User talk:WLU/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Malazan Category

Hey WLU, I got a bit ahead of myself and created a "Malazan" category for all the articles related to those books, but now I'm starting to regret it. I'm not exactly sure that "Malazan" was the right name for the category. Are the works by Esslemont considered to be part of the "Malazan Book of the Fallen"? If so, the name of the category should probably be "Malazan Book of the Fallen" instead of just "Malazan." I'm also thinking a sub-category of "Malazan Book of the Fallen books" would be in order, like the ASOIAF category has, but since I'm no expert on the series, I think I've already overreached myself. -Captain Crawdad 05:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I can by no means claim to be an expert on the subject, and I'm not really sure I understand what you did, but as far as I understand it looks like it makes sense. Night of Knives definitely concerns the Malazan category, so that seems fine. Malazan seems like a good overall category, but I'm thinking your inclination to re-name it MBotF might be best, that's the most comprehensive category and makes the most sense. However, my NoK signed copy (my girlfriend rules) has as a sub-title 'A novel of Malaz'. I'd say leave it for a while, request input from other contributors, but if you were going to change it, I'd definitely lean towards MBotF. It's not like it's cast in stone. Unfortunately since so few contributors add to the Malazan stuff, it's hard to do something really comprehensive. Have you read the books? They really are quite good (except Bonehunters, found that one a bit disappointing). Whaddya think about the changes to Cat's Claw?

Well, if you don't know what categories are, look at the bottom of any of the Malazan articles (at least, all those I found) and you'll see a link at the very bottom reading "Malazan". If you click on that, it will bring you to the category page, which will have links for all the Malazan articles (that I found). If you make any more Malazan articles, just stick the link Category:Malazan in double-brackets at the bottom of the page to include them in the category. Hopefully all this will help people find all the Malazan articles and contribute to them. Personally I only read Gardens of the Moon and enjoyed it, but not enough to motivate me to continue through the series.

Cat's Claw is looking very nice. Well-worded and referenced. -Captain Crawdad 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Eccentric and concentric contraction

For anyone who's wondering and watching, I merged eccentric and concentric contraction into the article on muscle contraction - makes sense to have it there rather than explaining all the aspects of muscle contraction separately on three different pages. I welcome thoughts.

WLU 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

2x fibers

That's very interesting. Despite my young age, I've been studying for years in the health field and have taken a personal trainer course from the American Council on Exercise (ACE). Even ACE refers to muscle fiber types in 3 categories: Type 1, Type 2A, and Type 2B. I'm not at all saying you are incorrect! I've caught ACE citing old, outdted information on at least 2 occasions before. This may be another occasion. I'm simply looking for clarification. So humans may actually have: Type 1, Type 2A, and Type 2X fibers? Is that correct? I also know that muscle fibers are often characterized by their features (Type 1 red and small, Type 2 big and white etcetera) but from what I understand, it is not actually the characteristics that determines what fiber Type a muscle fiber is. The determinent is based on the structure of the myosin heavy chains which is genetically determined. Do you know if that is that correct? I've actually been working on making my very own health book for over 3 years and I want all my information to be accurate. So I'd really appreciate if you could clarify this for me! :-) Jamesters 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Churg-Strauss

I'm completely mystified why you have decided to lowercase the "s" in every occurrence of Churg-Strauss syndrome on the Wiki. To be sure, eponymous diseases are always spelled with a capital (such as Rendu-Osler-Weber syndrome). I'm reverting back the changes; I hope you don't mind I'll be using admin rollback to speed up this process. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't sure which one to use (both Churg-Strauss and Churg-strauss existed as separate entries), I happened to pick the wrong one when I integrated the two articles and put in a redirect. I think I kept Cs when I should have kept CS, and put the redirect on the Cs page instead. Please go ahead with the changes, naturally I'd prefer that the information on the Cs page be kept and moved to the CS page rather than simply reverting both pages - I spent a good half-hour integrating the information and making sure there wasn't an overlap. Right now both spellings/capitalizations exists, I just wanted to make sure all the redirects headed towards the proper one instead of funneling to a second redirect. WLU 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ekova

• The article was speedily deleted under convention A7 (see the criteria for speedy deletion). This was because the article failed to assert the notability of the group. Speedy deletion allows admins to delete on sight without further debate, which is why you couldn't find one. For future reference, you can look at the WikiLog to see when and where and why important actions (such as deletion) were performed. Because Ekova was speedily deleted, you can recreate the article at your leisure; the new version should assert notability via the band criteria, or it will likely be removed again. Hopefully that answers your questions, if you have more, do message me. =] ♠PMC♠ 22:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Organ Hypertrophy

Sounds okay to add a section in the main article, perhaps "examples of hypertrophys" would be an appropiate section in the Organ Hypertropy article. That way more examples can be added. Links are good to illustrate further in detail the examples. Lord Metroid 18:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dentritic Cells

Hi! I was not aware that you had already deleted a similar link already. In fact, I didn't know there was a redirect page with "Follicular dendritic cell" as a title. All I wanted to do was to create a "dry" link pointing to a non-existing page, as a hint for someone to create a page with that title. Sorry if I stepped on your foot! -- Hugo Dufort 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lupus

I'd be glad to. Thanks for the invite. --Waterspyder 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good. My main issue is that many former contributors treat Lupus like it is a single-faceted illness. Case and point: My particular manifestation is mild, I take plaquenil with no side effects, and twice I've had to take a short course of steroids due to a bizarre systemic reaction to living resulting in a rash and temporary blindness. My close friend of the same age has lupus, takes bloodthinners and steroids, and has undergone dialysis, chemotherapy and heart surgery to correct or alleviate effects of the lupus on his body. Do these even sound like the same disease? If you're up for some more writing I would love to see some elements from http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec04/ch032/ch032g.html# integrated into the article, especially the bits on classifying the disease and "mild or remittant" or "severe". Maybe I'll take another peek at it when I have time this weekend. --Waterspyder 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I was pretty tapped out myself at one point and I left something in the discussion about drug-induced lupus, and it's really neat to see how far the article has come. --Waterspyder 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bone

Good work on the article, WLU! I'm going to delve into it a bit further. Sorry, in advance, if I step on any toes by re-doing edits of yours. I'm approachable if you see any problems. Figma 17:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think where we're getting hung up is on the distinction between bone-the-connective-tissue and bones-the-organs in the intro paragraph. In other words, "bone" is not an organ, but "bones" are. Am I making sense here? Maybe we need to highlight this distinction.

Also, thanks for your feedback re: the numbered lists. I think I'll switch them to bulleted. Figma 21:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree, the article should be about bones, the organs. We can move all of the stuff about bone (as opposed to "a bone" or "bones") to osseous tissue and create a better disambiguation header to reflect that. Maybe move this discussion to Talk: Bone? Figma 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I feel silly.... should have looked at Talk: Bone earlier! They were having this same discussion at the end of September! Check it out. Figma 15:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk

I mostly edit for clarity, grammar and good referencing, I'm a new wikipedian, so I'm still learning.

WLU 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

SBI/SLE/SUV?

Sounds like a bad television show. Seriously, I have had enough - I tried months ago and should have quit while I was ahead.

What I have ascertained from the studies I've read (and yes there are some that show an increase in connective tissue disease), is that none of the studies consider the long term effects of silicone gel in the body. It has been documented in peer-reviewed studies that silicone does migrate when implants are ruptured. There are no studies documenting the rate of rupture after 10 years, in newer implants (what Oliver calls 3rd and 4th generation), and none on older implants. There are none on the older implants because those implants are not sold anymore, and the manufacturers fund the studies, and funded them for the purpose of obtaining FDA approval on the newer implants. I will note one thing I caught in the article on implants. A statement was made that the rupture rate was 5-8% at 10 years. The authors (of the cited study cited) actually concluded "the rate of rupture increases significantly with age" and "a minimum of 15% rupture can be expected between 3 and 10 years." Another study showed a lower rupture rate (8%) but that excluded implants that had been removed for any reason (including rupture) and that study admitted that its results therefore likely underestimated the rate of rupture. None of the studies showing higher rupture rates were included because they were deemed flawed by the Wiki editor writing this.

As to SLE -- I would never take cats claw or the like for SLE, because I have seen no studies that suggest it is effective, and the risks of not mediating my illness are too great to chance it. Unfortunately, there are scant peer-reviewed studies on any of these alternative drugs that I know of. The problem with pharmaceutical research is that manufacturers have no financial interest in funding studies on remedies or potential remedies they cannot patent. To complicate matters, increasingly the "peers" who review the studies also have a financial interest in the results. This is true of all medical research, and it is an admitted problem. For decades, for example, the only available "research" on cigarettes was published by the Tobacco Research Institute, funded and controlled by cigarette companies. For a fascinating history of this issue, see Cornered: Big Tobacco at the Bar of Justice. It took 50 years or more to finally expose tobacco "research" as bogus, and it was finally exposed by those dreaded tort lawyers. I will not deny that dedicated doctors did not have a part in exposing this, as well. Not many doctors had a financial interest in tobacco - unlike say, many pharmaceuticals, medical implants and even clinics (which was another exposed conflict-of-interest).

In the US, anyway, the threat of liability is one deterrent to publishing bogus (or incomplete) studies. Just yesterday, a cholesteral drug was pulled by the manufacturer before it came out of clinical trials and was approved by the FDA. That mfg only had to look at Merck and the recent lawsuits on Vioxx (which was FDA approved) for its motivation to pull the drug. However, there is some precedent now in the US that once drugs are approved by the FDA, an injured consumer is barred from suing. The theory is that the manufacturer relied to its possible detriment on the FDA approval. That also becomes a problem when the FDA does not demand adequate assurance, as it arguably has not done in a number of cases. (The FDA has, in fact, come under highly publicized attack for this.) Unfortunately, research is expensive. The only alternative is government/taxpayer funded research, and that is not likely to happen. Therefore, we are stuck with what is available. But some research is better than no research. That does not negate the problem.

Going back to implants... for years and years there was no published research. Implants were not regulated by any agency, and when the FDA finally began "regulating" medical devices, it grandfathered in these implants. Additionally, plastic surgeons continued to change the design, for various reasons ..to make them more 'natural' in appearance (thus making the shell thinner and rupture more likely), to reduce capsular contracture (using polyurethane or double lumen) etc. For that reason, even when implant manufacturers were required to "study" them, there was no consistent follow-up.

Women now have had implants for 20, 30, 40 years and the likelihood that they are ruptured is very high. These women often do not have the resources to have reoperations, insurance usually does not cover it, and there are plastic surgeons who refuse to remove implants unless the woman agrees to reimplant (yes, it is true). These women who do become ill are told that their illness cannot possibly be caused by implants - that was true even in the adjunct studies, when surgeons were required by the FDA to report such complaints. These women are considered "anecdotes" or are dismissed as crazy, "conspiracy theorists" and the like. Now that the US FDA has approved implants for women 22 years old and older, and plastic surgeons claim that they are the most "studied device in the world" the manufacturers are faced with virutally zero threat of liability.

As you probably know, lupus is only a shorthand for any one of several types of lupus such as SLE, discoid lupus, etc. Contrary to what one "doctor" implied on the Clin-Med website, this was not a vague "oh i feel bad it must be an immune problem" by the "uneducated", for whom he admitted such antipathy. I have been diagnosed with SLE (systemic) on the basis of many clinical symptoms, and consistently abnormal lab tests which included ANA as well as specific antibodies for lupus, urine tests (testing for possible kidney involvement) etc. I also was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis based on clinical symptoms such as ataxia, numbness, vertigo and also objective tests (all of which were abnormal) such as MRI of the brain, MRI of the cervical spine and a spinal tap.

So you can see that I was one of those anecdotes. I was not called "crazy" or a "conspiracy theorist" when I became sick. My internist had known me for 10 years, and I never bothered to tell her I had 20 year old implants. I never registered for the class action, or thought about the implants because I was swayed by the reports that the women who sued were probably greedy, hysterical or worse. Besides, I was in graduate school then and my internist had a hard enough time getting me to go see her, let alone a specialist. That changed when I became so sick I could no longer function. Within 6 months, I was diagnosed with mulitple autoimmune diseases - including multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, autoimmune thyroid disease.

It was a friend (an MD) who suggested finally I have a breast MRI (which showed rupture). By the time I had my implants removed, I carried an epipen because I had woke up with hives and went into anaphylactic shock. Putting the pieces together after-the-fact, I realize that the implants propably ruptured with a mammogram five years before. The FDA states that mammograms can cause rupture, and I had only had one mammogram. Additionally, my first symptoms (itchy rashes which no dermatologist could figure out) began almost immediately thereafter. I learned to live with those rashes, after spraying Raid everywhere to kill what I thought may be small insects stinging me, and trying every cream and prescription known to man (that probably is an exaggeration, but I tried many). Those rashes that I had for 5 years went away after I had my implants (and the scar tissue around them) removed. Completely. Could it be psychogenic? Sure. Anything can be labeled as pschogenic if you take it to the extreme - and this would be taking it to an extreme, especially since i never befor had considered the implants might be a problem.

Since surgery, my blood tests returned to normal, and have remained normal. I discontinued interferon for MS, because for me the risks outweighed the benefit. However, my rheumatologist insists that I will need to take immune-mediating drugs for the rest of my life. I do wonder if some women may be more susceptible to an environmental trigger like migrating silicone. And if that is the case, would the lupus be reversible as is drug-induced lupus? I do not know. The problem is that we will never know, because nobody cares enough to research it, and there is no money in it.

---

BACK to the SLE article---- I don't care if the SLE stays as it is. The statement is true, as far as it goes. I care more about the breast implant article, but have given up on it, since one plastic surgeon has argued for omitting relevant information. A few of the examples include the following:

1. Omission of the FDA recommendation that women with silicone implants have MRIs 3 years after imlantation, and every 2 years thereafter to screen for rupture (which is asymptomatic). He argues that it is not a worldwide standard. It is true that MRIs are expensive (~ $1500 a pop), and probably will not be covered by insurance. MRIs are the most accurate tool (86%) we have to detect rupture. Additionally, mammograms can and do cause rupture. However, most plastic surgeons still tell women to continue having mammograms, regardless of the age of their implants. Of course, the older the implants, the more likely they will rupture. This is the case, despite the fact that there are no long term studies of the effects of rupture, for any style of implant. And it is obvious from this surgeons comments, that most surgeons will not tell women to get MRIs as the FDA recommends.

2. Inclusion of one specific study to quote a low rupture rate at 10 years -- this despite the fact that the authors of that study admitted the rate is likely an underestimate, because women who removed their implants (for whatever reason) were excluded from the study. And the author's statement is deemed too much 'detil' to include. Every other peer-reviewed study suggests a much higher rupture rate. The next study with the lowest rupture rate states "a minimum of 15% at 10 years." But in the article, it is now stated as 8-15% at 10 years. Thankfully, the surgeon did change it to 8-15% after I pointed out that the 5-8% he originally wrote was simply a misquote of the study he cited.

3. The omission of the FDA condition that women be 22 years old or older to have augmentation with silicone implants (reconstruction is approved). That isn't necessary in the article because surgeons can choose to ignore it, as an "off label" use.

