always. I am too tired right now to absorb what you say here and would probably forget it when I actually need it so I copied this to my sandbox page.  :) I do understand though what you are saying which is a good start. The one that is tall and large has been in the article for quite sometime without the white space that showed up so I'm not sure if someone deleted some info in that section or if the image was adjusted. I think it was adjusted and the sizing removed or something but that's not important. I saw what you did and I should have thought of that with the two photos I added.  :) Samir said he was going to extend some of the sections, I believe that one is one of them. I don't know enough to do it. I believe there are two sections at least that need more info in them but I tried and just didn't know enough to add anything. I hope there will be something for me to do when he really starts working on it. I suspect there will be. Later, and thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The other possibility is the image got moved to a new section, or new images were added to the section immediately below it. Images and whitespace are both problematic, if you want to ensure an image is attached to the appropriate section, you have to deal with the others around it. More text would help, but it's still no guarantee that it'll fix it - try reducing the size of the text in your browser and I bet you see a lot more whitespace throughout wikipedia. You can't just fix it to look good on your browser, because it'll almost certainly have problems for someone else. I'm surprised there's not a better solution somewhere. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Goodness if I made my fonts any smaller I would need a magnifying glass to read. :) From what I've read, things here show up quite different on some computers due to monitor size, programs used and so on which I was surprised about. (I just recently read that somewhere on the project.) I wonder if there is a way better than what we are thinking to do? I find the way things are written at images at times very difficult to follow. I had a heck of a time figuring out how to even download an image to the site and it still takes me too long to do it even though I've downloaded four so far. They keep working on things so maybe this too will get easier. I just know I don't like seeing the white space like that and I did think about making the section bigger but was clueless as to what to put in there. ;) It will be interesting to see what Samir does with it. Take care, dinners calling, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Communing with the lemmings

Good morning. I've been reading up on the Sword of Truth stories that have important human themes, curious about how a series that has its hero kill people "armed only with their hatred of moral clarity" two thirds of the way through retained a fan base for the last third.

Your nick came up in posts dated last fall. You were, grumblingly, dealing with some trouble related to the series on Wikipedia. Have things calmed down now, or is there work to be done? --Kizor 06:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your first paragraph does contain an important question, but unfortunately I can't help you with your second. The primary problematic editor appears to have exercised his right to vanish and has not contributed in a while. I stopped reading the series after book three; despite my contempt for it and enjoying just how hamfisted Mr. Goodkind was at bludgeoning his important human themes into his reader's heads, it wasn't worth the time to read through the books just to make fun of them. However, as far as I know the SoT project is pretty much dead with minimal interest and fewer participants. I am personally banned from editing several related pages, and it's a pain in the ass to deal with most of the participants anyway so I don't bother. However, if you have any wikipeida-specific questions I would be happy to help. The first bit of advice would be make sure to base things on reliable sources. Good luck finding any, Mr. Goodkind's series attracted very little critical attention and aside from being a bestseller is essentially of no merit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
That's all right, thanks. I wanted to check whether there were outstanding issues to be solved. Any large-scale improvements would require an extensive familiarity with the stories that have important human themes, and finding my tastes diametrically opposed, I'm not the man for the job. --Kizor 15:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lima syndrome

My nifty wpW5 history tool shows you as the originator of the text I'm complaining about here - the result of an article merge? The "all but one" bit was put in by an IP, I'm going to fix that now, but I still question the sentence. Just letting you know. Also, when merging text from other articles, I believe our GFDL/CC-BY license terms stipulate that you make a clear indication of the source of your text (i.e. link to the article you copied from) but that's another issue. Regards! Franamax (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pharmanoia

You've got a question waiting here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits to the 'Aquatic Ape' Page

Hi WLU, I wanted to let you know that I strongly disagree with your assessment of Jim Moore's www.aquaticape.org page as "honest". I have been dealing with the guy for years and he's clearly biased. If you go to the trouble to look up the sources of some of his allegations on his web site you'll be underwhelmed at best and see that it's him who's doing trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, at worst. A few years ago several "pro-AAT" web sites (including my own) were removed from this page on the basis that they were not peer reviewed. Fair enough. That's the way it should be. However, it is clearly showing an alarming double standard when www.aquaticape.org is deemed laudible. Jim Moore is no academic and, as far as I know does not even have a single scientific qualification. This would be no bad thing in itself but his methods are clearly suspect. (see http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm for a full critique). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.6.204 (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jim Moore's site has been favourably reviewed by a variety of scholars as "the place" to go to for rebuttals to the theory. Frankly, since the theory is a fringe one and no serious scholars give it any credit, it's more appropriate to link to an "anti-" site and give the debunking than link to a non-recommended site that extends the conversation to give the AAH credit. Presenting it as "initial claim, Moore's rebuttal (in line with the scholarly consensus), rebuttal to the rebuttal" gives undue weight to the position that the AAH has any merit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Who do you think you are "WLU"? the self-apponted guru on human evolution?

You should resign from whatever post you think you deserve on wikipedia.

WLU prefers the opinions of a similarly self-appionted "expert" on human evolution - the librarian without (apparently without even a 'o' level in science) - to a peer reviewed master's thesis or peer reviewed literature, presumably because he just doesn't like the idea.

I call upon anyone in "authority" on this shambolic "encyclopedia" to ban him from editing anyone's work in future.

Algis Kuliukas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.189.114 (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Algis, I have three requests:
  1. Be more civil. Your constant attacks on other editors isn't doing anyone any good. It's going to get you blocked, and that would be a shame. We need people like you who know something about the subject.
  2. At Wikipedia your qualifications don't count. It is the sources you use that count. Your qualifications may get you some well-deserved respect, but your behavior here can ruin your reputation in the real world, so be careful.
  3. Stop IP hopping. Always sign in so your IP doesn't show and expose your location. You can set up your PC to automatically log-in everytime you go to Wikipedia. IP hopping is considered sockpuppeting and can be a blockable offense. All the IPs you use and your registered account each count as separate accounts, and only under exceptional circumstances is one individual allowed to use multiple accounts, and never to edit the same subject matter. That's socking to carry on an edit war, and can be seen as an attempt to spread one's edit history and to evade the scrutiny of other editors. That is absolutely forbidden here. We work on openness. The basic rule (with some exceptions) is ONE real person, ONE account, and ONE edit history for ALL that person's edits.
Brangifer (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Algis,
I'm not bothering to reply in any substantive way. BullRangifer makes the main points I would have, I will only add that you've faced these sorts of issues and made these accusations in the past. They were without merit then, and are still. Please review our policies and guidelines in detail and avoid using wikipedia as a soapbox for a theory you believe in but mainstream anthropology does not. The AAH is a fringe theory and we must be scrupulous about not portraying it as a serious contender within the discipline. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm Redirects??

