User talk:BillMoyers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Job and his tormentors, one of William Blake's illustrations of Job.


Hello, BillMoyers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anne Carson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rembrandt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the scholarship of Paul Crenshaw.<ref>Schama, Simon (1999). ''Rembrandt's Eyes''. Knopf, p. 720).</ref> Schama presents a substantial argument that it was the famous ancient Greek painter [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment, This short edit was made to distinguish between "science" wiki-pages and "arts" wiki-pages which are presently not separately discussed in this article. If you have the current stats file for the number of wiki-pages for each scale of classification (number of A-class articles, B-class, C-class, etc) then the edit could be completely rewritten. BillMoyers (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit at abortion[edit]

Just letting you know I reverted your addition of info from that 2013 article. As I explained in the edit summary, the page, and the section in question, discusses abortion incidence worldwide and should not include single-country data. I'm also not sure the source is very high quality. We are better off, where possible, relying on sources like high-quality medical journals such as The Lancet, or international health org stats such as produced by WHO. If you want to discuss further, i suggest you raise it on the article talk page. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have approached this in that way, but i have set out my objections at the article talk page.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Abortion is under a one revert restriction. If you continue to revert you may loss your ability to edit. Please read WP:MEDRS regarding refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Updates from new manual.[edit]

DSM5 manual has been out since Spring of 2013 for over half a year now, and this article needs to be updated and redrafted to maintain assessment. It is oriented almost exclusively to DSM4 which is now defunct and superseded. This issue of DSM5 updates is to become system-wide for Wikipedia during the coming months and is a current concern system-wide. At a minimum, each of these listed items should be addressed on this wikipage. 1)Article as a whole appears to completely overlook the comparison and relationship of this diagnosis with "Personality Disorders" as presented in ICD10 and DSM5, the discussion is completely missing. ICD tells us that Schizophrenia can be diagnosed under "Personality Disorders". 2)Lede does not mention relevance of associated personality disorders to Schiz. diagnosis and treatment. 40% to 60% of all psychiatric diagnoses are accompanied with a diagnosis of associated personality disorders. See: Saß, H. (2001). "Personality Disorders," pp. 11301-11308 in Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, Amsterdam: Elsevier doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03763-3 ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8. 3)"Schneiderian" classification should be discussed under "History" section. It is secondary to both the ICD10 and the DSM5 classification categories and the section should reflect this. They (DSM5 and ICD10) presently do not appear in discussion until section 4 here as "Diagnosis". Unless this wikipage updates/replaces all DSM4 references with DSM5, it becomes outmoded and obsolete. 4)"Causes" subsection completely ignored diagnostic Personality Disorders; possible correction may be with a new subsection, or as a subsection to present "Genetics" subsection; Or, possibly under "Developmental." If Schizophrenia is related to Genetics, it is related to Personality Disorders as well. 5) Very scant and sparse "Psychological" subsection under "Mechanisms" compared to more fully developed "Neurological" subsection; Personality Disorders completely ignored in this subsection. Expertise of psychiatric background is visibly lacking in this subsection. 6) "Diagnosis" opening paragraph in subsection mentions only DSM4 and needs to be updated; no mention is made of disagreements and contrasts between DSM5 and ICD10 regarding "Schiz." diagnosis and assessment. 7)"Diagnosis" subsection on "Criteria" is outdated and does not mention DSM5 updates for schizophrenia. DSM4 is outmoded and obsolete for over half a year now. 8)"Diagnosis" subsection on "Subtypes" is outdated to DSM5 standards and needs to be re-drafted. ICD-10 classifies the DSM-5 schizotypal personality disorder as a form of schizophrenia rather than as a personality disorder. 9) That forty percent to sixty percent of psychiatric diagnoses for schizophrenia include a co-diagnosis of at least one of the personality disorders underscores the issue that a separate subsection is needed and justified for "Personality Disorders as a Component of Schizophrenia." The statistics inform the medical community that approximately every second or third diagnosis of schizophrenia by a psychiatrist is accompanied with a co-diagnosis of at least one personality disorder. This is far from "obscure" or "tangential." It covers between one third and two thirds of all psychiatric diagnoses for schizophrenia. It would be of high importance to include such a subsection during the time period of the DSM5 transition edits and neglectful if it is excluded. 10) Key explanation is needed of the full change of diagnostic format of specification for schizophrenia as a category of diagnosis by the DSM5 re-organization of the diagnostic classification for schizophrenia which now excludes subtype classification of variant forms of schizophrenia. 11) Mortality statistics and-or mortality tables for schizophrenia recovery need significant elaboration for each of the following categories, (a) with medications, (b) without medications, (c) with supportive therapy, (d) without supportive therapy. Also, the progress of chronic schizophrenia needs to be substantially differentiated and addressed to include at least the topics of (i) the extended control of symptoms, and (ii) the intensification and development of symptoms over longer periods of time, along with co-morbidity issues. 12) Cluster A significance to the discussion of schizophrenia in general can no longer be responsibly excluded from the discussion as currently displayed on this wikipage. The significance of Cluster A along with its heightened association to schizophrenia within this cluster of personality disorders as opposed to the other clusters, Cluster B and Cluster C, is presently entirely absent from this wikipage. The issue is presently fully neglected on this "Schiz." wikipage. The current Section4.2 on this wikipage is completely outdated and obsolete according to DSM5. Its material is now out of print and is no longer in use by an entire new class of medical students entering studies since Autumn 2013. 13) Fundamental misunderstanding of statistics on this wikipage must be clarified and its direct presentation enhanced. The statistics are that of 2.4 million adults (for example in 2004) in the United States diagnosed with Schizophrenia, that an estimated 960,000 to 1.44 million are co-diagnosed with at least one of the personality disorders. This material and its analysis are completely missing and lacking on this wikipage, and it should be consistent with DSM-5. 14) Page management at this wikipage has shown resistance to the inclusion of the crucial statistics linking PD to schizophrenia following the 2004 statistics and other supportive material as outlined above. Even with statistics as high as 1.44 million sufferers co-diagnosed with schizophrenia and PD, page management on this wikipage continues to neglectfully exclude the discussion of the active need for a sub-section on PD related to schizophrenia as found in DSM-5 and supportive literature. 15) The time frame for the discussion of schizophrenia and its related research literature must be clarified and made explicit to recognize fully the relationship of DSM-5 (2013) and ICD-10 (1990) with immediate emphasis. Any arbitrary time frames for identifying useful research material must be excluded. Statistics on chronic forms of schizophrenia can go back several decades (to the 1950s and 1960s) and still be highly useful in this wikipage. The time frame of 1990 for ICD-10 is a reasonable one, and the edit on this Talk page for a "Modern assessment" subsection has not received comment from User:Casliber or User:Jmb649. The material would responsibly bracket this wikipage as a whole to 1990 ICD-10, until such time as ICD-10 and DSM-5 are replaced. All arbitrary time frames must be excluded. This subsection should be added to protect this wikipage from becoming obsolete and outdated by DSM-5 standards.