So, this is what is happening. Since a medical doctor is considered more credible than an epidemiologist (who has argued for changes), an internist, another plastic surgeon, or a mere woman who had implants, the BI article will remain as it is, and is even locked this way. Anyone who has disagrees is called "political", a "single purpose editor" (with the implication of deceit) , "uneducated" or worse. Not one doctor who "reviewed" the BI article caught the actual misquotes. And the slanting of the article by omissions or selective choices is accepted since it is not obvious without further investigation, and generally supports established wisdom.

When I was younger, I trusted doctors because they were doctors. As I grew older, I learned how foolish that was, and so I "trusted but verified". After what I have seen in the last couple of years and most recently on Wikipedia, I no longer trust at all. I have seen the very worst of combinations -- arrogance and a closed mind. It is chilling.Jance 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same. One more thing about all this. In fact, there are many doctors who are concerned about the long-term effects of rupture, especially the rheumatologists. Why? They have seen many women who have had ruptures, have also seen their health improve after removal, and know there are no long-term studies on rupture or its effects. However, they would be ridiculed if they stated so publicly. Why? Because of the lawsuits in the 90s, and because there is a grain of truth about both the lawsuits and the complaint that some (many) women complain that their general aches and pains are immune problems without a shred of evidence to document it (to quote JFW). There are women who assume any health problem they have is implant-related. And in fact, one category of the "disease settlement" that awards the lowest amount supports this - realistically, any woman over 50 who complains about aches and pains could qualify. It is astonishing, but that was the settlement that the manufacturers and lawyers agreed to. There are hundreds of thousands of women in the settlement, and so there are also many who don't have immune dysfunction. And many who claim that their osteoarthritis, skin cancer, headaches, general muscle aches, irritable bowel etc etc are implant-related. It's really hurt. Jance 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will get you some links, after my dentist's app't. I suspect you should not include them, or you will incur the wrath of Oliver. There is not a breast implant he doesn't like. There is a long history there. The FDA recently approved silicone implants, which was unfortunate, given the lack of long-term studies. There is a huge body of short-term studies, on which they relied. Oliver admitted there are no studies on earlier styles/types of implants (he said it is difficult to make sense of them; truth is they don't exist)

I assume you are in grad school in math or some such related field. The unfotunate thing about the anti-medicine is the anti-statistical support of any of it. There are problems with medical research, as you know, but what is the alternative? We don't know much about what is helpful or harmful about the alternative remedies, most of which are based on 'anecdotal' reports (from thousands of years..lol). Anyway, I have to go - late. I"ll dig something up for you later. By the way, I like math, too - that was my undergrad (math & elec engineering). Jance 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks WLU. I will do so - I just got back from the dentist and have a swollen and sore mouth. So if I don't get to it today, I will get you something soon. Someone you might find interesting is Dr. diana zuckerman. You seem to have similar interests as she. She has been trying to help with the BI article, but it has been a struggle. She is also a delightful person.Jance 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) My undergrad is, as I said, math & EE. I had some grad work in EE, but then got a law degree. That was before I became so very sick. Now that my health has improved, I am working part time as an attorney.Jance 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This danged thing is case-sensitive. Try Diana Zuckerman. She is both an 'external' person and a Wiki editor. She has edited the BI article, but is new to using Wikipedia (as am I, for that matter). You can see her background in the article.

Diana

I don't have any problems with what you edited. Diana did not first write the article on herself - in fact, she didn't want an article. The editor who did start it quoted almost verbatim what the plastic surgeon I so dislike here has said. It was insulting. Diana changed it, understandably. I surely welcome any improvements, and I can't imagine Diana would not as well. She is even newer than I am to Wikipedia, so be a little gentle. And thank you for the input. I will also get you some links tomorrow. I have a hearing to prepare for, but I will make some time. Jance 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Zatch Bell!

• For some reason, you reverted to a version of the page with mistakes, inappropriate fansites and deleted categories. Your revert has been reverted. Regards, Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

well welcomed

As for the EL deletions, oh drat. (RSI and Tendonitis) In time, I hope to understand how the other ELs on the pages stayed and my lovely, informative links dissolved, but till then, drat. (slow but steady learner here)

As for the welcome, oh joy! (sincere tone on that!) I feel thoroughly welcomed and instructed and amused (I *did* just read your User page, WLU :D ), and I wish I had a bunch of time. I turn to Wikipedia for so many things, and I've suffered on the brink of repetitive strain injury, and I have had to learn a few things that I ... must find the time to write up a bit on these pages. (Time, there's the rub.)

This is my thank you note. I am delighted to ... almost ... be contributing to Wikipedia.

--a.r.dobbs 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Muscle

Thanks for the sarcomere image for the Muscle contraction article. Any images and improvements are greatly appreciated! The article is really improving.GetAgrippa 18:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that is a great idea to compare shortening velocities of various muscle preps. If you have a table or some info that would be great.GetAgrippa 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

		The Original Barnstar
		for your tireless and excellent contribution to Resistance training, Weight training, and Strength training. Feel free to add this to your user page. --Maniwar (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! I always wondered how people got these! WLU 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Autism and Boys

I wanted to say "Thanks" for being so kind, about my first entry into the world of Wikipedia - and imformative. I hope you'll keep on keeping on, Lizziemac

Merger of Strength Training, Weight Training, Resistance Training

Thanks for clarifying to everyone that the work is done so that they stop voting! :) I went ahead and took it another step and archived all merger discussion from all three pages, so people will really have to go out of their way to screw it up. --Robb0995 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bone/Protuberance link

What's so wrong with the protuberance link on the 'Bone' article..? Electron9 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category

Just a note to let you know, your talk page, or one of your talk pages (I'm confused on the whole matter) shows up on Category:Bibliographies by author as a result of a straw poll of some sort. Thought you'd be interested. WLU 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Took me a minute to understand why! I rewrote the Robert A. Heinlein bibliography page as a draft proposal in User talk:Jim Douglas/Robert A. Heinlein bibliography, and added a note about it on Talk:Robert A. Heinlein. For various reasons, I haven't gotten around to moving it over yet. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Could I remove the category links from the page then? That'd clear up my most immediate concern on the category page itself WLU 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if it's a concern, go ahead. I'll sort it out when I get around to replacing the existing article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An embarrassing oversight

I can't believe that I forgot to add you to my list. Rest assured that I'm going to fix that. It seemed that you had dropped off the radar but maybe we've just been moving in different wiki circles. No barnstar needed of course, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. NeoFreak 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me!

I'd like to place the Ray of Sunshine award on someone's user page, from the PUA Barnstar page. 4th row, 3rd column. Help me! WLU

• There is no official template for the award but you can place it on someone's user page by implementing the following coding ;) :

[[Image:Rayofsunshine.jpg|thumb|100px|Insert whatever text you want here]]

Hope this helps!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Almonds

From dsduani: WLU, I am new at this and wonder if this is the right place to respond to your edits. Let me know if this is not the case. In your recent edit on almonds you stated that almond is often substituted for vanilla by diabetics. Both almond and vanilla extract have about the same amount of sugar and calories so I'm not sure if this is useful information. Diabetics may substitute one for the other but I don't think it has any effect on their diabetes or diabetic diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsduani (talk • contribs)

I'm replying on your talk page. WLU 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My smile for the week

I just wanted say "thank you" for the barnshine. I keep meaning to say so but everytime I log in I see something that irks me and then off I go. I'm kind of a flake like that. I noticed your ArbCom deal, good luck with that. I hope a happy solution could be found for all parties involved, even if you and I are often on the same page when it comes to all of that. Cheers. NeoFreak 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Emboldening

(moved from user page WLU) Just thought I'd give you a chill by answering over here. Regarding the use of bold/italics, I can't quote you the official rule, but in the "real world", titles for long works are either italicized or underlined, and as far as I've seen on wikipedia the same holds true here. Bold is only used for the subject of the article in the first sentence and generally for emphasis. -Captain Crawdad 18:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about the user page thing. Total brainfart. -Captain Crawdad 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Images need removed

Please remove these images from your user page as they are in violation with WP:FAIR#Policy, number 9, since no fair use images can be used on user pages. Thanks.

• Image:Red Mage.gif
• Image:FF1 USA boxart.jpg
• Image:Final Fantasy I Battle.png
• Image:Stan.png
• Image:Eric.png

Thunderbrand 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Squeaky here

Hi, thanks for the note you left me regarding my article on Bridget Taylor. A few points if I may. I'm new to this so I'm not really good at. I don't think you hate me and I see how much obviously better the article is with your edits. So I'm actually grateful. You are really good at this, I'm not but I'd like to learn. So seeing the changes that you made to my original, I can't help but agree they improved the article, every one of them. So no complaints here.You have my thanks. Just to clear up a couple of kind of misconceptions. I really had no agenda. I don't know Bridget Taylor, I wasn't promoting her in the sense of I think she needs to be promoted. If I was promoting her it's more because I have become a huge user of wikipedia myself. It's become the first place I go to research any subject, person, place or thing. Given that, I totally respect the fact you are such a great editor. As a user of the information provided here, I also hope that the subject matter is comprehensive, fact filled, current, and factual. So again, I am not offended by the need for editing; rather I welcome it. Getting back to my agenda. I became aware of Bridget Taylor through a child with autism and did some research on her background. I found that she is widely considered to be the leading expert practicing the use of ABA therapy and that she is truly a tireless advocate for autistic children and adults. My sole agenda honestly was not to promote her but to have her listed in wikipedia. When the parents of child get the dreaded diagnosis of autism, they tend to search for everything and anything in their power to help their child. I've learned in my research that Taylor 's work and practice are of the utmost importance, especially to the parents of very young children first diagnosed. The Alpine Learning Group is arguably (but not many would argue the point) the best placement for an autistic child in the country. So given what I had learned from my research I just thought it was very important to growing segment of the population that Taylor just be listed in wikipedia. Honestly, I'm without agenda. In fact, I'm not a "fan" of ABA therapy. It is, however, the only scientific method proven to help autisic children learn. Which is a valuable thing. A parent can use dietary supplements, adjunct therapies, etc. which I totally support. In the meantime while waiting to see the results, there is a small window of opportunity when a child's brain is still pliable and they are at their peak learning age. That window goes from maybe 3-6 years old. So, to me, it seems very important to use what we have available (ABA therapy) so that child, all autistic children make the strides they are able to make in learning, enabled by ABA therapy. So there you have it. My agenda: to add to the information available to those interested in a person who has made large contributions to the education of children with autism. Oh yeah, I wasn't sockpuppeting I just forgot to sign in. I'll get better at this I promise. Wikipedia is a very important resource to me and if I can help in some small ways to contribute to it, I must. I see how angry people get when they get edited but seriously I stand with you on every edit you made to the Bridget Taylor article. You know Ernest Hemingway said "the first draft of anything is shit." I think he understood about writing. And of course, it's true. So my article was a first draft really and you are a great editor. I'm in your debt. Squeaky2 07:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Races of the Malazan...

Hi,

Noticed your edit of Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, I've just got a question about Midnight Tides - when did the K'Chain Che'Malle show up? I don't recall a specific discussion of them, the only vaguely K'CC'M thing I can remember is the skeleton of Scabandari Bloodeye (sp). What part of the book was it in?

Thanks,

WLU 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, at the time of the edit it seemed to make sense, but when I think about it now, maybe not? I was thinking of the K'Chain fossils which Trull and some of the other Sengars stumble upon, and my brain was thinking "maybe fossils count if undead count". Now it's kinda going "ok, maybe not". Sorry :( . Sometimes I change stuff, and later (now) I realize it's stupid.

But I think I also brushed up the writing slightly in that section, so my edit(s) weren't entirely without purpose, even if the fossil stuff doesn't make sense.

Another thing. Did they appear in House of Chains? I know that L'oric saw one, or more, of their skykeeps in the weird spooky deragoth-infested past of the seven cities, but I can't remember if he saw any get killed or anything.--Mr Bucket 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Wow, my first barnshine! Thankee kindly. -Captain Crawdad 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Wow, my

Thank you!

Thank you for the great information you gave to me! --Justintime516 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have thought your "advice" through!

Re: Night hag

Why did you recently change this redirect? The change made the tag at the top of Night terror incorrect, and I was trying to decide whether to move the tag to Night hag (Dungeons & Dragons) or revert the redirect. --N Shar 03:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Your changes to Jessica Lee Rose have been reverted. As was already specifically mentioned on that page, only freely-licensed images may be used to depict living people. Please reread WP:FU. Thanks! --Yamla 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD notice

I noticed that you edited the Wizard's First Rule page a while back; as such, you may wish to know that the page has been nominated for deletion MPoint

Note to Jance

If User:Jance still wishes to provide me with references for the Lupus article, please do so. Thanks, WLU 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am barred from editing the Lupus article WLU

Herpes simplex virus external links

I will grant you that some of these sites are OK as links. But the behavior of the editor [1] is what led me to treat these contributions as spam. If you look at the speed of the edits, this is not a person reading our article, asking themselves "Will these links add to the information already there?", "Is there any content I can add to the article that will make adding this link unneccessary?". No, they're just spamming, the same conclusion that Kafziel came to looking at this editor's similar contributions on December 12.

Since you re-added them, let me ask you "What information is contained in these links that doesn't belong in the article itself? See WP:EL: "If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first" and "Links should be kept to a minimum."

Incidentally, I enjoyed your Five stages of Wikipedia. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the landed gentry bit is fine; I must admit that I didn't check out the enema link. And probably more people read your user page than you think-- I actually had a guy request a photo that I had removed from my page months before-- he'd seen it and came back looking for it.

Anyway, feel free to do as you like with these links-- as I said, I can see that they're potentially decent links, though I feel pretty sure that you'll find some whose contents are already well covered in the articles or in pre-existing external links. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop#Motion/request by Mystar. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar

This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. WLU (talk · contribs) and Mystar (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with each other or commenting on each other, directly or indirectly, on any Wikipedia page, and may be blocked for up to one week for each violation. For the purpose of this remedy, any edit by either WLU or Mystar to one of the articles over which they had previously been in conflict (including, but not limited to, Terry Goodkind and Lupus Erythematosus) shall be considered an interaction with the other party. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

i'mn sorry for what is aid on Talk:Terry Goodkin d but every time i make a mistake 1 person corrects meand then everoyne else starts screaming at me like a bunch of maniacs its very frustratig. Smith Jones 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, If you didn't notice..your automatic edit summaries are failing.. All the summaries are the same: Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Read this. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Races of the Malazan

I'm not on wikipedia much (was only here to add some talk on the spime article), and I've got some stuff to do so I won't give a detailed response right now. However, I will say I probably won't be a solid contributer to any malazan stuff because I'm not a solid wiki contributor, but I will make special effort to correct or discuss possible mistakes and add new content if/when I'm skimming the stuff on here.