Noticed you removed a redirect that is being used to smoothly go to a page and section that refers directly to the item in question, in this case a term that has a well know double meaning in English. Noticed that you gave as the reason that it was a Redirect. With much respect I have scoured the wiki pages regarding same and do not see where this is at all a prohibited use. As a matter of fact it looks to me more like it is a recommended one. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Click on White Slavery (slang). Read the title at the top of the page you are redirected to. You will find it is moral panic. White slavery (slang) is also a redirect, formerly to sexual slavery but now to moral panic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 06:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes the phrase "White Slavery" frequently is taken to mean a kind of exaggerated "moral panic with strong anti-miscegenation implications (as I'm sure you have clearly noticed the illustration where the male figure has a clear artistic link to the images used in The Eternal Jew, et. al.) by use of an archaic and now embarrassingly raciest pejorative term for forced sexual labour and forced rape, along the lines of missing white woman syndrome and Damsel in distress. This is why it is there. Are you saying you find it more preferable to just put the phrase moral panic? I had thought it might be kinder and more polite not to do that. But if you feel it is a more accurate to more fully show the clear european/western and colonial bias of that term, I would agree that is indeed preferable, and will defer to you. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
My issue is that you have to create a real page called "White slavery (slang)" before linking to it. You're linking to a redirect. I'm not saying you should do so, only that it is necessary to do so before you put in a {{main}} link. I would suggest drafting a page for white slavery in your user space, then presenting it for review at the current target for that redirect (talk:moral panic) and seeing if there is support. You need to have sufficient reliable sources indicating it is a viable term, justify having a separate page rather than a section in moral panic, and demonstrate it is not undue weight on a fringe idea. I'll give you a comparison:
Satanic ritual abuse was a moral panic. It has a separate page because there is a large and coherent body of literature on SRA indicating it is both a separate thing (i.e. not just a minor example of a moral panic) and a well-studied phenomenon in its own right. "Sadistic ritual abuse" is a renaming of the same specific moral panic that achieved no real traction and quickly withered along with the original phenomenon. Satanic ritual abuse has its own page. It is mentioned as an example of a moral panic with a brief discussion and a link to a main article. Sadistic ritual abuse is a redirect to satanic ritual abuse that has a bare mention in the satanic ritual abuse article and no incoming links. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that I have created the page white slavery from the former disambiguation page; the sub-pages of white slavery (prostitution) and (slang) still exist as redirects and still shouldn't be linked to until a substantive page is created. If you can find reliable sources that are explicit in discussing the terms as slang or prostitution (and aren't already used somewhere else or simply synonyms) then it may be good to be bold and create the pages. The whole issue seems rather confusing to me, I've asked another editor for his input (here). Overall, what I've seen suggests "white slavery" seems to be used very, very loosely, with minmal research and clarification. If you can provide clarity with sources, that'll be a big help to everyone. I've used google books quite fruitfully so far, so that's a good place to start. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

{{atn}} edit

Hi,

I see you made a change which removed the archive header from {{atn}}. I actually added this myself, before removing it again: the reason is that {{atn}} is usually used in conjunction with an existing archive header. Have a look at the transclusions: currently, many have two "this is an archive" banners now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

There is a rebuttal to Rosenthal's article that is cited in the Wiley Protocol article in the same journal, Menopause, but I don't know how one goes about determining if something is a verifiable source when it requires a subscription to read it. How was User:Debv able to get the article cited if no one could read it? Neil Raden (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The best way is to get a physical copy. It may be a letter to the editor though, which isn't really reliable for much. WP:AGF means we trust the article to be cited appropriately unless there is a good reason. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Rosenthal responsed to Taguchi's letter-to-editor in the subsequent issue, should this ever become a matter of relevance. And if this is of potential relevance to the article, it's better discussed on the talk page.
Debv (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Please see ANI listing here [[27]]Riverpa (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not how you report a 3RR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with your changes at the CCVI, however I believe it is a better idea to go little by little with the worst parts, so as not to engage in an edit war. I have marked different problems that I have found with references, and also a possible copyright violation in the talk page... lets see if somebody answers and then lets act in consequence. We could also ask for comments from more editors at the medicine project. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
That 3rr is for a different page (like that helps...) but the point is taken. Yon editor isn't listening and doesn't seem to get it, but if there are other editors interested in working on the page, then the problem should resolve itself. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Diana Napolis

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Diana Napolis. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Napolis. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency

I'm glad someone took over to edit the article about CCSVI. You did not help in any way. Just deleting information, and continuously reverting what others added to the page is not helping. Maybe it is best to ban you from editing anyone's work in future or you should be placed under mentorship. Alphons1968 (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Do I sense ownership issues here? That's a blockable offense, so you'd better back off. As a newbie here with relatively little experience, you should take it easy or you'll get into trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
At no point do you (Alphons) show any indication of having read and understood the documents I have directed you towards, including WP:OR, WP:RECENTISM, WP:SOAP and WP:POV. Until you understand these policies and can indicate why they do not apply, I don't see much reason to take your contributions seriously. Calling an issue important isn't a reason to ignore all rules. I agree with Brangifer's comments and you're lucky that a three revert report hasn't been filed yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've explained further on the talk page, in case my reasoning wasn't clear earlier. I hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, I would appreciate it. I don't edit BLP articles very often, so I lack the experience necessary to see how the BLP policy unfolds in practice. Thank you for the follow-up and I'll review the DN talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Response

Here's a couple more for you to try to justify.

This edit of mine lasted less than 10 hours, with the cryptic note "re-write". Why rewrite it? It was poperly cited and written well. [28]

Everything in wikipedia gets rewritten. Why would you rewrite mine? Obviously because you consider it problematic and think that your version is better. Thus, I rewrote it because I considered yours problematic and thought mine was better. For that specific version I tried putting the WHI in the first paragraph to see how it looked (not great). I also reduced the amount of detail since you don't need to have a lot of information about CHRT in the lead. Again your version introduced 6 paragraphs, mine has three - writing style preference aiming at a better-flowing introduction. But really, most of the information is still there, it's just re-arranged. Is mine demonstrably worse? Is it unequivocally better? I would say it is an incremental improvement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

This edit lasted 32 minutes, you objected to my "synthesis" of "Conjugated Estrogens from Pregnant Mares Urine" to the commonly used "Conjugated Equine Estrogen". [29] I don't get where it's OK for you to re-phrase, but not me.

My rewrite here put the wikilink on the first instance of compounding. I removed the scare quotes from "BHRT" throughout and spelled out its first appearance since this is the first instance of the term appearing since the lead. Again I removed some paragraph breaks. I removed a {{fact}} tag since it's sourced to Cirigliano. And I removed the bit about CEE 'cause the page is about BHRT, not Premarin and Premarin isn't the only nonbioidentical formulation available. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

This one lasted 8 days [30] when you replaced it with a version that you said didn't change the substance, yet you left out the existance of FDA-approved bioidenticals, it had grammar and spelling errors, and you introduced the concept that WHI was a study of menopause relief, which is 1)untrue, and 2)it took me multiple edits to get removed.[31] Choppiness in on-line writing generally makes it easier to read. The lack of line breaks creates a "wall of text" that is difficult to read for most people, as well as eliminating logical paragraph breaks to separate ideas. If you think it was too broken up, why did you change the content instead of just removing some whitespace? Tim has introduced paragraph breaks to the lede, will you remove them, too?