Hello User:R and User:S, Yes we all know it is an FA article, and we all know that it is under the shadow of becoming increasingly obsolete if the DSM5 transition edits issues are left unaddressed. If you are somehow suggesting that FA articles should be artificially protected against the progress of time, then I am not sure that is as realistic as DSM5 editors would normally expect. Your comment on "high-quality journal reviews" cannot possibly refer to the use of the journal "Neuroimage" which is a journal of considerable academic standing. Your ascription that Dr. Glover and Dr. Menon are not of a high quality of research must be very carefully worded since these are living authors with significant standing in the medical community. The current edit by Rob Hurt is verified and worth restoring. BillMoyers (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(The 15 point version of the DSM-5 transition edits is in the subsection below. This subsection preserves the preliminary exchange of users for the current DSM-5 transition update process.)

Since forty to sixty percent of all psychiatric diagnosis, including schizophrenia, include a second co-diagnosis of at least one of the personality disorders, it is no longer practical to completely isolate the discussion of Schizophrenia from Personality Disorder as it may have been done in the past before DSM5.[1] Both the differential diagnosis and direct diagnosis of schizophrenia have been influenced by the DSM-5 re-organization of personality disorders into "Clusters."[2] In contrast to DSM-4, the updated DSM-5 published in 2013 now lists personality disorders in exactly the same way as other mental disorders such as schizophrenia, rather than on a separate 'axis' as previously. DSM-5 lists ten personality disorders, grouped into three clusters. Of the three clusters, "Cluster A" is directly relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia as ICD-10 indicates that the schizotypal personality disorder is a form of schizophrenia, and DSM-5 lists this personality disorder alongside schizophrenia in the section on "Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders" along with a second listing of it in the separate section on "Personality Disorders."[2] "Cluster A" includes the three personality disorders: Paranoid personality disorder, Schizoid personality disorder, and Schizotypal personality disorder.