The only particular thing I'll respond to right now is that Mr Bucket is a children's game from the 90s. It's this weird bucket which I think moves around the room powered by batteries, and the players have to throw balls into it. It's often made fun of because of a vague hint at freaky pedophilia stuff. The bucket sings about "put your balls in and I'll pop them out of your mouth" so people often joke that the bucket wants you to "put your balls in his mouth". I started using this nick before I thought about stuff like that, and I find it kinda funny so I still use it at times.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to post your comments above mine, but for now I'll neglect to do that and leave things as they are.--Mr Bucket 03:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations on your barnstar.--Mr Bucket 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The references to the TE not being immortal were from MT, from Udinaas' PoV as he reflects on edur culture and aging edur - I'll find the page number soon. I admit that the lack of immortality being due to the sundering of KE was mostly speculation on my part... as for the general heading on the tiste, I didnt want to change the format of the page too much, but I agree with making the specific tiste races sub-levels of the tiste heading, except that they are, in essence, distinct races without a common origin, though they do have a common... something? how should we address the common aspects of the tiste without making it appear they are just offshoots of the same race? Let me know if you have any suggestions. Italics99 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, i compiled the races, and i'll double check about the mortality of the edur. I like the layout of the tiste now, and I see what you mean about use of the term 'ascendent' and such... the tiste paragraph probably needs some whittling if it stays. thanks for the feedback. Italics99 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your House actions

Hi, thanks for you comments and actions on the unprotection of House, which seems to have happened; as a Wiki newby, I haven't yet come to grips with all the conventions and procedures. cojoco 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Bodybuilding

Your edit to the Bodybuilding article really wasn't constructive. Firstly the reason I made some parts 'bold' opposed to 'subheadings' was due to the fact there simply wasn't enough info to warrant them being in their own sub heading. Moreover, The links you removed were already discussed and OK'd on the talk page. [[2]]. www.getbig.com, www.naturalbodybuilding.com, and www.bodybuilding.about.com were all OK'd as external links. You didn't even explain why you removed them. Please participate in the talk page before making edits like these. ThanksWikidudeman ^(talk) 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about the Tendonitis article removed

Hi I appreciate the clarification of the Wiki policy for external linking. You mention that "external links are for things that can't be put into the body text, like videos, sound clips, links to major organizations, company websites and such the like." Tendonitis.net is a site that offers information that is very valuable for Tendonitis sufferers by giving a perspective on the treatment of Tendonitis from a seasoned doctor who has treated this condition successfully. Regardless of the advertisements on the site, I strongly believe that users of Wikipedia will benefit from this site. Ultimately, I would like to ask the readers of Wiki to make the decision as to whether this site or any other sites I add in the future are useful by adding back the link if it is removed again. Chirostudent(Chirostudent 06:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for keeping the discussion civil, it's a rarer practice than it should be!

Advertisements on the site are one reason why I think it should be removed.

The other big reason why it should be removed is its complete lack of references. There are none in the article itself. If you are a chiropractic student, you've got an undergraduate degree I assume. What would happen if you handed in a lab report, essay, paper or thesis with no references? I'm pretty sure you'd get marked down, if not failed. Wikipedia works the same way. If it doesn't meet WP:RS, it shouldn't be on the page. What the page really needs is wherever this guy got his information from, but he doesn't provide any references. So basically, that means I could put up any page that talks about it, and if it doesn't cite references either, and if it contradicts the information on the tendonitis.net page, we have no idea which one to trust. Right now it is at the level of one guy's opinion, it's anecdotal evidence. He may be incredibly informed, he may cure every single one of his patients who have tendonitis, but it is only his word that this is occurring. I could provide (or create for that matter) links that say he is wrong, his information is wrong, and that you should eat mustard and sassafras to cure tendonitis. If neither one of us has references, it's an even playing field.

Further, if the information on tendonitis.net accurately represents what is known about AT, then there should be other pages that have the same information, with references (like this one). Note that this page is not trying to sell anything, and is not sponsored. If Big Pharma put a link on the page advertising for Advil and their own brand ice packs, I'd remove that from the page as well.

Another point is that if the information is useful, it should be integrated as a reference, not as an external link. If that page were referenced, I'd be all for including it in the page, but I'd still push for turning it into a reference, or do it myself if I had the time (I don't, it's a big job). If you do take that road, use this page and section to help with formatting the reference.

As a final point, you say " I would like to ask the readers of Wiki to make the decision as to whether this site or any other sites I add in the future are useful by adding back the link if it is removed again." I am a reader of wikipedia, as are you. As a reader, I look at the link, I think, what the hell is a shitty spam link doing on an encyclopedia? And I leave trusting wikipedia a bit less (my internal reader is much harsher than my internal editor). As an editor, I look at the link and think, no references and it's trying to sell something. Looks like spam. If they are genuine, they should read Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer and if not, they get a spam warning. Yours looks genuine, but if you really want to add to the page, add referenced content, not links.

I'm not going to remove the link yet, that would make me a dick, but let's discuss it a bit further and see if we can agree on what to do next. My thought is to remove the external link and try to find information that backs it up but is referenced. Then use the referenced information to expand the page. WLU 12:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear WLU I can understand you being cautious from your dealings, but the truth is that there are almost no sites out there that do not intake some form of monetary compensation to keep them going. Some may cleverly disguise them as donations, others may just use Google Adwords. For example, Quackwatch.com receives numerous external links from Wikipedia and they state that they accept donations for their research. They are not even a registered non-profit, so how do we know where the money goes? I think what is really important is the quality of the content. Yes, I do agree in showing studies and citing references, but there is also room for an expert opinion from a licensed healthcare practioner. As you know, studies conflict each other constantly, so it is up to a good health practioner to teach important points that may have never been addressed in studies to date, but have shown effectiveness in a clinical setting. I chose Tendonitis.net as a resource because I was impressed at the attention to stretching that it gave, which is ultimately what has helped my tendonitis. Yet, I cannot find any valuable studies on this very important aspect of tendon care that even mention the fact that you should not actually stretch the damaged tendon, but rather the muscle belly of the affect group. This is great information! In fact, Tendonitis.net has a stretch for the Achilles that the author created and is very easy to follow. That is why I have to take exception to your use of the word spam regarding this site. I am not saying that it should be a cited reference since it has not been published in a Journal that I know of, but it certainly can be a valuable external link. That is why I will continue to fight for this link and will continue to ask other Wiki members to judge the quality of content and usefulness regardless of any advertising and/or donations the site in question accumulates.

Thanks!

Chirostudent 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

House

I haven't assumed ownership of an article. I have linked to the official site for the show, which clearly shows the name. Thanks for your 2 cents. You can have them back. Billywhack 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you are the one treating it like your own page. I linked to the official site to show the name. Since nobody else could link to anything official, you removed it. Meanwhile you knew the link was there as proof in the argument. If you can't be unbiased, you should leave the discussion alone. Especially since you have no official sources to back up your fantasies. have a nice day. Billywhack 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articlessuch as House (TV series). Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Billywhack 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fantastic.

Your evidence and discussion, combined with the evidence and discussion provided by others proves that the show is known by at least 2 names, as is reflected in the article currently. "House, also known as House M.D.", indicates that right now House is called House M.D. in some venues. There is ample evidence for both, and by avoiding the word 'originally', we are avoiding the argument of which name is canon, and which name came first. Since we don't have definitive links for either one coming first, but there are lots of links showing that both names currently are used, also known as is the best wording. Now, if I don't revert to 'also known as', but other people do, will you leave it? WLU 21:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: House M.D ~ You are right about the title being a bad place to put the link to MD but there should be a link to tell readers what MD means, I had to look it up since it's an American thing and I'm not. Also, my two cents, it should be "House M.D. also known as House" The DVD I've been watching this week has the title on ever disk and on the box as House M.D. people are just lazy when it comes to the name of TV shows. An example of this can be seen in Star Trek: TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. I was going to say something about this in the discussion page for House but it's really busy in there and kind of full.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraph 31 (talk • contribs)

Romanesque architecture

Hi WLU,

Thanks much for working with me on the changes to the Romanesque architecture article. I wrote the Transition section and included the image, originally. I lived in Maastricht for 3 years (a long time ago) and knew of this unusual example. Your willingness to compromise to achieve a correlation between text and image is much appreciated. Your addition to the caption does tie them more closely together.

Take care,

Larry

--Lmcelhiney 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Turning Attention in a disambig page

Moving the Attention page was probably a pretty big change to make without at least discussing it on the article's talk page. I understand that this was intended to help, and that this was made in good faith, but at the same time, you are not the only person editing that page, and other editors should have at least been solicited for their feedback. Please revert the wholesale changes that you made today, and solicit comments about this on the article's talk page. I will say that my vote would not be to have a disambiguation page for every useage, as some are clearly much more primary than others. Even if the other editors agree that there should be a change, the best way to do the change would be to do a page migration first, which keeps the article's history intact, along with its associated talk page, rather than essentially deleting the entire history of the article in the way that you have done it here. See Help:Moving_a_page Never mind. I've reverted your changes, created a more appropriate disambig page and undone your disambiguations all over the place. Edhubbard 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second the above. Attention generally refers to the psychological idea of attention. Secondary meanings can go on Attention (disambiguation). -- Selket ^Talk 22:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia encourages both "being bold" and seeking consensus... Better to be bold and make a mistake. As I said above, I knew that you were acting in good faith here. Edhubbard 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Attention

As I apologized to Edhubbard, so I apologize to you, I shall use talk pages before moving a major page. Thanks for the patience and civility. WLU 14:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No apology needed. Please continue to be bold. -- Selket ^Talk 15:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Thanks for clueing me in to that indentation style. I had no idea. — Epastore 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversed move/redirect

I think that someone wasn't too happy with your move/redirect! ;) Check out Romanesque (album) and ROMANESQUE. Might want to look at this again... I've had the exact same problem with Japanese article titles :( SkierRMH 04:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

move of Stress (medicine) to Stress (biological)

i was just about to do it, and then realised that theres over 500 pages linking to stress (medicine) - Special:Whatlinkshere/Stress_(medicine). any ideas? Thedreamdied 23:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For my user talk vandalism reverts. Much appreciated. GDonato (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're watching, most welcome. Pas de quoi. WLU 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fly (exercise)

See my talk page for response. --Maniwar (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop messing with my post

Stop! BritishHero 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Your quick attention to the latest T. S. Wiley edits is greatly appreciated! Thank you. --Debv 00:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also for your polite guidance. --Debv 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about why you added the reports of adverse effects from the Wiley Protocol to Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy but deleted the same material from T. S. Wiley. As I argue on Talk:T. S. Wiley, the material presented is not challenged by any party in this controversy, and therefore is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Please discuss. --Debv 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No Thanks

I've challenged it. These reports have never been documented, are anonymous and emanate from a website that censors any comments that contradict the editors' point of view. They are not credible. Please remove these comments from Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy too. 72.205.193.253 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussions should take place on the relevant talk pages, this is for communication with me specifically and this issue relates to a specific page. I am not the sole arbiter of what is or is not placed on pages. WLU 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section

Hi WLU, I just noticed that you removed most of my recently written “Criticisms” section on the Dietary supplement page. If you don’t mind me asking, why? Although I can see how one, or even both quotes could be superfluous, your revision also removed one of the sources, and also any mention of the study done by Edgar Miller III (which appeared to show that supplements have a detrimental effect to the immune system.) All in all I feel that the new version really downplays these possible health concerns. I have reverted your change, however please feel free to point out how I am mistaken with regards to this section. (I will also post this topic of discussion on the talk page.) Thanks! S.dedalus 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Weight training

Actually it's not a copyvio either way — I've listed the site at WP:FORK for medium GFDL compliance. I didn't check very carefully earlier since the tone isn't very appropriate for an encyclopedia (i.e., "Can weight training help me slim?") — it looked like it had been lifted from some exercise web site. — Feezo (Talk) 23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Favour

Done. NeoFreak 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ringworld edits?

Over on the Ringworld discussion page you mention "I took out a very long discussion about the physics of Ringworld, it didn't really pertain to the article itself. If anyone wants to read or manipulate it, you'll have to go through the history." I'm looking over the edit list, and I can't find this long discussion (which is actually why I looked up the article). The edits seem to remove a couple dozen words, tops. Am I missing some other edits? Maury 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

schedules of reinforcement

Hi, Thanks for pointing out the recent merge of reinforcement and schedules of reinforcement. I have been closely following the merge suggestions and particularly appreciated when these two were merged. However, with your suggestion to merge two other articles, the schedules of reinforcement becomes quite lengthy. It is probably possible to revert the merge. Kpmiyapuram 11:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fly/flye

The article, at least as it stands right now, looks great. Thanks for getting rid of the redlink in my stuff on pec major. Kajerm 04:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1421

Right. Here is why I was dismayed at your editing of my addition to the 1421 page. (I don't really see the benefit of separating the book form the hypothesis, but that is a secondary concern.)

I added some corroborating third-party evidence to SUPPORT the theory (which DNA evidence I have subsequently sourced in peer-reviewed science magazines), which you deleted. So you:

1. didn't read it,
2. read it and didn't understand it, or
3. read it and didn't like it because it didn't agree with your own views.

Any of which is evidence of poor editing.

Witness that I have not passed a judgment on the actual hypothesis ANYWHERE. I was merely adding to the sum total of evidence, so that the knowledge of the subject could be improved. Everyone adding their edits might actually draw us to the discovery of whether this Menzies chap is just a very amateur historian (with a poor grasp of scientific method), or a complete quack.

Any resolution will need to account for the evidence for and against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metadigital (talk • contribs)

cont ...

I added some corroborating third-party evidence to SUPPORT the theory (which DNA evidence I have subsequently sourced in peer-reviewed science magazines), which you deleted. So you:

1. didn't read it,
2. read it and didn't understand it, or
3. read it and didn't like it because it didn't agree with your own views.

Or, and notice how I was courteous enough to warn you, and I'm not being a dick about it and am providing you with the rationale, I removed it because it was not appropriate to the page, then replied to your inquiries with my reasoning. Which state that it was not appropriate for the page, but could be placed on the hypothesis page. Unless you are talking about the links you put in the 'see also' section, which, as I stated before, should contain internal links only. I never said the information would not, should not, could not, will not be on the page, I just said, as policy says, it should not be in that particular section. Put it in the references. Oh, and thanks for insinuating I'm stupid, I appreciate that.

1. I was calling your inconsistent approach. There were several references criticising the hypothesis, yet when I tried to add some evidence that seems, prima facie, pretty strong, you deleted it. (This, YOU subsequently admitted, was in line with your own views.) Not, it must be noted, MOVED to where you think it is more appropriate.
2. I didn't insinuate you were stupid. I overtly outlined that the edit was poor. If I insult you, you'll know about it. (A gentleman never accidentally insults anyone. ;)

Any of which is evidence of poor editing.

Watch your civility, 'cause you can be blocked for civility issues. There will be people who disagree with you. I'm not fighting you over content, just over where you put it. Civility is important 'cause you are going to have to interact with editors. It's also useful 'cause it means you piss off one person enough, or enough people overall and you'll have an uphill struggle with every edit.

Yeah, threaten me, that will help you regain the high ground. Once again, I don't disagree with your pov in this case, I disagree with your edit and the reasons you gave. (And I notice you managed to call me names, as well. Don't worry, I won't be drawn into that.)