Is the fact that FDA-approved bioidenticals exist important? Meh, maybe. I removed it because it was part of the "history of HRT" section; now that it's included as part of the context of bioidenticals, it makes more sense.
If Tim put in six paragraph breaks instead of three, I'd probably try to remove them. But as an experienced editor, I doubt he would (and he didn't). Why did I rewrite as well as put in paragraph breaks? Why did you rewrite instead of just putting in paragraph breaks? Because we both thought it better summarized the facts and made for a superior introduction to the topic. Who is right? That's a matter of opinion. As I've said before - grammar and spelling are not reasons to revert, they are reasons to correct. I was wrong about the WHI being aimed at symptom relief, but was correct that it was shut down over unappreciated risks and I believe over how this resulted in interest in BHRT. So, what's the major point on this page? That the WHI was looking at bone health, or that it was shut down and directly resulted in BHRT becoming more appealing? And obviously it wasn't something you were keenly aware of or felt important - my "proofread" edit removed the reason why the WHI was run in the first place, and I don't believe you have tried to replace it since.
Again, you seem to think that I'm an edocrinologist, with specialist knowledge who does everything with perfect mastery of the sources. I'm not, and I do make mistakes. I don't know that much about the WHI, I'd have to read up on it to understand it better. It was a minor mistake on a tangential point which has been irrelevant for months. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

Here I corrected some entries to properly reflect the cited source: [32] Here you replace the properly cited statement with a statement that reflects the outcome of CHT studies according to the source, when the table is purported to be about BHRT [33]

It's all sourced to Boothby. Your change introduced incremental improvements. Mine added (IMHO) some as well. And as my recent edit demonstrates, it's still not done or perfect. The reason the claim refers to CHRT is because advocates for BHRT claim that BHRT improves cardiovascular risk factors. Boothby points out that it doesn't improve anything; risk factors remain the same for most, but increase for one type of nonbioidentical hormones. In fact, since Boothby is talking about claims made specifically for progesterone, this is probably the best summary for the page. So, thanks for bringing that to my attention, I think the current version best captures the claim-counterclaim. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

My post to talk page for POV tagging,[34] which you never replied to at all. Not properly labeled, you say? Shouldn't you have tried some input rather than biting? Instead, as the situation continued, you inferred several times that I was a sockpuppet, and you opened an ANI.

The FDA is speaking specifically about "compounded BHRT" in that article. Other articles discuss compounded BHRT, noncompounded bioidentical hormones, BHRT but don't define if it's specifically compounded or all bioidenticals, and some (like Boothby) specifically address scientific claims made about specific hormones. There's a wide variety of articles and focusses; those that speak just about compounded BHRT should be used that way, but given the mixing that occurs it's inevitable that a quick read can miss these things. When you point out that an article is specifically about just compounded (as you did with ACOG) I leave it and appreciate the correction. But the FDA source is just one source, out of many, and just because one editor thinks it is better, doesn't mean we should rewrite the whole page. The page should be about the entire body of literature on the subject, not just single sources. And after reading a LOT of sources on and off the page, I think clearly the entire body, taken as a whole, is pretty accurately summarized in the current article.
Regarding sockpuppetry, I don't think I ever insinuate you were a sockpuppet. If you read the whole section of the ANI posting, I was pissed off that you were propagating a dispute between editors on to article talk pages. And edit-warred to do so! That was what I was pissed about and seeking input on, not socking, and I repeatedly asked for community input over the misuse of a talk page. In fact, my final post in that thread was that I didn't think you were a sockpuppet, and my second-last also stated that I didn't think socking was an issue. So why focus on sockpuppeting (which is manifestly not what I was talking about, and made this clear several times) and ignore the primary issue I brougth up? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

As far as WP:AGF you never even responded to my statement questioning yours here, [35] instead, your next response was pure WP:GAME, as you subsequently acknowledged.

Yup, [36], and I acknowledge it, and look at my reply. In fact, look at the whole section. And read the entire sources - most say compounding and saliva testing are aspects of BHRT, and go on to criticize all of it. And few go on to say "despite this, bioidentical hormones are the best ever". Where do you get your definitions of "fad therapy" from? Part of the problem with BHRT is that it's a compilation of many ideas that are rarely entangled, but never is there a clear, unifying statement that bioidenticals are better. In fact, the unifying statement is often that they are expected to be just as beneficial and risky as conventional HRT (of which "molecules that happen to be bioidentical" are a part). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

Are you suggesting that when I leave your revisions untouched that I agree with them? Are you encouraging me to edit war? Far from that, I have tried to address issues on the Talk page, with absolutely no WP:AGF from you, as evidenced by your actions toward me. How am I supposed to address your ownership issues with this article which you so often unapologetically exhibit?

When will you acknowledge my concerns of undue and due weight? I support my work with multiple citations, generally to an absurd degree now, to demonstrate due weight. And yes, silence is taken to mean consensus. I assume that if you don't further object by editing or talk page posting, you acknowledge that the sources explicitly support my point.

As far as fixing spelling, grammar, and citation errors, while I have copyedited other articles, I do not consider it my mission to follow behind you when you are actively editing an article and do not bother to look at the highlighted spelling errors, or proofread for grammar in your previews, and when you revise previously copyedited text multiple times, introducing new errors. The citation errors are more significant, and I should not be compelled to read up after you to find out if your "re-phrasing" of content reflects the actual content of the references. When I bring inconsistencies to your attention you resist making simple changes, usually arguing back and forth several times before actually checking your statements for truth, or word definitions. For example, you have not accurately reflected the Boothby content regarding progesterone. If you need assistance interpreting the content I am sure that you can find some, or ask me to supply the applicable wording. You should police yourself, not expect someone else to follow after you to do it, since you are unwilling to cooperate on any significant level. Riverpa (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing is part and parcel of wikipedia. I'm not perfect, I type quickly, and often need to revise. I don't apologize for that, I'm not perfect. Copyediting is also the very easiest thing to do. If I’m actually misrepresenting a source, then point it out and how. I’ve got all the sources, I’ve read them, and I’m willing to re-read them. And when your criticism is valid, it stands. Unlike my criticisms of the lack of acknowledgement of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR – there simply isn’t any evidence that most researchers believe that BHRT or bioidenticals are expected to be better than their conventional counterparts. It also places a distinction between the two that most doctors don’t acknowledge – they deal with molecules with specific properties that have been demonstrated through research, not classes of compounds that are ‘‘a priori ‘‘ expected to have properties when there is no research to demonstrate this. As for the rest of your criticisms also apply to you as well, and the more I look into them, the less I find myself worrying about them because I generally don't see them as having merit. I’m willing to keep reading, but your general criticisms seem to break down when specific issues are addressed. Specific criticisms I’m willing to read and work with but when I can refute a point three diffs later, I find myself less concerned about it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