Modern assessment and the ICD-10 definition

Historically, the discussion of schizophrenia dates back at least to Freud and Schneider, yet was substantially refined in 1990 by the ICD-10 definition of schizophrenia. In ICD-10, schizophrenia became defined as covering a range of specifications which included paranoid schizophrenia (F20.0), hebephrenic schizophrenia (F20.1), catatonic schizophrenia (F20.2), undifferentiated schizophrenia (F20.3), post-schizophrenic depression (F20.4), residual schizophrenia (F20.5), and simple schizophrenia (F20.6). In its most general form, ICD-10 states that, "The schizophrenic disorders are characterized in general by fundamental and characteristic distortions of thinking and perception, and by inappropriate or blunted affect. Clear consciousness and intellectual capacity are usually maintained, although certain cognitive deficits may evolve in the course of time. The disturbance involves the most basic functions that give the normal person a feeling of individuality, uniqueness, and self-direction."[3] BillMoyers (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

FA work[edit]

Hi Bill, I saw you dropped a note on my User Talk regarding work on an FA article. What was the article and what did you have in mind? I can't say I can commit to a ton of work but there's a specific section you'd like input on I'd be happy to try to do that. I am watching your User Talk page so just go ahead and reply here. Zad68 18:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zad; Appreciate your getting back to me on this topic. It is the "Schizophrenia" page which is an FA. The main topic now is that the central diagnostic manual DSM-5 has just been upgraded to replace the out-moded, ten year old DSM-4 manual. However, just about the entirety of the wikipage is still written with references almost only to the DSM-4. Therefore what makes sense now is to do a "search and identify" of all the references made to DSM-4 (the old version), enumerate them, and then let the general edit community do the upgrade transition edits to DSM-5 (the new and current version) by listing them sequentially as a group on an FA review. Your user page posted stars for 2 GA medical articles, and maybe an FA article upgrade star would look good next to them. What do you think? BillMoyers (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
OK Bill... although I'd love a FA gold star, updating Schizophrenia to use the new DSM-5 wouldn't get me one, unfortunately. I agree that the article needs to be updated to use DSM-5. I see you made some edits to the article along that line but got reverted, which can be frustrating. But, the good news is that the editors who reverted you, like Jmh649 (Doc James) and Casliber, are some of our most experienced and proficient medical and science article editors. I also see you started a section on the Talk page there but unfortunately haven't gotten anybody to join you in discussion there. Casliber has started making DSM-5 changes. I think the best thing to do would be to try get more engagement on the Talk page. I don't have access to DSM-5 at the moment but it looks like Casliber and Doc James will be getting it soon. Don't worry if the updates aren't made right away, there's no deadline on our articles. Zad68 03:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User name[edit]

Your user name is the same as a well-known person, Bill Moyers. You need to follow the procedures under "real name" or request a change of user name. TFD (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Information.svg Hello, BillMoyers. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. TFD (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC) --TFD (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a common name and has been validated following the Wikipedia filter test of names when issued. Wikipedia policy for common names has worked and works on a system of "first requested, first served." BillMoyers (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Your request on my talk page.[edit]

Hi BillMoyers! Look what I found here:


Please familiarize yourself with WP:3RR and refrain from reinstating edits without reading the talk page, or you could be blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Moyers, what is it going to take to get you to read and understand some Wikipedia pages? I seem to be banging my head against the wall at Talk:Schizophrenia, with no acknowledgement that you are digesting anything. I have been harping that we needed to do the DSM5 updates to all of our medical Featured articles for quite a few months, and I can understand you being frustrated that hadn't been done, but you have gone beyond that to edits that will damage the FA status of the article even after the DSM5 updates are completed. Additionally, you've got some of Wikipedia's best FA writers and most experienced medical editors in there, yet you've pinged in boatloads of editors who have never worked on articles at the FA level and aren't likely to know the standards-- that is bound to be frustrating for them (as well as everyone else). Could you please try to read and acknowledge the following pages?
  • WP:MEDMOS#Sections explains the sections we use in medical articles. Please stop adding sections that breach MEDMOS and WP:MSH.
  • WP:MEDRS along with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains medical sourcing. That, in conjunction with WP:WIAFA and WP:UNDUE, explain why we use recent high-quality sources to determine content in a broad overview FA. That some things are still in there from DSMIV because the DSM5 updates haven't been done yet is not a reason to start adding non-compliant sources (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Please stop adding poorly sourced, UNDUE text.
  • Featured articles must maintain a consistent citation style. The citation style on that article is the vcite journal template generated by plugging a PMID into the BogHog citation filler. Please stop adding text with incomplete citations.
  • Please have a look at WP:OWN#Featured articles; your edits so far have not demonstrated competence in editing an FA. Please make better use of the talk page, and understand that consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by numbers-- calling in more people to back up positions that aren't grounded in policy or guideline isn't the way forward.
I'm glad you've drawn attention to the needed DSM5 updates; I wish the rest of your editing would be less problematic and time-consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: New editor on Schiz. wikipage has been deflecting all new edits from 4 different editors to the Talk page there during the last two days. This same new editor has used the "3RR" warning erroneously with User:Markw as well from that same Talk page. BillMoyers (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have looked for a new editor on schizophrenia, and don't see one except those you summoned (what do you suppose ever became of Vaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)?)[1] Moyers, you are apparently unaware of numerous standards on Wikipedia, and don't seem to realize that you should attempt to discuss not only content, but also behavioral issues. Your behavior on the talk page at Schizophrenia has been an unwillingness to engage Wikipedia policies and standards, or to even indicate that you've read them; it is being to look like willful actions. You today indicated misunderstanding of talk archiving, along with mention that I'm not a nurse or nurse practitioner. Sheesh, what a sexist-- suppose I'm a Dr? Anyway, no one on Wikipedia is anything; we could all be dogs. Your assertion is an off-topic ad hominem that has nothing to do with my long involvement on medical FAs. Should you continue to not engage on talk, you will end up in dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Internal quality control at Page:Schiz in relation to general Wikipedia quality control.