Here is the point I'm trying to make (despite you trying to make this a personal issue): the article read like Menzies was a total fantasist; however, there exists some not-insignificant evidence that seems to corroborate his hypothesis. When I tried to add this to re-balance what appeared to be an unbalanced report, it was removed COMPLETELY. I needn't make note that the end doesn't justify the means.

If I were of a truculent nature I might suggest you haven't even read the book ...

In any case, try not to take this personally. I strive to disseminate knowledge, and I see the wikipedia as a unique medium for that. In that, I suspect, we share common ground. Metadigital 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

EL

Repeated from My Talk Page:

I kinda thought about it for a while before reverting. But when I went to see what contributions this editor had made, all his edits were surrounding that blog. It was suspicious of linkspam, so I placed the warnings on his talk page, and if you take a look, you'll see what I said to him. (here) Had he done other edits that did not surround this blog (which I can only assume is his/her personal blog) I would not have reverted it. I was part of a discussion where someone did something exactly similar a few months ago, and the consensus was to revert it. So, in following with that, I reverted because of linkspam. --Maniwar (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Roy Pearson Simplification

Upon reflection, I probably should have left the access dates in. I was thinking they weren't necessary since the article had cited publishing dates, but in case the articles are updated, then I guess the access dates could be useful. I still stand by my decision to remove the "English" labels. This is English Wikipedia, it's assumed that sources are in English unless stated otherwise. Would you be opposed if I removed those while keeping the access dates in?--Daveswagon 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Woah, I never said non-English sources weren't valid. I said, generally, on English Wikipedia, most sources are assumed to be English unless stated otherwise. In the same way, typical web page sources aren't labeled as being in "HTML" format--it's assumed. Only rarer formats such as PDF are labeled.--Daveswagon 19:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken here. I was just clarifying my point, possibly with a bit of feigned outrage on the side.--Daveswagon 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability rule of thumb

Maybe not. Oh well. Thanks! - Richfife 15:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Muscle

I looked at some of the pages you edited about muscle, nice work man. If you want any help with debates or settling stuff please let me know. I don't really have time to search a lot of pages, but I do have some knoweldge. I have a background in movement science and am a grad student studying muscle mechanics. So I have a decent understanding of the more molecular side of muscle. I do enjoy studying all aspects of it though.Rjkd12 00:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

great greetings!

Thanks, my brain is a pretty good speller, but my fingers are terrible!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 02:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

n00b

This is just to say that I replied on my page. If posting this is 'just not on' for real Wikipedians, then just delete this entry... and please don't kill me (since according to your user page you pass the time of day by killing people at random) :) -- WolfieInu 06:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I reply here. Thanks again for the welcome (or muchas gracias, danke schön, baie dankie, ke a leboga, whichever you prefer).

Must now really get off WP and start memorising that table of integration formulas... and that's a (NPOV) fact :( -- WolfieInu 12:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's my suggestion... -- WolfieInu 06:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau

Kevin Trudeau is an American. He may neither be French nor speak in that language. But judging by his last name, he is perhaps an American of French descent. If the eau in a name or word is pronounce in o sound, it most likely of French origin.61.9.126.41 11:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, from Canada, major political figure of the last name 'Trudeau'. My question is that is a last name sufficient to put the category on the page. WLU 13:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Names, Liar?

WLU, The text in this link did not say it was a government website, it said the information was sourced from government records. As you have been to the website and search though some of the UK data, you should have seen the source for the UK data displayed (General Register Office for England and Wales). How is this lying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark eddy (talk • contribs)

Huh? What are you talking about? Please sign your posts. WLU 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Electronic paper display

Thanks for your contributions and fixing those reference links – they were really beginning to annoy me :) Takenthesmeg 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks/Adoption

Thank you for warm welcome to Wikipedia! I have decided to be wiki-adopted by RazorICE to keep things simple. I will not hesitate to ask you any questions I may have if he is tied down by work. Once again thanks for being helpful!

Alex Hayes 15:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Serial polygamy

As I stated on the talk page, I think that the serial polygamy redirect should be deleted. From the history of the page, it can be seen that it was not an accurate name for the behavior called serial monogamy. Please comment. Thanks.—Red Baron 17:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd like me to comment, but I'll post my thoughts on the talk page. WLU 17:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Counting the Number of Edits

Is there an automated way to count one's number of edits?

Dcarlson 19:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ABA mediation

Formal request for mediation filed.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Ensrifraff 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis

Hello WLU,

Firstly, my apologies for the delay in progress on this case, as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis.

I am writing to you because, as a party to this case, your input is required before mediation can begin, to do with an offer by an experienced non-Committee member to mediate. Please see the Parties' agreement to MarkGallagher's offer section and provide your input, so that this case can progress. Voting will remain open for seven days, and further elaboration is provided at that link.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Since when is tagging for prods and putting category needed considered vandalism? 172.162.148.180 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Comments

I appreciate your comments on my recent posts. Today is my first day adding information to Wiki..... but I will be a fast learner. As you are, I am a fitness enthusiast, with a more total wellness orientation and background. I'll provide additional references/posting on the impact of spirituality/religion on health as a foundation to my piece on Christian spiritual exercises! Dale Fletcher 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Weightlifting

Hello! In response to your comment you left on my talk page here:

I corrected the information about the current world records which was previously incorrect and I added ONE link to an international weightlifting database - which contains correct results for major Weightlifting competitions here.

Also I did not add those other External Links and I am not at all advertising or promoting anybody’s website in order to gain search engine rankings. Thanks! Betelgeusean 11:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the very quick response and explanation! I just wanted to let you know that I was adding the link in good faith. Well yes it’s in German only so does not adhere to policy. It’s a shame since it’s one of the most extensive databases on the subject I’ve come across...

Also thank you for the refresher tips. I’ve actually contributed (very irregularly) here on Wikipedia in the past (even starting a couple of articles - believe it or not), but under a long-abandoned username and IP addresses. Happy editing! Betelgeusean 14:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Strength training

I got your message, I'm done editing for now, glad to find an active article monitor. I'd be happy to discuss the edits so we can figure out the best way to describe it, I guess I didn't totally summarize the reasons for every change as it seemed obvious or unarguable, but that was probably a bit arrogant. Which changes are disagreeable? Tyciol 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lepidium meyenii

Hi, I deleted a couple of external links which inform nothing new about Lepidium meyenii, and you added them back, please tell me what information is new on those two sites that you think are new info for the reader. Most info is already included in the page, and reference links and these two added sites are only commercial links. I have been erasing useless/spam links from all Peruvian related products including Lepidium, Peru, Cat's Claw, Lamas, etc, but now you decide these pages are ok. Please explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetdominus (talk • contribs)

Reply on his talk page WLU

Mediation for Applied behavior analysis

G'day WLU,

thanks for your patience. I'm ready to go ahead if you are, and would appreciate your input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis#Initial_statement. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know, I have read your comments here. I've got the page watchlisted, but we're just waiting for Ensrifraff to state his own views first. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Hi! Thanks for your help about the Roy Pearson article. I guess I was a little too harsh about the guy, and it was probly not good to make Wikipedia into a forum (as you said). Have an excellent week! Calypsos 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Only, But Also...

And from me. Thanks for your kind comments on my talk page. Evilteuf 11:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Yes, thanks Warrush 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Popups

Can't, I edit wiki while im working (i have ALOT of free time). If i was to do it, my boss will bite my ass off. Warrush 16:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, im having issues with wiki right now. I keep getting the error page about server difficulties. Warrush 16:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

Just a question, if someone adds unsourced statements, but it is in good faith, what do you do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrush (talk • contribs)

Your here link didn't work. Warrush 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No its just showing as red. Warrush

Fibromyalgia

Hi WLU, I just wanted to comment on why those cited statements were in the introduction. The previous introductory line had been, "Although there is no cure, the disease itself is neither life-threatening nor progressive, though the degree of symptoms may vary greatly from day to day with periods of flares (severe worsening of symptoms) or remission." This was a false and toxic statement, which became gradually modified to the statement you removed to a different location, which was true and cited. Many people have been cured of fibromyalgia, and all of those that I know of have been through assuming an emotional or psychological cause, and changing the attitude of the patient with mindbody techniques as pioneered by Dr. Sarno. Patients looking up Fibromyalgia should be able to know this. I believe that conventional medicine is way behind the curve with regard to this, still seeking only physical causes for physical symptoms. Ralphyde 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on Anabolic steroids for me?

Given the recent event with Chris Benoit a professional wrestler who slayed his family and supposedly had steroids in his home at the time, numerous people have been attempting to alter the Anabolic steroid article to remove any implication that steroids don't result in "roid rage". I wanted to ask if you could keep an eye on it and revert any major changes to it before they get adequate discussion in the talk page by all involved parties. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Prod

Prod this - me

CSD

Are non-admins allowed to vote? Warrush

Does myspace count as a reliable source under WP:RS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrush (talk • contribs)

No it doesn't, I'd rather be monitored to know what im doing wrong then to not be monitored and do everything wrong. Warrush

Damn im an early bloomer, Ive already made one along time ago. Warrush

TU category

Hey WLU. I wanted to further explain my rationale for the category removal, and let you further explain your rationale for retaining it. Part of my rationale is that I perceive its existence to be superfluous. It doesn't seem to sort any pages or help others understand the category, since the List is the only page in the category (TU could be, too, I suppose, but it's its own article, and that still only makes two pages, each with easily seen and accessible links to each other). I think it'd be much simpler to just not have a category with no purpose. It also just gets confusing as a sub-category when looking at other Christian school categories, and no other christian school in those have their namesake own category. Let me know what you think. On another note, you have some pretty interesting stuff going on with that userpage of yours, haha. Man, I hope I never get messed around with that crap. Thanks for the input, I look forward to hearing from you. Aepoutre 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, to replace, not just remove. I'll keep that in mind for future edits. Thanks for the link, too! It's rather daunting to look through every guideline and policy, but it helps when one is directed to specifics. I'll replace it some good categories found in other "List of people" pages; you can let me know what you think, or, if you'd rather we discuss it first, I can make some recommendations. Let me know. Thanks again. Aepoutre 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Prods

(moved over from WP:PROF talk page)

I prodded a bunch of stuff (user page because they created all the pages), I'm curious if I'm being overzealous in my application of WP:PROF - can someone give me a bit more guidance? Is a couple books enough to give someone notability? Is there somewhere else I should be looking? The whole notability in WP:PROF seems kinda woolly and subjective, but is that just the nature of the beast? WLU 12:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I deprodded two of them: they were university presidents, and university presidents tend to be notable. They often get a lot of press coverage (local or college-based, but still), and tend to be distinguished academics. On the other hand, some of those prods looked right on to me: someone being the author of a small handful of academic books is not significant, in certain fields, all academics publish books, but they're books that few people actually read. It's a little tough to judge notability because you have to be familiar with academic standards for excellence in whatever field the academic is in. If a book is widely-read enough to have been reviewed in print, it's another story, but most academic books are not. Mangojuice^talk 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's reassuring to me. I replaced the notability tags in those cases with {{sources}} instead. WLU 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

you asked me about this; I replied on my talk page.DGG 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

you will be amazed how hard it is to say things just right, and how to specify enough with outbeing over-specific. Your assistance welcome--at all such pages.New ideas are badly needed. DGG 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Block log

No, you were looking at the list of people you've blocked. The record of the times you've been blocked is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:WLU

• Well, normally I wouldn't bother at all, but you expressed remorse at you actions and that you felt the need to have some sort of "official" reprimand, so I oblidged as best I could. Cheers, WilyD 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DUDE

WTF, don't get in trouble over me! I wouldn't of done what you said anyways, but thanks for the warning. I don't see why you would of wanted to be blocked, as far as I can tell, the admins really didn't think you did anything wrong and wouldn't of done anything about it. I guess its a moral thing. Now im gonna have to fly solo, thanks ;). Warrush

Ok, please take a look at this to make sure I did it right. Also, if theres anything else that I should of said there, tell me. Warrush

Thank you

Thank you for the welcome and the heads-up. I don't understand what the big deal is with including verifiable characterisations of creationism as pseudoscience, but I'll take your advice to heart. --Fradulent Ideas 12:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "open season", but it's pretty clear that what creationists are doing is fraudulent pseudoscience. Wikipedia needs to report this. --Fradulent Ideas 16:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if Wikipedia aims to be the "sum of all human knowledge" as one has put it, there better be a careful explanation of the fact that creationism is a pseudoscientific lie. --Fradulent Ideas 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The lies of creationism have been thoroughly documented by others. It is no problem to provide citations. --Fradulent Ideas 11:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Weight training

so your saying i could take pictures of me in the gym of those routines and then upload them under gdfl and put them on the article?--Rekatj2 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On Aspergers..

I can see why you decided you don't like the comment I made on the Asperger syndrome page, but I don't see how it was uncontributive to the main page. I think it should very well be noted that there are a very large amount of people that claim to have Aspergers, or those that have taken the chance to prove their pseudo-psychiatry and self-diagnose themselves. Sure, maybe my wording wasn't perfect, but I don't see why it was deleted. Editted, maybe, not deleted. Ray harris1989 08:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

One should not edit another's comments on the talk page, hence the deletion. If you were unhappy with the responses your wording garnered, you can re-state them in a more palatable fashion. The only person who should be editing other's comments is the author (you). Further, you didn't actually say anything that would add to the page. It should not be noted as your claims are completely unsubstantiated with any references and are therefore original research. And your use of the word 'retard' is hardly civil or well-intentioned. Should you somehow be unaware of the pejorative connotations of the term, please note that the word 'retard' is considered VERY OFFENSIVE in, well, the English-speaking world. Should you be seriously interested in contributing towards the wikipedia pages on Autism, Aspergers and other developmental disorders, I would suggest you choose your vocabulary somewhat more carefully.

As a final point, your message contained no suggestions for the page, merely an observation. Wikipedia does not report first-hand information, only reliable information from secondary sources. WLU 13:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Helpme

{{helpme}}

I'm trying to get this userbox in the top, middle of my user page. It's one of the many futile ways I'm attempting to addres misconceptions about me on wikipedia. WLU 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is not an administrator and is not sure why people keep thinking he is.

Want me to try to add it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, that took me a while. Not much on google. In the end I just put it in a table, which isn't "best-practice" or anything like that, but gawd, nothing else was working! Check the sourcecode to see what I did. Technically it's clean HTML, so it should be okay. I see that User:Wikidudeman tried to centre it by aligning it 100px in, but that didn't work for me because I have a wider screen, so it wasn't centred. Good luck! Rfwoolf 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both, I'll have a go at each one on my computer at home and see which one works. WLU 20:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronnie Tay

Hi! As explained in my AFD vote, I think the head of a country's navy is an important enough position that any holder of that position is notable enough for an article, even if stubby. I haven't yet looked to see if there's some kind of military project guideline, but we have tons and tons of articles on US generals and admirals, many of whom didn't hold as important a position. NawlinWiki 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I added him and that other Singapore Armed Forces heads as they are senior military personnel. Had not the time to cite properly--not even sure how to--- but they are just as noteworthy as military personnel from other countries.