NVOPN Comment response

WLU - This is probably where we get into trouble. No, I do not see these statements as "close enough". They have a significant difference in that the one does not acknowledge the difference in outcomes between the bioidentical progesterone and some non-bioidentical progestins. That is a very significant difference.. We are not playing horseshoes here, close doesn't count. Riverpa (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm...I originally put that second line into the table because of the line "Proponents of BHT believe that the adverse patient outcomes observed in the WHI were due to the synthetic nature of the progestin". I'm uncomfortable turning the section into a class statement, Boothby's closing statement is "Thus, certain progestins are associated with increased cardiovascular risk, whereas pregnane derivatives and micronized progesterone neither increase nor decrease cardiovascular risk in the doses studied" which doesn't really address the synthetic/bioidentical issue. And how to summarize with the right balance of accuracy and detail, particularly when it's only certain norpregnane derivatives. Tim's a biochemist, admin and experienced editor, I'm inclined to lob it into his lap and ask him what he thinks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Shocked

I read this article and looked in vain for any statement from the authors disclosing their financial interests in bioidential hormones. If both authors make their living from selling something, you'd expect the journal to at least MENTION this to their readers! Wow. Just wow. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There are three "positive" articles about BHRT. That's one of them, by Erika Schwartz and Kent Holtorf (who appear to sell BHRT therapy and promote it publicly - Schwartz has written several popular books). A second is by Holtorf alone. A third is published in an CAM journal. I'm not sure of the impact factor of any of these. I also haven't looked into the direct sales activities of any of the authors (though I'm sure it's there) 'cause it's published in a legit journal. I'm not interested in playing the pharmanoia/COI card to discredit articles - it still passed peer review. Didn't it? On top of that, there's a TON of critical sources. Yet, apparently, the page should speak more positively of BHRT. I hope that someone else takes a sustained and substantial interest in the page, because it's kinda burning me out. I'm also losing my objectivity more than a bit, as the whole thing irritates me. I would dearly love it if you would look into the page Tim, you've always been scrupulously fair in my experience, managing to navigate an admirable article out of such disputes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you could split the dispute somehow. Perhaps a statement in the lead along the lines of "this article deals principally with this set of questionable practices, the risks and benefits of mainstream, FDA-approved forms of hormone replacement therapy are discussed in the general hormone replacement therapy article."? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Though that reads more like a hatnote than a split, and is somewhat self-referential. It has to be dealt with somewhere, but there are few sources that deal with bioidentical hormones as a source of research rather than an a priori assumption. Holtorf, Schwartz and Moskowitz are three, but Boothby 2008 is another one - and it seems to be rather critical. I've also seen reference to the fact that the studies invoked for bioidenticals are old animal models - which is why we have to be careful about the reviews we give weight to and incorporate the overall body of literature rather than cherry-picking. I don't think the main HRT (menopause) page should deal with bioidenticals in depth (I'm torn between a short section with a {{main}} versus just a see also) simply because it doesn't have much mainstream support. Plus, it's a slippery slope towards a push across pages about hormones that happen to be bioidentical that because this is a bioidentical hormone, it's better. Judiciously avoided by only using the word when there's a good source, and relying on secondary studies - in other words, applying WP:OR and MEDRS.
You can always try it and see how it looks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

undent WLU, I am proposing that the page speak neutrally about BHRT, the hormones and the treatment. Currently there is no information about some aspects of BHRT treatment on the page, such as the use of testosterone, DHEA, and who knows what else as part of the compounded products. Also, no mention of biest and triest, the original compounds. This article should first be "encyclopedic", and as such needs to explain what the treatment is. As the page currently is, there is little indication for the reader to know what is being criticized, except for the fragmented claims for BHRT which are strewn throughout the article. Riverpa (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the discussion doesn't focus on them. The article should portray the beliefs of the scholarly majority. The "what" that is being treated is an unknown entity that most researchers and doctors don't believe in. What is bioidentical hormone replacement therapy? Well, taken literally it's just using hormones produced by the body. But that's not how most sources deal with it. Until most sources differentiate between the two, we shouldn't be doing it for them. On what basis would you discuss "what" BHRT is? Would it use primary sources - individual studies of progesterone or estriol? Inappropriate, as TimVickers has said. Would you use secondary sources? Which ones? The 30-odd critical ones, or the 3 that are positive? Or the claims made by Suzanne Somers and Dr. Erika in popular books and on Oprah? What is BHRT really? According to proponents, it's HRT with molecules found only in the body. According to critics, it's nothing, just a buzzword with dubious science and unjustified claims. The balance of articles favour the latter, and there's no reason to start an article on what we think it is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
So, maybe the article on Creationism should get rid of all the explanations of different creation myths? Because scientists don't believe in them? Because there are multiple theories of creation? Either WP policy wants an explanation of the different theories, or does not. It's not like the Creationism article is not high profile, I'm sure that there has been plenty of controversy about it. The title of this article is Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, for better or worse, not "Criticisms of Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy". Try looking at some other articles about marginal topics, like Acupuncture or Multiple chemical sensitivity for ideas. Yes, there is criticism aplenty, but the actual theories are also explained. Riverpa (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Creationism is a social and cultural phenomenon, while BHRT purports to be a scientific one. Plus, Boothby does list the claims of BHRT. What would you propose to be the sources of the BHRT "truths"? And what are the claims? That BHRT is safer than conventional or synthetic, even though there's no real definition of BHRT that everyone uses, and no coherent evidence? The core belief of BHRT is that bioidenticals are better than synthetics, and the main secondary points are compounding and saliva testing. Until science "catches up" to Schwartz et al.'s beliefs that bioidenticals are inherently better, or a separate class at all, there's not many honest claims that can be made.
I'm a significant contributor to acupuncture. It has a significant background belief system that most people would not be familiar with. In other words it's a whole system of bizarre beliefs, while BHRT is basically one - bioidentical hormones are better than synthetic merely because they are bioidentical. Then two significant secondary belies - compounding and testing. Then a whole raft of criticisms of the background assumptions. There are differences but the primary belief is easily outlined and refuted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
BHRT also has a significant background belief system. You may not want to acknowledge it, and it certainly does not go back as far as acupuncture, only having been around for about 30 years. That makes it less documented, but not less real. You did not mention Creationism, which pretty much has no scientific documentation, but then we could start a discussion of Intelligent Design, purported to be the 'scientific' answer to Creationism, which has a discussion of the actual "theory". As should BHRT, since the page is supposed to be about BHRT, and you are trying to limit it even more by being only about the controversial "full package" BHRT to match your bias, becasue you apparently do not know anything else about it. I didn't know anything about it before two months ago, but there is plenty of information out there if you want to look for it. Boothby lists some claims for BHRT, but not in a coherent fashion and only the ones that he wants to refute. And nothing on the history or notable figures related to it. Thirty years ago no one used progestins as part of HRT except for that crackpot Lee, and they are now a regular part of CHRT. His motivations may not have been evidence-based, but somehow he got it right. Riverpa (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Response (2)

It seemed out of place that the only mention of estrone in that article is in a paragraph titled "estriol". Do you not agree?