Recently, one of the users on this wikipage expressed no knowledge of the difference between a "medical doctor" and a "registered nurse", and no knowledge of why this would be important to the writing a wikipage related to medical issues dealing with mental health in general. Most wikipedia users are already familiar with the two-axis approach which Wikipedia takes to the internal quality control of its millions of pages. The one axis is the rating of articles by"Importance" ranging on four gradations from high to low. The second axis used by Wikipedia for internal quality control is that of the "Upgrade" status of the article itself which ranges mostly on an eight part scale from FA and GA articles down to Start and Stub class articles. This is presented as a general frame to explain the gradation scale, also pertinent, of the gradation of hierarchy as it is seen in the medical profession and how this affects the two-axis internal quality control model which Wikipedia uses system wide. The most established medical doctors are those who have become department chairmen at either hospitals or medical schools, and they begin this list intended to be used for discussing related Wikipedia internal quality control issues:

(1) Medical doctors who have become chairmen at hospitals or medical schools, often having written multiple books and medical articles, and supervising multiple research grants and programs, highest level of accomplishment.

(2) Medical doctors who are full Professors and who hold tenured faculty positions and leading universities such as Harvard University.

(3) Medical doctors who have become Attending Physicians at a hospital and have specialized in one of its many branches of medicine, such as Psychiatry, who organize the efforts of lower ranking medical doctors at the hospital and medical interns who are MDs. They may or may not have written journal articles.

(4) Medical doctors who have specialized in one branch of medicine such as Psychiatry and have become board certified in this specialized branch of medicine. They may be treating physicians at a hospital or in private practice with affiliation to a hospital.

(5) Medical doctor who may have specialized in a branch of medicine yet who are unaffiliated with a hospital, medical school, or university, and who are in private practice.

(6) Medical doctors who are general practitioners without any specialization or interns, who serve an important service in their communities in providing needed health care.

(7) Nurses of various degrees of accomplishment who usually assist medical doctors.

This list presents the gradations of advancement within the medical profession in general terms and identifies the importance of this quality among doctors, much as Wikipedia uses standards for internal quality control of its wikipages as described above. There is a significant discussion of the quality of writing of specialized articles in, for example, the medical and/or the legal disciples, which has yet to fully take place at Wikipedia, as to whether an article submitted to Wikipedia benefits if an article is submitted by a high raking medical doctor from the enumeration above, or, if it is no different from a specialized medical wikipage written by a registered nurse of even a bright student. This table enumeration is presented here for general comment of how it might affect the Wikipedia internal quality control for this Schizophrenia wikipage and perhaps other medical wikipages. Is there any benefit to having medical articles written by doctors at the higher levels of the list? Can it potentially have a beneficial effect on Wikipedia quality? BillMoyers (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There are big problems with this as it undermines the review of the quality of a page itself. What is to be done if an expert writes an article that others find exception to? And while we have anonymous editing, we have problems with verification of an editor's credentials. This discussion should come off this page and be discussed at WT:MED instead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
We have levels of evidence. Expert opinion is the lowest level of evidence. We want to use the highest levels of evidence if available. All of course must be published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Hey Bill. Per WP:MEDRS this [2] does not appear to be an appropriate reference source. Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about User Name/ID[edit]


My attention got caught up on your fairly recognizable User Name/ID here, and I have spent the past 5 min trying to figure out if you are Bill Moyers or not. It still is not clear to me if you are or are not the living person this User Name would lead one to believe you are. If you are, and I am not clever enough to figure it out in 5 minutes here, I apologize in advance. I also salute you and most warmly welcome you to WP.