Cibwins 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Cibwins

The citations I've found on google don't support notability in my mind, but that's what the AFD debate is for. Make your comments there - the administrator who closes the debate decides if it stays or moves, not I. One way of avoiding this in the future is using the sandbox or a user sub-page to compose the article before posting it on the mainspace. WLU 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Foot

Ok, I see you've added this to my talk page. I thought you meant to the article's discussion page.

The photo seems fine to me -- it shows a foot attached to a person, unlike the other images. In both of the pages that you removed it from, it seems to work well for that purpose and isn't duplicative (unless just being a foot is duplicative, but within the context of this article it doesn't seem to be).

I found this is recent changes, so I don't have a lot tied up in it emotionally.  :-> But it did occur to me that the images, which are small on both pages, work pretty well in their respective articles. Cheers. Larry Dunn 20:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Punishment

Hi, WLU – Sorry to take so long to get back to you about the punishment page. I've had other things to do (work and enjoying the great weather we've been having in TO). I still have other things to do, but I will take a look at the punishment article when i get a chance. I must admit that Reinforcement has been very disappointing to me; there seems to be a club here devoted to screwing the article up. So I particularly appreciate your efforts to improve it and other articles. John FitzGerald 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The bubble of humidity that is the nation's capital isn't so bad. Could be less humid though...

People aren't trying to screw up the page, it's just a really weird, counterintuitive concept. I make a point of trying to monitor the page after I've hit the limits of my knowledge, so I try to correct at least the most egregious errors or vandalism. WLU 23:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken real vandalism out of that article, although to be fair the chief problem is people editing the article who don't know anything about the concept. This may just be a quibble, but the problem to me seems to be that the concept is not weird enough. Judging from some of the anthropomorphic ideas that people have submitted, some people seem to think it's identical with their own naive conceptions of reward, so they feel competent to edit it. Humidity's been a bugger here, too, for a few days, but it could be a lot worse.

By the way, does your name have anything to do with the university? John FitzGerald 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I get my stomach pumped

HA, that reminds me of something I said to my mom. I told her (along time ago) that when I turned 18, I was going to drink myself into a coma. Warrush

Reply!

No, I don't think it was too strongly worded. Actually, it wasn't your words but the emphasised bold capitals that I was particularly thinking of! As it appears that the editor was a newbie, they might just be doing it out of ignorance, so I usually phrase myself more politely to start with. Of course, if they continue to disrupt then we need to be sterner, and eventually, block. Best wishes, DrKiernan 16:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! WLU 16:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

eggs

Hi - thanks for the suggestion to revert to a reliable edit rather than most recent vandalism! I'm still kind of new to Wiki so I hadn't realized that older vandalisms could be disguised with newer ones. Good tip. Bob98133 16:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Red links at NSF

In April, you removed a set of red links from the disambiguation page NSF. The majority of these were to Norwegian associations not yet written about in Wikipedia. I feel that these red links were appropriate in accordance with the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Red link, because a) they were relevant to the context of the page; and b) they linked to non-existent but notable topics. To paraphrase the guidelines on red links, these pages would be useful in a "final version" of wikipedia.

I would like to restore the links unless you have compelling arguments for their removal. Sverre 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Though I am not going to insist upon it, I do think that the Norwegian links I removed don't really fall under the redlinks policy. None of them are really geopolitical entities and none seem particularly notable to me (mostly sporting associations in a single country) - though there is a very good chance that at least some of them are and it's my lack of familiarity with Norway that makes me say this. They aren't really relevant to the context of the page because the page has no context - it's a disambiguation page, the context is merely having an acronym involving the three letters. That's not much context in my mind. Notability is established after the creation of a page through reliable sources, I can't determine if a page is notable beforehand. I'd be happier if the relevant articles were created, then added to the disambiguation page. Particularly given that this is a dismabiguation page rather than a mainspace page, having a redlink to those particular articles doesn't strike me as essential. I'm not going to insist upon it or get into a revert war, it's just my reading of the policy and opinion on the matter. WLU 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I see your arguments. I guess I interpret the guidelines like this: It doesn't really matter whether a page exists or not - if you would add a link to an existing page, you could add a link to a page you think should exist. I don't see why there would be a difference between a disambiguation page and a mainspace page in this respect. Of course the notability of the topic can be questioned.

I agree with you that it would be best if the pages existed. I'm unsure now. I'll probably leave it for a while and mull over it. Sverre 18:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I see it as if everyone added redlinks to topics they think should exist, wikipedia will end up drowning in blood empty pages. And I very much think a DAB page is different because it exists just to direct people to the appropriate existing article. However, just my opinion, you might want to pass it by an admin or more experienced user. It's also a slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. Finally, adding links to pages people think should exist means the potential for POV-pushing is exponentially increased (again, my opinion). WLU 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosis links

Hi WLU. I've read the policies you cited, and I take some of your points regarding the external links I added to the Hypnosis entry. Fair enough if you don't think the Skepdic and Kihlstrom resources are suitable as external links.

I didn't realise it was bad practice to link to sites of your own, but now I certainly understand why. However, I strongly believe my website should be added as an external link - it's one of the only sites giving detailed and accurate information about hypnosis research. It's a unique resource providing much more detailed information than the Wikipedia entry should/will/does, it's neutral (I'm an academic and try to apply the same standards to the site as I do my other work), it's reliable and references sources for most points (see references page), and it doesn't contain objectionable amounts of advertising (just 2 pages out of over 20 have ads on them). I won't add the link again but I'd urge you to have another look at the site and see that it contains lots of high quality information that isn't collated anywhere else on the web. MWhalley 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that you are aware, present your site on any respective talk pages for other editors' comments regarding inclusion. I'm still saying no to your site as an external link, though there may be some merit to its use as a reference. Statements on wikipedia and on your own website that the information is 'neutral' is obviously not reliable as you can edit the page. Though I can appreciate you being an academic who strives to be neutral, if we take people on their word that they are neutral and reliable, it opens the door to nutters who say the same thing. I can say I'm Paris Hilton's dog and magically learned to talk, so I should be able to edit the wikipedia page, or such the like. Hence the need for reliable sources. If you built your webpage with reliable sources, then you are very welcome to build the wikipage with the same sources, but please cite them directly rather than piping it through your own. Wikipedia can essentially make your page redundant if you transfer the sourced information over but watch out for original research. WLU 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, howdy, howdy.

Don't worry, I've returned to massage your ego. Pardon the late reply, I'm drifting in and out of bouts of insanity of late so things have be a little...touch and go. Drop me a line when you get a chance, I'm curious what you've been working on and I need some new avenues of work around this looney bin. NeoFreak 22:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

This user uses personal photos on articles

WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm pretty sure that's not supposed to go here. But I could be wrong. I'm asking an admin. WLU 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bodybuilding

I've blocked you for 24 hours for revert warring at Bodybuilding. You have over 3 reverts of the same image edit in the past 24 hours. Next time, please file a report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI and let them handle it.--Isotope23 16:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. WLU 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, I saw your question on FisherQueen's talkpage. You are pretty much free to remove any comments you want to from your talkpage. Generally it is better practice to archive, but if you feel something is trolling, just remove it. While your talkpage isn't really yours you have some leeway to remove comments as long as you are removing them as a whole and not selectively editing what other editors say at your talkpage.--Isotope23 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to - my most recent question on FQ's talk page was on a couple users whose recent edits I see as problematic, I don't think I've asked a question about talk pages. I know I can remove stuff (though better to archive), I've archived past warnings and similar non-template warnings, the ones I removed were pastes from Jayhawker's talk page which I didn't think applied (if you note, they are signed by me :) diff). Are you referring to the template ({{vandal|WLU}}) a couple sections up? I'm more curious where it should go - it's not a warning, it seems like it should go on the ANI page, and I'm not sure about the implications of having it on my talk page 'cause I know templates in the wrong spot can mess things up.

And I did think someone is trolling, so I removed them. But one man's troll is another man's dedicated contributor. Any chance you could extend by block by another couple days ('til Thursday afternoon) by the way? I've got somes studying to be doing, wikipedia is sucking away my time and I completely lack anything resembling willpower. But I also know the community looks down on self-imposed/requested blocks - it's my lack of willpower, not your problem. WLU 16:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that is what I was referring to... the vandal template portion of your message. if you feel it is trolling you can remove the whole section. Sorry, I can't extend your block unless you do something to warrant it... like personally attack me. I'm terrible thin-skinned... Heck, I might even consider you saying that I suck to be worth a 72 hour extension.--Isotope23 16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your failure to enable me makes me think that YOU SUCK. Also note my edit summary. WLU 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Enabled Er, I mean blocked 72 hours for incivility--Isotope23 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just curious...

You have that userbox that says you have more than 8500 edits, with "needs a new" or whatever is struck out. But, is it supposed to say "He loves hobby.", or is that an error? :x Dan 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just a weird sense of humour. WLU 11:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Template:Unorthodox Taoism

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Template:Unorthodox Taoism. I do not think that Template:Unorthodox Taoism fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because not inherently divisive, depends on use. Not a userbox, whihc is the normal target of T1. I see no current uses at all.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Template:Unorthodox Taoism for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 04:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I shan't re-tag - the user who created the template was replacing the {{Taoism}} tag with {{Unorthodox Taoism}} they created and then did not fill. My mis-understanding, the use of the tag appears divisive rather than the tag itself. WLU 11:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I freely grant that that use is disruptive. The tempalte in its presnt form seems useless, and i have communicated with the creator. If it isn't changed to something at least arguably useful, i will propose its deletion on TfD. (BTW, when yopu want to show a link to a template, you can use {{tl}}, it is simpler than a nowiki. "tl" stands for "template link" I think. there is a matchign {{cl}} for categories.) DES ^(talk) 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Once my block expires I intend to have a long, detailed, policy-referencing talk with that user, but I'm glad there's someone else looking into the template itself. Thanks for that and thanks for the template link. {{Unorthodox Taoism}} Well look at that! WLU 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Block

I had to redo your block... I accidentally set an autoblock so it was hitting the IP.--Isotope23 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So long as it ends 72 hours from the original block rather than today, that's fine with me. Thanks for letting me know. WLU 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the new block is 48 hours since I set it close to 24 hours after the original block.--Isotope23 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Gracias. WLU 19:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You should be more careful

The one image we've been trying to protect has been getting vandalized almost constantly and I don't want to keep reverting it because I fear it may not be defined as vandalism by some and might constitute 3rr. Though removing an image over and over without any explanation against consensus is obviously vandalism. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I spoke with some other people and my understanding is that from now on if they revert without discussing it on the talk page, then we can report it to the AIV noticeboard. I'm not too upset 'cause I've got work I should be doing. If I find a solution that works, I'll pass it along to you. WLU 12:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

When will you be unbanned exactly? How long from now? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Friday morning I think, perhaps Thursday. Have a look at Isotopes messages above. WLU 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for erasing of that image by anon IP's. They seem to be at it again. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pyloria

Pyloria was an idea that was proposed in the 1970's and disproven in the 1980's and early 1990's. Calling it a protoscience is therefore a bit misleading as it is an idea that has been examined, tested and abandoned by mainstream science. Tim Vickers 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would do so, however opinions differ! It would be best to find references that specifically describe this as pseudoscience before labeling it as such. link is mixed on the subject. Tim Vickers 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Would it be okay to post those links in Ghostbusters equipment? VoltronForce 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Reaper's Gale.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Deadhouse Gates.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Deadhouse Gates.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging

You need to provide a detailed explanation of why the use of the book cover image constitutes fair-use, Please read WP:NFCC and WP:FURG which give further advice. If you still need help ask an admin. Sfan00 IMG 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's Fine, but there are some fuller examples around ( see the ctaegory of Stephen Baxter Book covers for example)

Done, Consider updating the others :), The 'bug' in TWINKLE has been reported and is 'under investigation', Apologies :) Sfan00 IMG 16:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In Reply To: Holy shit! ... Your Shit Is The Shit

Re: my edits to Shit: I have to apologize... I didn't mean my edit summaries to be insulting; I just couldn't resist wording it that way. And apparently you've taken them in the spirit in which they were intended, which I VERY MUCH appreciate. Thank you for writing.

The Shit entry, by the way, especially the Usage section, is the funniest thing I have read anywhere on the Web. You really know your shit.

rowley 17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on

Kukathas is an external link - correct

Ayn Rand section at bottom

jesus christ

read history

look at changes since

reverse to Wiki Cookie Diet page

You wrote:

rv - not references, not reliable sources, just a news broadcast and a web forum)

Although it is indeed on a small site, it is not a "news broadcast". This was an interview that was conducted with Dr. Siegal.

If you notice the site has been accepted under HONCode, which requires a constant verification of content reliability.

It contains at least as much or more references than the TV blurbs to the Cookie Diet. It provides insight into the creator of the diet, and provides some additional information about the trademark concerns, and future plans. Cookie diet according to the trademark holder, Dr. Siegal is not just a cookie any more, if you read the interview carefully. This provides amply more than the TV shows do.

I plan to reverse your change unless you can tell me I am incorrect. --Libertate 23:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)--Libertate 23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Wiki Psychosomatic page

Thanks for the pointer to guidelines on Original research and the pointer as to where to place things on the talk pages so they are noticed. If you looked at the talk page on Psychosomatic you would see that the German Wiki page on the same subject is quoted as an authoratitive source on the issues I was introducing.

Every issue I raised is a part of that German page. Psychosomatic Medicine is far more advanced in Germany than almost anywhere in the world as it has been a medical specialty in its own right there for decades - hence that page being quoted as more useful than the english page.

The main points I made regarding: the social dynamic as a part of the picture and; the confusion between "psychosomatic" and "psychogenetic" are highlighted on that page. This would therefore make them not "original research" at all but merely a much needed clarification of some of the issues of contention in this difficult subject. For that reason I will add my suggestions (appropriately) to the talk page on psychosomatic and wait a week for response/discussion before enacting another bold edit on this matter.

If there is no response on the talk pages and no discussion I would appreciate your not reverting the text again as in those circumstances is is safe to assume no one is at issue with what I say and/or no one is bothered.

--Zigzagzen 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is neither Germany nor German wikipedia - what is common knowledge and accepted wisdom there is not so here, and therefore requires citation. If your 'much needed clarification' is not backed up by sources, it is original research. Other wikis are not reliable sources (extremely stable wiki pages are, but the page does not have inline citations and is not a featured article, and in my mind is not an appropriate source), if that page has sources, cite them here. If it does not, then I am challenging the addition to the page as original research and therefore you must find a source before re-adding the information to the page. Your linking of Descartes and Freud looks like OR as well.