You have added back the second cite of "3 cases of endometrial cancer"... This anecdote is cited twice in the article, and it was written several times to you that is is anecdotal and should not be cited. I think that is a clear violation of WP:DUE. Three cases carry little weight for them to be cited twice. I removed one reference and let the other stand which I think was pretty fair. Why did you restore it without responding to Talk? You did not respond to comments about it being anecdotal, and as you previously mentioned you consider the lack of response to indicate agreement, so I took your lack of response to mean agreement. (Note that I do not consider lack of response to indicate agreement, since sometimes I do not respond to your messages when they seem to only be trying to incite argument.) Please remove it or it will be removed again as it is WP:UNDUE, and it certainly should not be linked to the previous phrase with a "but", which seems to me very WP:OR.

On the topic of response, you have not responded to my request for comment on my Sandbox writing, so I must assume that you are in agreement with its addition to the article, though I am still working on some paragraphs.

I would love to see a copy of the Chernevak article, you offered to send out a copy to anyone who needed it. Thank you.

If you feel that I am engaging in WP:OR you will have to cite exactly where, since I am providing cites for every sentence that I add.

Tim asked you to add a direct cite of Boothby to the claim/proof table, which you have not done. On the same basis, I added the phrase to extend the attribution from the text to the product table, which also had no attribution. You need to straighten out the Boothby table attribution soon or it should be deleted as uncited.

Regarding the section name "Lack of Evidence..." Please see WP:WORDS, or read these extracts "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint. For section titles, a compromise may be needed between a neutral and a concise heading, while for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. In other cases, choose a descriptive title that does not imply a particular conclusion....A non-neutral title can make an article hard to balance. For instance article titles of the form "Criticism of..." should be avoided where possible. For critical reaction to a work, consider instead "Critique of..." or "Reaction to..."." See also WP:DECISION.

If you start using direct quotes you have to be willing to allow other people to use them as well.

However, I would prefer that discussion of the article remain on the article Talk page, where other editors will see it, and where it belongs, as I have requested several times before.Riverpa (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've retitled the section, but that's what I've got so far. I haven't looked into estrone specifically beyond that mention which I only included because Chervenak linked the two.
Three cases of endometrial thickening proves that BHRT is not innocuous and perfectly safe, though it could certainly be better placed and used. Eden 2007 is used 4 times, only once to refer to the endometrial thickening. It could be reworded to address claims that BHRT is without risk - one practitioner has found evidence to question the claims that BHRT is completely innocuous and that's how Eden et al phrase it in their article.
Sometimes my lack of response indicates that I'm sick of retreading the same ground.
The lack of evidence is a factual claim - there is no generally accepted evidence that BHRT is either risk-free or better than CHRT.
I haven't read your sandbox and have no opinion beyond MOS:CAPS. I certainly don't think it should be integrated into the article without a review. Frankly, I'm busy with the main article and trying to gather more outside input.
E-mail me for a copy of Chernak, I can't attach a PDF from wikipedia.
I haven't claimed you are engaging in OR, I've been pretty clear about addressing most of my comments specifically to Hillinpa's OR. If I find something problematic, it'll probably show up.
Straighten out the attribution of the Boothby table? So you want me to add Boothby as a tag to every statement on the page? I consider it a waste of time and unnecessarily uglifying the table, but as you like. I don't want direct quotes to be used, but otherwise there is hairsplittng and arguments over which exact words to use.
I post on the talk page a lot. A lot. I see you find it frustrating to have your comments ignored. So do I. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't blame me for requiring the Boothby citations, that was Tim. As far as ignoring your comments, when you make it clear that you are unwilling to work toward a common goal, and that your opinion is the only one that matters, it doesn't really matter what I say in response, so why bother? I have asked you for your opinion on the Work In Progress in my sandbox, Your response was "I haven't read your sandbox and have no opinion beyond MOS:CAPS. I certainly don't think it should be integrated into the article without a review. Frankly, I'm busy with the main article and trying to gather more outside input." That's pretty rude. I don't know what the MOS:CAPS refers to, but if you don't have time to review the text then you should have no complaints when it hits the article since you can't be bothered to review it.
Three cases or two cases of anything is anecdotal and "Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." See WP:MEDASSESS Riverpa (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it looks stupid? If so, remove them from the table and just leave a cite at the beginning. Either way it's sourced to Boothby, I just don't think it's necessary to add the footnote after every statement. If no-one thinks each cell needs a source, then there's no reason to include them.
MOS:CAPS means you should only capitalize the first word of a title unless it is a proper noun. All of your section titles Have The First Letter Of Each Word Capitalized. If you're not ready to place it in the text then there's not much point in me reviewing it. Again, I have to read, and re-read, and re-read articles, so the thought of reading a prospective historical summary that is currently unfinished, in a user space where editing is frowned upon, doesn't seem like a good use of my time.
For me the core of the Eden article is in the final paragraph: "The three cases reported here raise the possibility that the oestrogen component of the troche was significantly absorbed but the dose of progesterone was inadequate, thereby causing endometrial hyperplasia. The North American Menopause Society has produced a useful discussion paper on bioidentical HRT, and it should be noted that the Australasian Menopause Society does not recommend the use of bioidentical HRT. Until this therapy has been properly tested, it may be prudent not to advocate bioidentical HRT and to perform endometrial surveillance (eg, annual transvaginal ultrasound and endometrial biopsies) on women who, despite counselling, continue to use bioidentical HRT." I could happily summarize this as "Eden, Hacker and Fortune believe BHRT should not be used and should be rigorously monitored, due to concerns over endometrial thickening, a precurosor to cancer" or something similar. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Commenting on a Copyedit Error is Not Exactly What I Had In Mind When I Asked For Comments About the Article.
Again, the Eden anecdote is just that, and does not belong in the article, certainly not twice, and definitely not with a commentary about it. It is three cases. Can anyone really prove that the endometrial hyperplasia was directly attributable to the hormone treatments? I agree that it probably was, but there are thousands of cases every year, probably many of them women on CHRT. If you want to use this you open up the article to the inclusion of anecdotal references to CHRT, which I am sure you do not want. It is an anecdote, does not belong in the article at all, so no, your proposed summary is not acceptable. Riverpa (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Boothby is the reference for one of the mentions. He obviously thought it was sufficiently reliable and noteworthy to bring up in his article. He uses it to demonstrate that BHRT apparently does have risks associated with it, that don't appear to be appreciated. CHRT acknowledges that it has a risk-benefit profile, one that is investigated and documented. BHRT doesn't, claims to have extra benefits (which are unproven) and risks that are ignored or treated as imaginary. Responsible science says do the work first, fairly evaluate the risks and benefits, then publicize. This hasn't happened for BHRT and is part of the reason researchers regard it skeptically.
I'm not bound to give substantive comments, I'm a volunteer. I'm also busy with real-life stuff and the constant battle of the BHRT page alone and don't want to take time out for a sub-page draft that's not done yet. By making you aware of MOS:CAPS, you're saving yourself and everyone else work in the long run. All Caps Headings look amateurish, and tend to flag a section as written by a new editor. So my advice is both reasonable and sensible from an editing perspective. Minor suggestions and improvements are still helpful, even if they're not going to turn a Norman Rockwell into the Mona Lisa. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR - Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Riverpa (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the ANI listing [37] Riverpa (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. It'll be rejected. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank for the heads up