If you are not, I am curious why WP would allow someone to use another living person's name to construct/express a fake identity here. It does not look to me like this would be a proper use of the WP guidelines about User Name creation? Thanks a lot for dispelling my doubts/confusion on this matter quickly. warshy (¥¥) 16:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

To follow up here, if your real name IS Bill Moyers, but you are not Bill Moyers please note this on your user/user talk pages. If your real name is not Bill Moyers, your name is probably outside of policy, and it would be advisable that you request that it be changed. NativeForeigner Talk 22:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a common name and has been validated following the Wikipedia filter test of names when issued. Wikipedia policy for common names has worked and works on a system of "first requested, first served." BillMoyers (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
To quote username policy (Specifically WP:REALNAME "Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable, living person, unless it is your real name. If you are using such a name because it is your real name, you should make clear on your userpage that you are not (or are not related to) the well-known person of that name." I don't want to be a pain, but there is no reason not to follow policy here. NativeForeigner Talk 00:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much NativeForeigner for following up on this matter and for even spelling the correct policy right here, on the User's own page. Doing this is by no means "being a pain." There are clear ethical reasons for the policy as you spelled it here, and there is no reason to allow this User to imply he/she is (or is related) to another very famous living person, as you had already pointed out correctly, previously. There is definitely no reason not to follow a very clearly articulated and indeed ethically mandated policy. This should also be done by the User who is currently violating policy ASAP. Thanks again. warshy (¥¥) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


Which page(s) are you intended to use these graphics? And what kind of data will it be presenting? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Some projects do not assign importance to their articles since they believe that all areas are equal. Couldn't you do the graphs with Excel? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
A very simple way is to create the graph in Excel, screenshot the graph, save the screenshot as picture and then upload the picture. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the bar chart and pie charts on the Wikipedia article[edit]


Sorry for replying late. I was just about to reply to your first message, telling you about the new charts (I finally managed to get them, after quite some time).

The bar chart template may not work perfectly all the time. Sometimes, the labels get shifted a bit up or down. I tried rectifying it, and now everything looks OK, at least on my computer screen. If it has not already happened on yours, try refreshing the webpage.

The 5th column in the bar chart simply shows the 5th category in the Wikipedia editorial team's statistics table: "???". It probably means "unassessed" or "undecided" quality.

Just an important point about the bar chart and pie charts, which I also mentioned on the article: they are not auto-updated. So a Wikipedia editor will have to manually update all data. But the table, as you may know, is different: it is auto-updated. (If only there was a way to auto-update charts, too!) --Sarthak Sharma 13:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, BillMoyers, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You are welcome to continue to edit under this username, but we ask the following:

  1. Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
  2. Please send an e-mail to Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

  1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

In case this isn't clear, the reason for the block is that we're concerned (and unsure) of whether you're impersonating TV personality Bill Moyers. Your username is the only reason for the block; it's fine if you create another username and keep editing. Part of the reason for the block is that we're not sure how to interpret your words; if you want to continue using this name, there are several routes

  1. Are you saying that you're the famous Bill Moyers? If so, please send an email to info-en@wikimedia as specified in the big box.
  2. Are you saying that you're not the famous Bill Moyers, but you're someone else with the same name? If so, we don't really have a procedure for that, so we can discuss what to do. Copy and paste {{helpme|please let [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] know that we need to discuss my username}} somewhere on this page. This will let others know that you need help.
  3. Are you saying that your name isn't Bill Moyers at all? If so, I'm sorry but you'll have to choose another username. You can do this either by re-registering or by requesting a username change. If you want a username change add, {{unblock-un|your new username here}} somewhere on this page. This will let us know that you're asking for a change, so you should quickly be unblocked.

Please note that you're not required to tell us what your real name is. If you'd rather not mention it, option #3 will be best. If you find the whole process confusing, you can type {{helpme|insertyourmessagehere}} to get help, or you can send me an email and I'll try to help. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC) @Nyttend: for #2, there is a procedure described at WP:REALNAME. The comment by NativeForeigner of 22:14, 27 December 2013 summarised part of it: "if your real name IS Bill Moyers, but you are not Bill Moyers please note this on your user/user talk pages". —rybec 22:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

RE Your Message[edit]

I got your message on my talk page about working on an article. I would like to learn more about what you have in mind. Magnetawan (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).