More specifically, pointing out that something is mis-named requires a souce as most people don't speak latin. Your statement "This article and related articles on Somatization disorder and Conversion disorder actually relate to an entirely different class of problems that better labelled psychogenetic'" is unsourced, and the use of the term 'better labelled' is original research, essentially your opinion. The entire paragraph:

Doctors sometimes like to explain the things they can not explain by blaming the mind of their patients. If doctors said "we do not understand this" they would be showing themselves as limited humans - like the rest of us. This is an ego-centric disorder inherent in the minds of psychiatric and medical doctors and not in the minds of the patients concerned. Instead of admitting their own - and western medicines' - limitations they have invented a whole raft of "psychosomatic" problems and disorders that might not exist, but actually confirm the current limitations of medical science.

is full of weasel words and unsourced statements, and sounds like a POV-push against conventional medicine. The bolding thrown in upredictably and non-sensically doesn't really help either. Check out the links in the welcome tag on your page, particularly the five pillars. Also, some pages do not receive much traffic, so waiting a week might not mean anything. At this point you really should not re-place your text at all until you have sources for what you are saying. It has been challenged, and therefore needs citations. WLU 11:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"The American Psychosomatic Society, founded in 1942, is a worldwide community of scholars and clinicians dedicated to the scientific understanding of the interaction of mind, brain, body and social context in promoting health and contributing to the pathogenesis, course and treatment of disease."

This is from a link on the page .... "understanding of the interaction of mind, brain, body and sociual context" ... the social context is what is missing from the page right now ENTIRELY and what is missing from "conventional medicine". The German Model is in line with the American Psychosomatic Society model. I will continue working on my citations and sources. Your views are incorrect and when I am in a position to fully explain why I will indeed do so and re-edit the page.

And btw if you examine the talk page there is a plea for someone to add some of the clarifying material I added.

And regarding Latin: I explained the latin terms and translated them on the page and explained why that etymological error was so important in this whole discussion. "as most people don't speak latin" is therfore no excuse I am afraid - they don't need to to understand what I wrote as I explained the terms.

--Zigzagzen 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your further clarifications and tips. I am indeed referring to the documents you have offered for guidance, and as you say, researching and sourcing the citations needed. I'll post more in due course.

There is a significant problem with WI:NPOV : namely it's a lovely idea philosophically with no practical reality whatsoever. Everthing comes from a point of view.

--Zigzagzen 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

sole (foot)

Your recent and repeated deletions of images, such as the one you made to sole (foot), which images are relevant to the topic but which you seem to be removing because you personally do not like them, are not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Furthermore, please be aware that accusations of vandalism when these deletions are reverted are in violation of the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and are deprecated. Do not issue "warnings" because someone disgrees with your removals of relevant and appropriate content. 216.83.83.166 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

Reverting contested edits without discussing it on the talk page (as I have done) is vandalism as far as I know.

It is not vandalism. From Wikipedia:Vandalism:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

Emphasis in original. Can you explain why returning a relevant image to the article is a deliberate attempt to comprimise its integrity? Note there is no reference on Wikipedia:Vandalism to lack of discussion of edits being "vandalism."

Further to this, on this page: Wikipedia:On_assuming_good_faith, we see the following:

Our definition of vandalism at Wikipedia is essentially the same policy, in different words:

Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.

In other words, when it doubt, consider it a good-faith edit. That means, even if the person is dead wrong, deeply misguided, stubborn, rude, biased, bigoted, and acting against overwhelming consensus, we continue to assume that they are trying to make the encyclopedia better, not worse. As soon as we label someone's edit as "vandalism", we are giving up our assumption of good faith.

Threatening me with warnings in clearly bullying and a violation of the policy calling for an assumption of good faith, as summarized in the essay above. On your talk page you express surprise that some people see you as an administrator -- perhaps that's what some people think because you are so quick to threaten other users because you don't agree with their edits? The whole tone of your user page suggests that you get a rise out of conflict with other users on Wikipedia.

I'd suggest you remove the warnings from my talk page, or I will approach an administrator to do so. 216.83.83.166 14:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

It is pretty hard to assume good faith when you are not engaging in discussion on the talk pages.

Hard or not, you are still supposed to, unless you have direct evidence to the contrary. Again, lack of discussion on the talk page is not evidence of a lack of good faith.

As to the warnings you dole out a bit too freely, I know I can remove them, but I am reluctant to edit discussion pages, particularly those comments that disagree with me. 216.83.83.166 13:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One additional opinion, which was rendered before I was able to give my own argument for image inclusion, does not a consensus make, and 3O is nonbinding. You've accused me of "using Wikipedia as a battleground," but one quick look at your user page makes it clear that's the pot speaking. You have yet to offer a coherent reason for removing a perfectly relevant image which supports a proposition in the text, except your apparent enthusiam for picking fights on Wikipedia. 216.83.83.166 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nanny state

I am surprised with your deletion of EC comments. The banning of mercury is mentioned in that article, and the recognition of Imperial measures in that article. I am therefore restoring my section. Please check before deleting! Peterlewis 22:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Skinner

Please could you unrevert my addition to this page. The text at the top of the page states "Skinner may refer to:" and so it should be a list of things which are referred to as Skinner. If you take a look at the article, you will see that this work is often referred to as Skinner, rather than by its full title. Thanks. SP-KP 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, please make sure that this is clear on the disambiguation page. Your original comment was X book, by Someone Skinner. The disambiguation page it there to make clear links between pages, it should be immediately obvious that the two link. The way it was formatted, it looked like the only relationship between skinner the word and the book was that it happened to be written by a fellow named Skinner, who didn't have a wikipedia page. WLU 12:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating the entry. SP-KP 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:The Bonehunters.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:The Bonehunters.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Adoption Request

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Creationism

calling creationism fallacious is not POV it is a statement of fact, there is indisputable and undeniable evidence that it is wrong, and this should be taken into account, it is not just a matter of what you choose to believe, whilst this is religion it is wrong. It is no more POV than the opening line of this page which states that Harry Potter is fictitious, that is not POV, and neither is stating that creationism is equally fictitious. Kindly removed that template from my page, as I rather take offence at being treated as a common vandal purely because you did not agree with the validity of my edit, though I'd have to contest, you are wrong. Philc 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, bring it up on the creationism page - it's disputed by two editors, you'll have to discuss it. You are free to remove the warning from your own page. WLU 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"I'll justify why I do what I do." I cant argue with that. Can you direct me to the subheading where this contentious point is being debated. Philc 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what question you are asking - where your "fallacious" point is being debated on the creationism talk page? You'll have to create it as you're the one who wants to make the change - the other editors are satisfied with the current state of the page. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV first, as it will almost certainly be raised. Also, I believe Silly rabbit has provided a response here, one which I agree with. WLU 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That was nice

Thanks :-) Not sure about the Elvis/Cage thing, but I think it's a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ah, I get it ! That was doubly nice of you :-) Thanks again, and keep up the good work; Eubulides is going to need lots of people looking over his shoulder to keep those articles up to snuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for the revert... you can leave stuff like [this] on my page though. While I'll strictly enforce WP:NPA against other editors, I don't sweat stuff like that too much on my talkpage. If he wants to hold the opinion that I'm an idiot or hate me, I'm fine with that.--Isotope23 ^talk 02:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yep, I can see how it would appear that way.

I'll look into those diffs shortly.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sole

I'm not entirely sure what kind of feedback you are looking for, but that situation kind of demonstrates why I personally don't use templates very often... Possibly that editor would not have gotten as angry had you sent a message basically saying "I removed the image, please take some time to participate in the talkpage discussion before you revert back to having 2 images in a short article"... or maybe they still would have gotten irritated... hard to say. If it continues, WP:3O would be a good next step.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much the advice I was looking for - I don't like using RfC as it's pretty labour intensive for such a stupid thing. Didn't know there was such thing as 3O, so thanks! WLU

3O is a good "quickie" thing if there are just 2 of you going back and forth on this.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

11 months and 9500 edits, still don't know all the policies. Thanks for the suggestion, it's a good 'un. WLU 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I'm going through an RFA right now and since we've had some previous experience I thought you might want to add some input. It can be found here Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikidudeman. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

/WDM RFA WLU

If you're worried about my ability to resolve disputes you should probably see the talk pages of Parapsychology and Homeopathy. I brought the Parapsychology article up to a Good article by bringing all of the disputants together and resolving their disputes and am doing the same currently with the Homeopathy article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Coconut = Kyle Ward

See: http://kyle-ward.com/index.php/2007/07/28/new-eurodance-artist-new-song-cocunt-ladybug/

Usually each alias Ward makes reflects a certain musical style, as the article states also Ward states in the blog entry "Yes, another alias for everyone to enjoy", which alludes that it is another alias. Also Ward revealed this only two days ago. --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alientraveller 18:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Physiology of nociception

Hi - just checking that you understand the difference between pain and nociception and that you aim to leave the reader clear on the essential difference in section "Physiology of nociception". SmithBlue 05:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi WLU - I edited 6 months ago some of the section you are working on - I too was at the limit of my technical ability - I would really like a professional in the area to do it but we cant find one yet? What is clear to me is that "pain" is difficult to write about. Our language treats it as a physical thing. But physiology says that, "No, pain is an event in the mind which cannot be verified by an outside observer. All we can measure and definitely ID is nociception - the firing of nerves in pathways and nuclei. And then we can ID neurons in the brain firing. But the sensation and feeling of pain is an event in consciousness, something we cannot verify, something that is not accessable to physical measurement." SmithBlue 05:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Cast

If you're curious about casting information, there are different approaches to how to accomplish this, none of them really wrong. I used to support the format that Transformers has, as I supported the same for Spider-Man 3, but I've begun moving away from it. My pet project, The Fountain (film), has a mere Casting section like Halloween, mostly due to the fact that it's really only two major actors in the film. I've also taken another approach in which each bolded role entry is supported by casting background and character interpretations, which can be seen at Sunshine (2007 film). I personally like the last approach best nowadays, since it tells you more about each specific role in each entry, as opposed to trying to make unrelated items fit in paragraph form. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Henckels page nominated for deletion

You should check out some other kitchen cutlery pages then. They provide the same information that you removed from our page. To be fair, all pages should be subject to the same rules.

Also, as far as "bragging" with awards, I would not call it bragging at all. The company received awards, its a fact. Check out the website at www.jahenckels.com. You can check out the iF design website and the reddot award website for confirmation. The awards listing in no way said anything besides the facts. Each knife series was listed with the award it received. If that's bragging, then I'm confused.

For the places to find Henckels products, several other brands list where to purchase their products.

thanks for the note

I replied under it, on my page. Yahoo!Sirius 11:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

For starters, ignoring claims of bad faith as made by the Anon is a good idea. If they continue to revert I'd suggest a request for mediation, or perhaps an ANI report if the editor is reverting multiple editors. I understand they don't see 3 editors as a consensus, but generally speaking when multiple other editors are saying something shouldn't be in an article and/or reverting the addition, continuing to add it while claiming there is no consensus isn't helpful editing. The next step after that would be a WP:RFC.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind monitoring it for a bit, and I'll watch? If you're too busy, I'll do my best, but expect many postings on your talk page :) WLU 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's on my ridiculously long watchlist.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lazy admins, spending all their time forming cabals and not catering to my whims :) I'll try to stay hands-off for a while, in wikiholic terms. Probably half an hour in realtime. Thanks. WLU 20:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

our intuition about Tara Smith III

Appears to be correct. She is extremely active on Broadway, television production, writing books etc. I saw pictures of her on Broadway sites and it is the same person, definitely. There is an immense amount of material about this person on the internet. I am still not sure if it is the same person as Tara V. Smith or not. She appears not to use the III any longer. But at least there is no shortage of material.--Filll 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

IMDB has two different entries for two different people, so I'm assuming they're not the same person. Tara Smith III (the third?) is an actor, correct, not an author? Or is she both? WLU 14:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not trust IMDB, frankly. My inspection of a few pictures have convinced me that Tara Smith III the actress (in one soap opera segment and in one movie) is the same Tara Smith that has written a couple of books and scripts and has produced two television shows for Mark Burnett and is a film producer and has produced a couple of Broadway shows. The pictures are identical, the biographies match.--Filll 15:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

10,000

You're an animal. NeoFreak 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Objectivism

I added my comments. Congratulations on 10,000 edits. Karbinski 15:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As NeoFreak says, I'm an animal. WLU 15:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. While I have contributed to the talk page, I'm not an editor of the article so I fall somewhere in-between 'editors in the dispute' and 'third-party'. Alfred Centauri 17:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have added a note to my comments that I am not an editor in this dispute Alfred Centauri 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dog Wizard

You are actually willing to edit war over this? Unbelievable. I'll leave it as it is, since you feel so strongly about it. Dreadstar † 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I will use a piped link. Thank you. Dreadstar † 23:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read through this: Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Perhaps I was considering a future article on fiction categories, or genres. Dreadstar † 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I fix redirects, possibly with piped links, in case the page is moved and it leaves a double-redirect. Thanks for the policy though, I wasn't aware. WLU 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Sorry if I came across brusquely, long day...;) Dreadstar † 03:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly criticize, and with 12 000 edits on wikipedia you've seen 20% more POV-pushing idiots than I have. Incidentally, why do you want 'fantasy fiction' rather than just fantasy? I still see it as redundant, but it's a style point for me. WLU 11:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe to differentiate from non-fiction fantasy?--Isotope23 ^talk 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Dreadstar is doing so more to make the fact that meaning of fantasy being used in the articles is the fictional sense (versus the sexual or daydream). I'll admit that though I do think it's redundant, I could see merit to, say, a non-native English speaker or someone completely unfamiliar with fantasy as a category of fictional writing. My way means you have to take one more step if you are uncertain. All I know is, I prefer arguing with noobs and anons rather than those with more than a thousand edits.

It could also be to differentiate it from non-fantasy fiction about important human themes. WLU 14:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Glad I could help. That user didn't realize, apparently, that I could check every page he (or she) had blanked and fix it.