Thanks for the heads up on the DRV. I fear that this type of topic is one that causes too many knee jerk reactions by people who think they are protecting someone from harm, even if this thought is irrational. Given how the initial discussion ended up I'm not optimistic, but I have my fingers crossed. You put a lot of time into writing a thorough and NPOV entry well within WP:BLP. What can you do?PelleSmith (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bitch and moan, eventually join wikipedia review's review Fundamentally, if I don't like the consensus I can't do anything so long as it is a valid consensus. However, this case doesn't seem to match up with BLP1E or with "significant harm" and the other issues flagged in BLP. There's a discussion at User talk:Cyclopia#What to do about BLP deletion problem that I'll put my thoughts down on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A WRR? Sounds like a good idea! --Cyclopiatalk 19:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

About the BLP deletion problem

Hi WLU, there is a beginning thread on my talk page about the approach on BLP deletions. You're invited to join. --Cyclopiatalk 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, pretend it's a Christmas card. I mean, that you've got to read, right? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll read it, but that doesn't mean I'll like it. As a falasha I'd prefer a sectarian greeting in the form of Hanukkwanzaa. Stop oppressing me with your traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greetings! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Response on Article Talk page

Link [38] Riverpa (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hi, just popping in to wish you a very happy and healthy New Year. I hope you enjoyed the holidays with lots of good food, good companionship and good spirits (both kinds :)). Hope to talk to soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're doing good as well and healing quickly! I'm logging out to avoid the holidays, but please send me an e-mail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I will as soon as I can. Hubby got me a new computer, mine was vibrating to death, so my email isn't up yet. I will get one out soon though. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I have replied to you on my talk page, sorry for the delay, that time of year. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I'm in the same boat. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Christmas

Christmas. 'Nuff said.

Hope you had a happy one. rowley (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Reply posted to you on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlgisKuliukas#December.2C_2009. AlgisKuliukas (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Careful

Hi WLU. I'm sorry but I have to ask you not make comments like this. While I understand and generally agree with your points the tone of the post may be considered threatening (I'm referring to this: "Continue this and I will request a topic ban"). Also this kind of comment is more appropriate to a user talk page than an article talk page. Again please don't make further comments like this and I would urge you to consider refactoring the above linked post.
As reagrds the situation on that page I recommend bringing this to an uninvolved administartor's attention. Both myself and SLP1 have too much history with this to be considered uninvolved. I do concur with you that the current sitaution is untenable--Cailil talk 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate this advice, but it's a realistic outcome. MH34 has been pushing against consensus on multiple pages, for months if not years. I don't see it as a a threat, I see it as a warning. MH34 may be unaware that he could be banned from editing certain pages; because I included this as a fair warning, he has one more incentive to change his behaviour. I doubt he will, but at least he knows this is a possible outcome.
I'm usually against bringing this kind of thing to the attention of an individual administrator - I would usually use an ANI posting because appealing to a specific administrator is a lot like asking for a favour and therefore a run-around of what I think is the appropriate procedure (a request for a topic ban via a request to the community for input). I've been involved in two topic bans now (User:ResearchEditor who went on to become a sockpuppet and User:Guido den Broeder who did not) and based on those experiences I had thought this would be a relatively normal step to take, much like a 3RR or vandalism block (i.e. inform, refer to policy, warn, intervene).
Anyway, I won't make further comments like this - if MH34 continues to push (even if civilly), I will request a topic ban. I don't bluff.
Thank you for your advice, if you have any further based on these comments I appreciate it. I like to use sources to make my points and resolve problematic editing issues; I only resort to things like bans and ANI postings when editors continue to push in the face of those sources. Since I've been involved in 2 community bans, but neither were started by me, I am keenly aware of a lack of experience. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand your position and sentiments and I do think that there maybe a WP:CPUSH issue here. However you are in the thick of content disputes with MichaelH and saying you're going to look for a topic ban for him wont help the situation. This is my advice. Seek dispute resolution through mediation or open an User conduct RFC on MichaelH. Either of these efforts should progress things. And even if they fail they at least show that they were attempted--Cailil talk 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Being in the thick of a content dispute was when both my previous experiences with a topic ban occurred, and for one of them there was no RFC/U :) Given the exhaustive attempts by numerous editors to point out the issues with MH34's conduct, use and misuse of sources and generally inappropriate advocacy, I think a RFC/U would be fruitless but I could certainly be wrong and have no objection to one being attempted. When an editor so clearly ignores what I consider reliable sources (i.e. peer reviewed journals) in favour of news editorials, despite postings on the reliable sources noticeboard pointing out that this was problematic, I wonder what sort of external input would be required to convince him to change. But as an effort of good faith I'll strike through my comment.
The latest round of disputes are either extensions of previous ones (covering the exact same ground on the talk:parental alienation syndrome article) or about a single, absurd, unsupported and previously criticized point. I don't really see these as amendable to dispute resolution, but it's worth trying. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm already having issues keeping up with current pages. I'm happy to proofread articles that are already in a substantial state of completion, but I can't really commit to any de novo projects. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you could give me some feedback on the list of cutaneous conditions? ---kilbad (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that Is tomorrow OK? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the help. In certain cases I like your wording better, while in other I like mine. Would you be ok if I worked on the wording myself, possible changing back some of your changes (while not reverting/undoing any of your edits)? Regardless, thanks again for taking a look at the list. ---kilbad (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, during your review, perhaps we could talk about changes to the list on the talk page before making them? ---kilbad (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, I have no problem with that. I'll move over to the talk page and continue there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael H 34

With other voices suggesting that "something needs to be done", I'm thinking that's what needs to be done. I'm going to start preparing a RFCU here.[39]. If you feel like helping out with this so much the better. --Slp1 (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi WLU. I think I am pretty much finished, but would be very glad if you could take a look, and add or subtract as appropriate, including focus, diffs etc. I am guessing that you may be willing to certify this, which means that I would be very happy for you to add your slant, diffs, main points to the document where I haven't made them adequately. At this point, and after 3 years, I'm pretty determined to go ahead, despite the most recent quietude. --Slp1 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Guys I want to let you both in on something. Long long ago I met a very interesting man on wikipedia (see User talk:davidrusher and Talk:Men's rights archives). He's a Father's Rights blogger - quite an influential one at that. He didn't see eye to eye with me or with the project and wound-up indef blocked. At the same time he made a call for meat-puppets. A call that got circulated on MRM/FRM sites on January 28th 2007. Now, have a look at the date of MichaelH34's first edit. See also Mr Usher's explanation of his blog entry.
If I'm not mistaken there might be a WP:MEAT or WP:COI issue here. If you guys want I can give a full outline of this at the RFC/U--Cailil talk 02:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cailil, I'm sure you are right. I was around that issue too, for some reason, and watchlisted the pages because of it, which is why I ever got started on this marathon. You'll see I refer to Usher on my draft too User:Slp1/draft2, though I haven't given it too much airplay as it was so long ago. Someone of the same name posts a lot on the glennsacks website but it's largely irrelevant, since the POV editing is obvious enough as it is, wouldn't you say? If you have any suggestions for improving the RFC, Cailil, I'd welcome your input too. Just edit the darn thing!! Or add it in another section once it goes live? As you wish really--Slp1 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had real-life business up the yin-yang for a while now, I'll try review it soon. I would tend to agree that the call for meatpuppets is largely irrelevant at this point - even meatpuppets can do good if they stick to the P&G. The whole problem is that the P&G aren't being followed.
In case I am not actively editing when this hits the fan, please send me an e-mail because I would like to comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a look at the RFC/U page tonight. But when I made my point about meat puppetry I had [COFS ArbCom case in mind]. In my assessment policy is not being adhered to in this case in order to portray a group that MH34 has connections with in a certain light at the cost of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. That principle has a ArbCom precedent and thus can be enforced at a community level. I'll add the info and an explanation to the RFC/U later--Cailil talk 16:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Did either of you have a chance to look? I'd like to post it in the next 24 hours if possible. --Slp1 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had a read through and it looks very good to me. It's a well balanced and fair assessment. I'll add my 'semi-outside view' when it goes live. Well done on all the hard work Slp--Cailil talk 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. However the editor hasn't been active for a week, are the interests of fairness served by filing an RFC when there's no way to know if they're watching? </sticks nose in> Franamax (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments both of you, and for sticking your nose in Franamax It's a concern, I agree, and why I had been hoping to get this live a bit earlier. My opinion is that the reason that he is not editing is because he saw the RFC in development; See this sandbox edit, one of his last few posts [40]. If we don't post because of his temporary absence he'll just return again in a few weeks/months and we will go have to go through the whole cycle again before he gets the outside feedback he needs. At least this way at least some of it will be on record for him and other editors to see/read if/when necessary. But I'm open to the opinions of others on this, of course --Slp1 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Undent. I'll look through it more thoroughly today. No matter what, it's going to be a pain in the ass since it's so repetetive, yet voluminous, and touches on specific subject-matter knowledge. I frankly don't know what MH34 could say to excuse his actions, but leaving a note on his talk page and asking him to let you know when he's active so you can make it public seems reasonable and fair - if gameable. Sending an e-mail would also be a good idea. I agree that not posting this can result in still kicking off another cycle, but if you post it as soon as he's active again, and updating any new issues that arise, would seem to work. I suggest alerting him now and waiting until he's back on wiki.

Regarding his sandbox posting, there's no diffs there, just an opinion about me. As if I were the only editor who objected to his edits. And it would be fruitful to know exactly what he is talking about - misrepresentation is easy when there is no evidence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm worried about gaming the system by disappearing when the heat rises, and I'm pretty sure he's watching, of course. He doesn't have email enabled unfortunately, but certainly I would post on his talkpage to alert him to the RFCU.
My point about the sandbox entry is that he says he is writing because others will be evaluating his editing, suggesting knowledge of what was in the works, rather than anything else about the content about you.
I'd still rather go ahead; saying that it will be posted if/when he reappears strikes me as being a threat, and could be interpreted an attempt to silence him. Reviewing editors may evaluate his editing and say that it isn't problematic, after all. The idea is also for us to get feedback about whether his editing is as inappropriate as we think it is. But like I say, if others think we should wait, I open to be persuaded. --Slp1 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I say go ahead then - my reasoning is opinion, not definitive and it could be seen as a threat to post it as an "if-then" (I see it as a warning, but then again I'm not exactly neutral on the topic). I would hope that any editor reviewing his sandbox posting or similar statements would notice the complete lack of diffs, and therefore find it unconvincing. If you want to wait, I'll try to look it over today but you're usually very thorough and fair (IMHO) so I don't know how mcuh I can add. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, you are pretty thorough too, but if you have time to take a look at it, so much the better. I think I'll wait to hear Cailil and Franamax's thoughts about whether to go ahead or not. --Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but as far as thoroughness and patience goes, I play second fiddle, possibly third piccolo, compared to you :) Honestly, I see the merit in both positions and your statement that it can appear as a threat is dead-on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm quite torn but I have to say hold on. I didn't realize Mh34 had been inactive since the RFC/U was started (probably because I'm only online sporadically at the moment). From experience, outside views may look at his absence as a reason to ignore the report. But overwhelmingly there is the issue of right of response. In all fairness and equity to MH34 he deserves to be able to reply. I'm going to place a large caveat with this advice however, I don't think this should be put off indefinitely. I'd suggest requesting outside input on the situation (MH34's absence and the RFC/U) through WP:AN would be a start--Cailil talk 17:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, okay then. Let's wait and see if he returns to editing. I don't see any real point in going to AN rather than RFCU. The same issues about absence and right to reply etc arise in both cases, in my view. I'm a bit torn, because it seems a bit too easy to stop things like an RFC/U going forward if you can just stop editing when it is mooted, and then come back when the coast seems clear. But I bow to the general will. At least it is pretty much ready if it turns out to be needed in the future.--Slp1 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I would have said I'm torn but go ahead. The sandbox edit allows a reasonable inference that he's aware of what's going on (and is a RFC response already of a sort). There is a possibility the editor will lay low for a while. The benefit of going ahead now would be to give the editor feedback for the future, and/or feedback for those who see problem editing. The risk of not going forward is that there will be another four-month break, rinse, repeat. I like the idea of going to AN to get an opinion on fairness only, not on evidence. MH34 is overdue to edit now so I'd say it's now or in late spring. And if it's not now, which would be fine also, yeah, blanking is best practice and maybe {{noindex}}ing it. Franamax (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll ask at AN, and see what happens. If we decide not to go ahead, I could even just delete the page.--Slp1 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hah, that's what you get for posting a serious question during The Great BLP Dramafest of 2010. No time for fairness, there are pitchforks to burn! I still think it was a good idea to ask, maybe someone will notice as they rush by... Franamax (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Too true, too true. FYI Cailil got this response to a direct question for advice. It would be nice if somebody could respond at AN though. Decision making by committee is always problematic! --Slp1 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, decision time. The AN got the big yawn. It appears that Cailil would like to go ahead, and Durova approves. Final words, Franamax and WLU? I think it has gotta be now or we will have to wait and see if the problems reoccur.--Slp1 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me, it's not like either decision was the clear winner. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, well, it all became moot, since he returned to editing. I have created the RFC/U here, in case you care to comment. [41] --Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Provided it's not lost, you've not wasted any time. If you wait until he returns, then he gets right of reply. If he never returns, problem solved. Might be worth a note on his page to say you've started it, but will that be seen as a threat? Don't know. But no matter what, keep the RFCU (though you might run into comments about maintaining an attack page - in the past I have blanked it as a courtesy but the history is never deleted). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BHRT