And I am still looking to be adopted. Dinosaur puppy has been giving me some help, but not formal adoption. I have been around a while but my knowledge of procedure needs plenty of work. Eran of Arcadia 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, anon vandals are stupid that way. If you want official adoption, I'd be happy to take the role, if you're happy with unofficial and casual advice, feel free to ask me too. I also have found a couple friendly admins who I turn to when I've got questions. I'm assuming you've edited your signature deliberately to avoid the piped link to your user page? WLU 17:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for official adoption - it appears that my knowledge of Wikipedia procedures isn't always sufficient for what I am trying to do (which is more about copyediting, removing vandalism, etc. than content). I actually just use the automatic 4 tilde sig - I know the procedure to change it but I haven't really gotten around to it. Eran of Arcadia 17:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

'F you want me as an adopter, say the word and I'll update the templates and userboxes (unless you'd rather do so for your own learning). I use the four tildes too - did you put something in the signature box on your preferences>user profile? Your non-linked signature is sufficiently unusual for me to notice it, making me wonder if you've edited it. If you have an empty signature box and leave the Raw signature box unchecked, it should put up a link to your page every time - I find it useful 'cause I don't have to go to history to access that person's talk page or contribs. Also - have you met the wonder that is POPUPS? WLU 17:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember now, I checked the Raw Signature box when I was messing around with it. That'll teach me . . . anyways, yes, I want you to be my adpoter, just show me what I have to do. Also, I have seen references to Popups but haven't tried them. Eran of Arcadia 17:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What browser works best with popups? I use Firefox at home but I do most of my edits at work (they know I use the internet on company time and don't mind, and I am not about to try and make an article about my company . . .) and I use IE. Which one is better? Eran of Arcadia 12:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I've never used popups with Firefox, but I've got a Mac at home and IE at work, and popups work perfectly on both. The changes are made on wikipedia, so it doesn't matter what browser you use, it's always on. I think I've seen screenshots of Popups on Firefox, so it probably works there too. WLU 12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

SRA edits

Looks good in general, but this section:

West Memphis 3

Main article: West Memphis 3

In 2004, the legal defense team of Scott Peterson, charged in the murder of his wife Laci Peterson, alleged that the real killers may have been members of a Satanic cult. They never produced any evidence to support these claims and Peterson was found guilty of the crime.

is obviously screwed up, as Peterson has nothing to do with the WM3. I don't have time to dig though the history to fix it right now, though, so thought I'd let you know. DreamGuy 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's some terrible, mixed editing happening on the page apparently. I had a couple WTF moments during my re-work. I don't think I'm going to mention Peterson, on his page 'satanic cult' is mentioned once. Or is any mention of satanic cults sufficiently rare and notable to add to the page? WLU 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mere mentions in and of themselves are not notable enough to be mentioned. The question would be if this one was notable enough. I could see it go either way. DreamGuy 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I'm content to leave it as is. WLU 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Tags

While trying to figure out what to do about the article Coast Run, I made an entry on the Administrator board and was told that reverting a good-faith tag is vandalism. How far does this go? If I honestly think an article is non-notable, and place a tag, and it is removed, can I replace it without violating 3RR? Does this go for other tags like {reference}, or {wiki}, and the like? I have also left comments on the talk page and the talk page of the other editor. I also tried nominating it in AfD but I don't think I did it right. Eran of Arcadia 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lemme have a look at it, but don't violate the 3rr. If you've nominated it for deletion on AFD, it'll get delted irrespective of if the tag is removed. Continuous reverting without discussion is considered vandalism, it might be worth bringing up with an admin if you can. User:FisherQueen and User:Isotope23 are both good people to talk to, they're heavily involved in AFD stuff and can give you better instructions. One suggestion I'd make is to read WP:AFD and be sure you're doing everything properly (I'll also have a gander). The key point is, if someone is reverting without discussion, they can get blocked. Keep escalating the warnings on their talk page, once you hit level 4, report 'em. At this point you can probably skip at least one of the lower levels. Final piece of advice - don't editorialize your AFD nomination - just say delete, fails notability and WP:NOT. Any problems anyone raises, bring it up afterwards in the AFD discussion itself. WLU 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. The problem was I didn't properly create the AfD page, had to keep switching around stuff. My biggest problem was, I think, that I keep forgetting to use the article and user talk pages for this, which I really need to do. Eran of Arcadia 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion I might offer that applies generally is to quote policy in your comments on pages - wikipedia can pretty much only be argued from policy so they're useful links to have. Also, familiarize yourself with them and if you're AFDing something, be sure you've read the policy yourself. The more policy you quote, and the more specific you make it, the more likely it is that other experienced wikipedians will agree with you because you've got credibility. It helps if the other person pulls a boner like "no, this is super important, my friend died and he needs to be remembered" or some other clear violation of WP:NOT. Policy is your best friend and worst enemy - it'll help you deal with other's crap additions, but it'll also prevent you from pushing your own desired changes that conflict with policy. Which sometimes sucks, but what can you do? I'm preparing a comment for Bshuttl2 as we speak. WLU 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What do I do about Vandal Users?

Greetings. I don't know to whom to address this to, but how do I report users who are singularly & obviously vandals?--Snideology 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Hola Mentors!

Im sending you this reminder because you volunteered to mentor my students in English Advanced B as they become contributing members of the Wikipedia community. We start working with Wikipedia in earnest next week. I ask you to take a look at your entry in the Mentor Table at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors

Please update the information, esp. with what your technical and informational expertise is or, if you have decided that you no longer want to participate, please remove your information from the table. Please watch the pages associated with the project. Students will contact you via your user page and as soon as my students have user pages, I will put them on the navigation bar associated with the project.

I don’t need to remind you that your job is NOT to write their assignments for them, of course. I certainly will tell my students that… and the fact that you are volunteers that don’t have to help them… so they need to be nice. If any students misbehave (tho I don’t expect it) don’t hesistate to contact me and I will take care of it. The goal of this project is to integrate successfully into the Wikipedia community. Anyway… what I really need your help with is helping students get oriented to Wikipedia, make appropriate changes and write about appropriate topics (see Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Syllabus for assignments). I also need your technical expertise… I am only an English teacher after all! I appreciate what technology does for us but I am no technical expert!

Again, thank you for volunteering and you will hear from us again soon! Thelmadatter 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Headings

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 19:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Flameoffire

Sorry, WP:AIV is for vandalism reports, not for sockpuppet investigations (except if the socks are vandalising). Please see WP:SSP. Sandstein 20:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi WLU, I think that Neotone (contribs here) is yet another sock of Flameoffire, who you noted was a sock of Doergood, which in turn is a sock of Truthfulnesswins.... we seem to have a whole family of socks. How can I help? Edhubbard 20:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ABA

There's not really much to determine. The use of the word 'only' cannot be supported by the cited sources. Nor can the exact way you (I'm guessing it was you) worded the term 'proven'. I'm sorry, I'm sure you're a very experienced Wikipedia editor and all, but the ABA is full of weasel words and peacock terms. My guess is that this isn't so much intentional as it is a relatively direct citation from your sources. It's not your fault your sources are biased, but it does not remove or excuse the fact that they are. In the mean time, do not revert any changes I made. Robrecht 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of logic tends to be WP:OR on the part of the add-ee, and indicates a failure to refer to policy. Rather than edit warring, since I see no real gains in referring to your comments and you do not seem to read mine, I have referred this to two other parties, and if there is no consensus on their part, I will bring it up with WP:3O and WP:RFC. In my mind, using logic to attempt to discredit peer-reviewed articles points to an extreme bias on your part and inability to find sources that support your point. You state your opposition to ABA being the only proven treatment, but you have not provided a single source stating another modality is a proven one. You want a reason to remove the wording 'only proven'? Find one reliable source that shows another modality is proven. Find one scientific, peer-reviewed reference. Otherwise you have no case, you can't prove a negative. WLU 01:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also happy with the current wording, though I am slightly uncomfortable with the use of the term 'cognitive functioning' since there is nothing cognitively wrong with Autists (and I should know) only with their ability to make their congnitive functioning recognisable to others. In laymen's terms: the article currently suggests Autists are able to think better after ABA, while in reality they are merely more able to share their thoughts. Still, this is something I'll live with.

Also, I don't need to prove that some other method works (my personal view is that no method for treating autism truely 'works' in the way those who use it think it works). If you claim that it is the only method that works, the burden of proof lies with you. You alude to my use of logic as if logic is something we should avoid on Wikipedia. Well let me just say this: Your cited sources do not support the use of the word 'only'. You added that, or someone else added that, to make ABA look better. In the previous version of the ABA article the word 'only' was a peacock word. Robrecht 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Find me any other treatment that is proven to work. Then 'only' in the ABA article is truly a peacock word. Until then, it's the only one I'm aware of, though there's a ton of useless crap shovelled on desperate parents. WLU 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is not a threat, but something for you to think about: you are WikiLawyering in order to unfairly and unfactually keep this page unencyclopedic, merely because you are, apparently, a proponent of ABA. If you continue this, I will contact a Wikipedia staff member in order to discuss with them whether your actions constitute vandalism. Robrecht 00:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I invite you, go ahead. If you need the link, here it is. I think you will find that your opinions regarding the apparent conflict of interest of scientists reporting in peer-reviewed journals is an eccentric one. WLU 12:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ABA

I made a change to Talk:Applied behavior analysis #Citations in violation of WP: UNDUE and WP:V. The point seems a bit moot now with all of SandyGeorgia's rewrites but I figure it couldn't hurt to help out a bit in the discussion section too. Eubulides 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A Well-Deserved Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping a kindly old lady English teacher who, like most English teachers, would be lost without the technoguys of the world Thelmadatter 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

I tried to add a link to the WikiProjects section of the nav bar but it wont show up ... I dont know what I am missing.Thelmadatter 19:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Publication Order of the Sharpe Series

You requested a conveniently accessible publication sequence for Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe Series (Talk:Richard Sharpe (fictional character)). I have recently included original publication dates against all the novels in the list at the bottom of the main article. I do not believe that a separate list in publication order is warranted, particularly since they are listed chronologically in the books and on the author's website. Moreover Bernard Cornwell, in various notes in the books, makes it quite clear that the sequence of writing and publication has been subject to a fair degree of author's whimsy and commercial pressure rather than a cunningly thought out plan of the author's. Hope this helps. --AusTerrapin 12:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, looks good. Thanks for the reply. WLU 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nav Bar problems

I started to add my students to the navigation bar but although it shows up alright on the nav bar page Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Navigation_bar it comes up stretching across the page on other pages. I cant see why as I compare what I added to what was done before. I need you to rule again! Thelmadatter 19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

I'm not sure what the problem is, I'll try to have a look at it when I've got the time. However, as I've said before, I'm totally out of my depth here :) WLU 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Navigation Bar

Hello WLU friend, i am Lirdoco and y know thelmadatter user, she told me that you know how to create a navigation bar as the same bar that she uses on her user page, could you tell me how to create one for my user page, please? = ) Thankyou.----- Lirdoco 04:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Add the following text to your user page: {{Wikipedia:School and university projects/ITESM Campus Toluca/Navigation bar}}. Directly paste the squiggly brackets and blue text onto your page.

Also, your signature is surrounded in a blue box because it is spaced away from the left margin. Thus:

No spaces

With a space.

If you want the box, around your signature, you may want to consider that other editors might find the box distracting. It's usually only used to highlight or separate sections. There are lots of other ways to modify your signature that don't extend across the page, but it's your signature so feel free to do as you like :)

WLU 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou WLU, now my user page has the Thelmadatter Nav Bar, but i want to create my own Nav Bar for my user page, could you help me to create my own Nav Bar WLU? Thankyou = )

----- Lirdoco 04:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Lirdoco

Making tables is intensely time consuming, and I am no expert. I found an appropriate table and adapted it until it met Thelmadatter's needs for the page. The best thing to do would be for you to do the same I think. I don't have the expertise or the time right now. Try looking over Help:Table, and if that doesn't work, try asking User:User:Runewiki777 if he'd help, I believe he has offered other users assistance in the past.

If you do experiment with tables, I would suggest doing so on a sub page of your user page; it's cleaner and neater. WLU 10:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much WLU. =)----- Lirdoco 04:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Lirdoco

I need a hand on the Menopause Article

I’m just looking for a little help here, I’m willing to do some changes to this article menopause, and I just want to know if I might be doing anything wrong or alike.

1) There is this unknown user [[3]] that the only contribution has been adding external links to articles from the same university from Tel Aviv. Do you mind take a look at it? , and let me know what do you think on this matter (specially on this article [4]).

2) I found an empty link in the reference area; therefore I’m not sure if I should take the whole reference out or just the link with no content.

3) And finally, I wonder if adding a dmoz category (menopause [5]) would be a good resource as an external link.

I would really appreciate your help and some of your time too. The sooner the better. JenniferFisher 17:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First thing you should do is check out WP:EL and see if it's a valid link. If other users keep removing it, but the anon keeps re-adding it, start adding escalating user warnings to their talk page - {{subst:uw-spam1}} through to {{subst:uw-spam4}}. If they hit spam4 without engaging at all on any pages, report them on WP:AIV. Be sure to assume good faith - they may not realize what they're doing is wrong. If they consistently ignore you and fail to respond, you've got yourself a spammer. Just adding links, particularly links that are related to the IP, really looks like spam.

The article link you mention could be used as a reference, I suppose, but much better would be the scientific papers published by the researcher - the news releases first of all are in conflict of interest; they're not particularly reliable.

I'd have to see the reference thing you're referring to in 2), I don't know what you're talking about with the info you've provided.

I looked at the most recent contribs to the page, your removal looks good, though your vaginal dryness link redirects to vaginal lubrication and a direct wikilink is usually better. I use popups which makes it easier to track to the appropriate articles.

As far as I know, dmoz links are heartily appropriate for external links. WLU 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already made up my mind with the #1 and #3 suggestions, now about the one concerning references, this is the location in the article [6], so the link is the following [7].

I wonder what would you do in that situation.

By the way, I don't know how to make a direct wiki link, is this what you're looking for? Vaginal Dryness.

And one more thing, I was checking the info that you suggested and I found that it’s not healthy for any article to have so many links in the external links area, in fact I don't know how many are acceptable. Do you mind telling me a bit about this?

Thanks. JenniferFisher 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The DOI is empty/dead, but the PMID is still funcitoning and it links to the correct article. You could remove the DOI number from the citation template completely, since there is a PMID link it's not a big deal as far as I know to take out the DOI. Alternately, you could try to track down the correct DOI (I don't know what it is or how it works, so I can't help you with that, possibly Digital object identifier) and add it to the page.

Vaginal dryness is a redirect page to vaginal lubrication - if you look at the title of the page when you click on vaginal dryness, it says Vaginal lubrication and underneath that is says vaginal dryness in blue letters just underneath. If you click on the blue link, it'll take you to a page that says Vaginal lubrication with a little arrow to the left. It's a redirect page; instead of having multiple pages like 'Tiny dogs' and 'Very small dogs', there is a single page of 'miniature dogs' and the other pages, when typed into the search bar or created as wikilinks, will take you to 'miniature dogs'. By linking directly, you are avoiding using a redirect page, which is generally more helpful and avoids double-redirects. You can do this by either using the identical term in the wikilink, or a piped link, where the wikilink and the text displayed are different. [[Vaginal lubrication|vaginal dryness]] will display as vaginal dryness but take you directly to the vaginal lubrication page.

There's no real number for how many external links can be on the page. As the number of links increases, the criteria should become stricter. Links can be turned into references and removed as externals, or if one page duplicates the content of the other, but better, remove the 'worse' link. A dmoz can gather many related links together, which can reduce the other links on the page. Wehn I started out, I kept reviewing WP:EL until I felt comfortable removing links 'cause they didn't match up with the policy. Also, most pages with advertising can be removed fairly safely. If you're not sure, move the page to the talk page and ask what people think about re-adding or permanently removing them. Hope this helps. WLU 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You Wrote

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Creationism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you."

Before we get into a big argument over this, I would first like to know why you thought my removal of a few falsified, biased sentences in the Creationism article justifies as "Vandalism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.122.41 (talk • contribs)

First, your IP address appears to have a history of vandalism, so there is less good faith to assume there. Perhaps you should consider getting a user account if you did not commit said vandalism.

Understood, I've had this IP for quite some time. Although I don't remember doing everything accused of me, I won't deny it. Before I started to seriously edit Wikipedia, I decided to make changes without using the sandbox (I didn't think much of it because I new they would change it back). But that was a while ago, and I have an account now, but it's a hassle to log on and off whenever I just want to make small changes.

Second, creationism is an old and established page - to remove a significant section of the lead of said page should be discussed on the talk page first.