Your changes to BHRT looks good. The lead looks NPOV at this point.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bipedalism and the wading hypothesis

Hi - Thanks for your note. I agree its a finge theory but if its worth allocating a heading to, alongside many other different theories, it seems reasonalble to allow what serious research there is on the topic to be mentioned and referenced. In this context I don't think this is unbalanced or amounts to "undue weight". As for credibity, people can go to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis link and make their own minds up. Having looked at the Wikipedia rules, I prefer to leave it in. Almanacer (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to distinguish the AAH (a well-known theory, even if not accepted) from the wading hypothesis - which no one even talks about. The AAH doesn't discuss the wading hypothesis, so why should the bipedalism page? I'm not advocating for the removal of the AAH, only this one subset of it. The two are related, but not the same thing at all. Picking an analogy, it would be like advocating for a non-accepted subset of Lamarckism on the evolution page, when the Lamarckism page doesn't even discuss it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There are references to wading on the AAH page. Clearly there are people talking about it. Seems to me to be a key element of the AAH standpoint as the author of the passage in question suggests. Almanacer (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Wading is one element and cited as a potential piece of evidence (more like a post-hoc rationalization actually, like most of the AAH) but the bit on the bipedalism page (put there by Algis I believe) focussed on solely that issue and did not explore all the other observations cited as evidence. Given the AAH has no real support anyway, and this one aspect of it has even less, I still see it as both unnecessary and undue weight.
Reviewing the AAH page, it's really only cited twice - once to say that protohumans may have waded, or swam or otherwise spent time in the water, and a second time as part of a criticism that a rationalization for wading ignores the impact of predation. It's hardly a large part, and it still draws from low-impact, primary sources rather than review articles (even review articles of the AAH). Though claiming to be part of the AAH, it's not really - wading and the specific bioimechanical explanations proposed aren't even cited on that page (and shouldn't be). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Google came up with “Shallow-water habitats as sources of fallback foods for hominins” Richard Wrangham , Dorothy Cheney , Robert Seyfarth , Esteban Sarmiento American Journal of Physical AnthropologyVolume 140 Issue 4, Pages 630 – 642, Nov 2009: "proposing that access to aquatic habitats was a necessary condition for adaptation to savanna habitats. It also raises the possibility that harvesting efficiency in shallow water promoted adaptations for habitual bipedality in early hominins." Not bad support I'd say. Certainly justifies leaving the passage in. Almanacer (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What does the full text say? Does it cite, say, any proponents of the AAH? Is the main thrust of the paper that humans underwent a substantial period of adaptation to water? Again, single studies don't necessarily prove anything since it's too new to really indicate the idea has gone anywhere in the anthropological community. But I'll pass it along to an interested party for an opinion.
Another option is to remove the second paragraph, and use that comment to contextualize bipedalism and the AAH a bit more. It's still not an accepted theory, but this does show recent interest. I would still urge the removal of the primary sources particularly given the existence of a recent secondary source that better-addresses the page and sub-section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"recent secondary source that better-addresses the page and sub-section." What's this ?Almanacer (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking for an explanation and definition of a recent secondary source or are you saying you think the Wrangham paper is such a source? If it's the latter, I agree but I'd rather see the full paper before integrating it. If it's the former, then a recent secondary source would be a paper published in the past couple years that addresses the impact of water-dwelling on bipedalism. It should be used to replace the primary sources on the page right now, but care must be taken to avoid recentism, the overemphasis on new sources, simply because they are new. This one could drop off the radar and never end up being cited again, much like some of the publications made about the AAH in the 80s and 90s. Still a much better source than what is there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad we agree on the merits of Wrangham paper. He has a solid reputation in the field. Almanacer (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I requested, and received, a reprint from Wrangham, and will try to read and integrate it soon. However, to make substantial changes due to this paper would be too soon; if more sources like this show up over the coming years, then the page can be more substantially adjusted. However, there are a variety of papers appearing sporadically over the years that support this topic, but this doesn't necessarily indicate widespread acceptance - though this would certainly appear to be a very good start. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation at Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

Hello, I have decided to offer my help with the mediation request for this article. If you are still interested in participating in mediation, please let me know. My goal with informal mediation is to try to clarify the exact issues that are in dispute, then to see if it is possible to come to a compromise that everyone agrees upon. Thank you. -- Atama頭 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Biofeedback page edits

Hi, I restored the Task Force definition because it is authoritative and recognized by the field. If you believe Wikipedia's readers are better served by your own definition, let's settle this through mediation. If you would like to communicate directly, I encourage you to contact me at <redacted>. Best, FredFredricshaffer (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi WLU, My copy editor suggested some minor punctuation changes (mostly adding and subtracting commas in my writing) for the biofeedback page. Feel free to revert any changes that you disagree with. I'm very pleased with the changes you made on the page and value your guidance. When you have time, please look at my responses on my Discussion pageFredricshaffer (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

CCSVI

Wow...They really like you... I wanted simply to say that I believe you do a great job in wikipedia making articles scientifically reliabe and balanced. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I try. I understand they think it's important, but it only gets significant play when it's been independently confirmed.
Thanks for the compliment :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sybian,, recent editing

I really wish you would allow the C-Flex part. It is extremely important that potential users who have latex allergies realize the product does not contain latex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1rapunzle (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if you are a manufacturer or sales person. We're not. If people really want to find out, they can go to the manufacturer's website. You seem to think that what you think is important is the same as what is important. C-Flex isn't notable enough to have its own wikipage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference SST120 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WLU/Archive_6&oldid=1257876379"