Have you seen that talk page? I didn't want to get into a huge argument over something stupid. Honestly, I don't care if they change my corrections back, but whenever I get "warned" for making them, that's not right.

Third, the section you removed is referenced. Since wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth, it's more important to leave verified information on the page than to take it out because you disagree with it. Feel free to add your own reliably sourced information to the page if you would like.

I checked some of the references and they had nothing to do with the said sentences. Even if they did, you can clearly tell that those few (which would not hurt anything to be removed) were taken out of context. Even a Kindergartner knows that in order to write an encyclopedia article you have to know about the thing you're writing about. This creates a problem, though. You see, when it comes to Creationism, you either a) agree with it or b) do not. So no matter what, the article is going to be biased (it's painfully obvious). There is no neutral ground for religions (whereas, something like "cheese" could be written neutrally. There are some people who like it and some who don't, and then some who couldn't care less either way. It's the people who don't care that need to write the article.) Creationism is a two-side split, but what Wiki doesn't seem to understand is that if an article is written promoting something, they delete it. But if an article is written to make something seem "stupid", they think "it's just being neutral". I've seen it happen all over this site. I really hope that all made sense, and I hope even more that you agree with me.

Finally, the warning I used is a standard one, based on a the degree of warnings already applied to the page. However, it somewhat applies, see the first entry of this section. Should you strongly feel that the section needs to be modified, discuss it on the talk page first. WLU 20:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I'll do that next time, I just didn't feel the changes were substantial enough to be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.122.41 (talk • contribs)

1. 1. You should sign your posts and read the talk page guidelines - your edits on this talk page don't conform with the standard layout, it should be chronological fom top to bottom. It makes communicating with experienced editors much easier and conversations are easy to follow.
   2. Argue your points on the creationism page. However, since creationism is completely unsupported by science and its practitioners/followers/faithful ignore any and all research or arguments that contradict their faith-based beliefs, there's not much for the pro-religious/creationist side to say on wikipedia. Since wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth, and there's a lot more verifiable refutations of the creationist statements than there are creationist researchers producing research supporting their ideas, creationism gets short shrift on wikipedia. Further, creationism is an established page with lots of ongoing monitoring and contributions, and lots of trolling from POV-pushing vandals. Therefore, big changes like deleting a large portion of the lead gets a lot of attention, mostly negative.
   3. Creationism is hard to argue neutrally since it's refuted by research in many, many disciplines, many of which are tenuously related to biology. Accordingly, the only thing that can really be reported from the creationism side is their factually inaccurate statements, many of which have been shown to be wrong, repeatedly, sometimes as long as thirty years ago. It's one of the reasons that Conservapedia was established, the failure of devil-worshipping liberal wikipedians to admit the glory of Jesus, repent sins and start ignoring 150 years of scientific research :)

Pacula

I wish to register a strong complaint against the destructive posts of [Pacula] today (Sept 9, 2007). First, he marked the article "tension myositis syndrome" for rapid deletion, an article the subject of which he knows nothing. (he's a games programmer) I've read nine books on TMS, and have occasionally posted to this topic, which has been on Wikipedia since January, 2004. It is a very important subject in the field of psychosomatic medicine, and thousands of people have been cured of their chronic pain by following the TMS method. It has been well known, though controversial (because of the bias against psychosomatic medicine) since the early 80's. And there were numerous links to the article throughout Wikipedia. No sooner had he posted it for deletion, than he began going through all the links to TMS and deleting them, as well as cited passages that referred to TMS, with no discussion. I tried to rvt some of these destructive edits, but was unable to keep up. I posted a complaint to his talk page, which he promptly deleted. I posted a Wikipedia alert. He called the references to books about TMS, "spam," and deleted the ISBN codes to medical books referenced on this and other sites. In short, in one day, he has made a huge mess of the article, and many related sites. Please help resolve this. Thanks, Ralphyde 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't resolve this, I'm just an editor. You must resolve it yourself. The best way is to thoroughly review five pillars, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:FRINGE, and making arguments on the AFD page form there. Knowing nothing about a topic is not a barrier to the AFD nomination and the opinions of the community show that the problems are not with the nomination, but rather with the article itself. I agree with the nomination, hence my addition ot the deletion debate. I think that Pacula's actions are a bit pre-emptive as the page hasn't been deleted yet, but given the status of the debate, it appears somewhat inevitable.

ISBN numbers peppered in the main text of an article is a bit iffy, as far as style goes, and as far as self-promotion goes. Please see WP:CITE for more info.

As a final note, the 'bias against psychosomatic medicine' line suggests that TMS is not quite ready for a wikipage yet. See WP:FRINGE. WLU 22:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam doesn't just refer to external links, but can in aggravated cases apply to wikilinks used as advertising. Wikilinks and external links should be used very precisely, and in context should add to the articles they appear in. Notable sources end up appearing on many articles because of their notability or because they are exceptionally good or valuable resources. Sources that haven't achieved such notability risk being considered linkspam when they get scattered all over the place. Such placement is often a disguised attempt to achieve (not increase already established) notability. That is misuse of Wikipedia and can even get the one so doing chastised or even blocked. -- Fyslee/talk 04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Is there a policy somewhere, or is this based on a more careful reading of one of the mainstream policies that I missed? WLU 10:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Backing off from edit war with User:Ralphyde

Thanks for the advice - it never really crossed my mind that my trying to keep an offensive-to-me comment off my userspace could be seen as a revert war in of itself. If the original comment reappears, I'll let it stay - for now at least, until things cool down and hopefully resolve. - Pacula 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Insults, rants or general crapulence on your talk page reflects badly on the person who put it there. Removing and reverting reflects badly on you. Keep cool, if you do respond, do so on the basis of policy, WP:NOT and WP:5P. The voice of experience unfortunately, and I've got an arbitration case to prove it. Insults and reverts feel good initially, but bite you on the ass in the long run. Again, just my opinion. WLU 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are oh so right! That's why I leave insults and such on my talk page. Why should I try to make idiots look better by refactoring their bad remarks out? They don't hurt me, but reflect badly on them. -- Fyslee/talk 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jogging

Ok, i see where you are going with Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. I always heard that you are not to remove content from talk pages. I guess I was wrong about this, but I still discourage it. If you still disagree with me, feel free to revert it back. Connör ^(talk) 23:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing content is a bad thing, but there's no real content in Adam's comments, just opinion and not a how-to manual. I'd rather not revert it back myself because of WP:3RR but also because its in bad taste. If you wanted to, I'd be pleased with that, but it's your choice. I've reverted content-removing links, but I also revert talk-chat whenever I notice it. Thanks for the discussion. WLU 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Backing off again

I have to admit that this person is starting to push my buttons, and I've started to get uncomfortably close to sinking to the same level. It seems that there is absolutely no tolerance of anyone else touching "their" articles, at least when attempting to remove some of the bias and rewrite to a neutral POV. Looking through the account's history shows a single-minded relentlessness in promoting the Dr.'s work that I find a little scary. In the face of that, I'm definately backing off for now, until there is a better consensus of how to handle the matter. - Pacula 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My advice? <large>DO NOT SINK</large>. You will regret it. Read, compose, re-read, wait a half-hour, re-read, then post. Wait for a bit for the AFD to settle, keep referring to policy, and you can always look into dispute resolution or a RFC for users. Just my advice. WLU 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. There are definitely ownership issues here, and such people can react quite irrationally (according to what is allowed at Wikipedia), but understandably when seen from an outside perspective. They just don't understand what Wikipedia is all about. Linkspamming, ownership, advocacy, etc. are not allowed here. -- Fyslee/talk 06:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Message from Hilary

WLU: Thanks for taking the time give me some help as a newbie here. I was going to take out the "it benefited me" bit on the AFD on your advice, but on reflection decided to leave it in because at least it shows where I'm coming from / what my interest is (not having had time to set up a user page).HilaryN123 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to strikethrough your comments if you withdraw them. It does reflect well as it shows you can change your opinion in response to other's comments. Aside from that, the best advice you'll ever get is read as many policies as thoroughly as you can. In my opinion. WLU 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome Note

Hi, WLU. I just wanted to thank you for the welcome note and the information it contained. I had seen some of it before, but parts were new to me. You helped make yet another newbie feel welcome. :) 0x539 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's for the praise that I do these things. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, I'll try to help. WLU 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

back pain ref

Associated conditions - um... the abstract for this study doesn't seem to support this statement; age not a factor for women, and peak for men was 45-64)

You're right, I added it too fast, symptom of editing after a long day; I saw the age range and didn't read the rest of the abstract carefully enough. The wording from the other article made assumptions that weren't supported. --Parsifal _Hello 08:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if that had the connotation of blaming you at all - since it was a direct paste from TMS, it was more aimed at the original contributor, not you. I had a quick look at the previous sentence with citations, and barring some wording it seemed good. Note that as per WP:WTA#Claim, I think you could say John Stossel 'claimed' Sarno cured his back pain, since Sarno's diagnosis and treatment are so dubious. 'Stated' implies more that Stossel is somehow an authority on the subject, and was able to say based on evidence that Sarno helped. But I'm not going to edit war over it - WTA says that it's a context-sensitive one, so neither of us is completely right. WLU 08:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't take it personally. Regarding Stossel and "claimed" - I guess I've become very careful of that because I've seen it used as a POV manipution so many times. I'm not implying you were doing that of course; it seems maybe it's become a habit for me to remove that word on sight. Your link to WTA gives some better perspective on that. I made a new change in that sentence I think may resolve your concern without using the "claim" word. If you still prefer your way, I don't mind if you change it again. --Parsifal _Hello 09:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

T. S. Wiley & the Wiley Protocol

Just another thank you for keeping these pages under control. I'm definitely not the right person for that job and I'm really pleased and relieved that things are now under check.

I'm in the process of digging into the science and alleged science behind the Wiley Protocol. I'm sure it's mostly material not acceptable for WP, but perhaps at some point what I'm digging up will be of interest to those attentive to these articles.

I don't know whether it's acceptable to link in this context so I'll just request that you go to my site, Wiley Watch, and see the first "Fact Checking" piece, currently at the very top of the home page.

Debv 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that your website could not be used on wikipedia to add information as it is not considered a reliable source. About the only thing that could be used as a source for that particular page are peer-reviewed journals that specifically mention the Wiley Protocol; possibly information attributable to specific scientists. General discussion of BHRT would not be sufficient. Any sources of this type, though you are not allowed to add to the page yourself, can be added to the talk page for other editors, including myself, to integrate into the article. I can pretty much guarantee I won't be checking your website, but if you do find applicable information, feel free to post it on the talk page. WLU 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry if my intent was unclear. I'm just mentioning in the off-chance that you might be interested on a personal level, not knowing whether your interest extends beyond Wikipedia. Of course anything that comes up that might be relevant for the articles, I'll be raising on the talk page. Debv 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, since it's an unproven treatment I'm totally uninterested in it on a personal level :) I will be continuing to monitor the pages as a wikipedia editor and if any reliable info comes up and is put on the talk page, I'll see about getting around to adding it. Thanks, WLU 15:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Foot, the Revenge

Hello, I just did a little expansion of the article Foot and then recalled that I had been involved with an exchange with a user (as it turns out, you!) over an image on that page. The image was gone, so I assume you removed it. I'm a little surprised, as we had an exchange, and as far I could see we left it that the image would remain. I didn't see anything further on my talk page saying that the image was being removed again. I hadn't watched the page, so it got past me.

Mind you, it's another human foot image, and as far as I can see the page is already far too centered on the human foot, but I'm still curious as to why you removed this image and not the others, especially after we had discussed. Look forward to your reply. Larry Dunn 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The images that are currently on the page are fine as far as I'm concerned. There was more discussion on Sole (foot) which resulted in a WP:3O and a block. I know the sole/foot page was a sore spot for me previously, but the version that's up there now appears to be fine. The image that sourced the conflict was Image:RBS01.jpg, which I still think is a terrible image compared to what is there. I believe our conflict on the Foot page was sourced in a misunderstanding and mixing up of the two pages on my part, and the efforts of an anon IP to (in my opinion) spam the image. I dislike that particular image because it's got too many things in it - bare foot soles, a girls' face and head, the back of a chair, a book cover, trees in the background and she's reading. Plus the editor who fancied the image spent way too much effort pushing it onto the page (and now other pages). There are much clearer and more useful images as far as I'm concerned. Basically the same reason's that I already have on your talk page here. Thanks for the inquiry BTW. Let me know if you'd like further clarification or would like to add that particular image to the page. WLU 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The real question is, is the image appropriate for the article? It seems to be. In fact, I would imagine that it's even more relevant to the article on the sole, isn't it? I haven't looked at that discussion on the sole page (I will), but in the meantime, the motives of the person posting the image don't matter if they do not bear on the content on the image itself, do they? I should point out that the image of the sole on the Foot page was posted by someone who created an account specifically to post that image, then never posted anything else. What's the diff? Why isn't there an agenda there?

As to personal preferences, I think we should refrain from taking images off of articles because we personally dislike them. I dislike the sole image I just referred to. The two soles posed together like that, heavily frontlit so that they appear to be severed limbs, is grotesque. I don't remember exactly what that other image looked like, but IIRC is was a sort of candid photograph that seemed better suited to illustrate the sole than the B&W picture currently on Foot. But I have not removed it, or any of the other images on Foot, because they appear relevant to the topic at hand. Your opinion is that the article Foot has enough images as is, but as I've said, I think human feet are overrepresented on the article. If personal preferences govern, shouldn't I just remove all the human foot images?

Anyway, I'll take a look at sole and update. It's one of the anatomical articles that I may be expanding in the near future, at least with respect to non-human anatomy. Larry Dunn 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In my mind, and others, the image was not appropriate for the page. I agree in that were the motives pure or foul, if the image were a good or appropriate one it would stand (why I haven't replaced it on Auburn (colour) - I think it's a poor choice for the page, but the alternatives are worse) but I, and all but the anon agreed, that the image was not a good choice given the alternatives.

Personally, I like Image:Soles2.jpg for the reason you dislike it - it's severed; there's no question of what you're talking about, the only thing there is the sole of a foot. However, you are correct that personal preferences are not important, more important is a consensus. Which is why we seek consensus and engage on talk pages, and if consensus does not agree with our idea, we put up with it. We don't climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. My consensus would definitely support a less human-centric article but not that godawful image of the woman with her feet up. However, if the 3O had said the other image was preferred, I'd have put up with it and shut my cake hole.

All that to say, I think I agree with you, good edits to foot. WLU 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Firefox

What version of Macintosh do you have? Firefox will run on some versions of Macintosh, depending on which download type you download. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to check at home. The test I did with Hodgepodge today was on IE, not Firefox. I'm going to have a go at checking it this evening if I remember. The mac in question isn't particularly old, about 9 months I believe. Unfortunately I don't think I'll ever be able to use HP as my browser at work is non-negotiably IE and it doesn't seem to work; unfortunately the nav tools are linked to accounts rather than computers or browsers, so I can't run Popups at work and HP at home. WLU 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, The Hodgepodge has Popups implemented into it already. I'm not sure why that wouldn't work at least when you tried it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

HP didn't even have popups, it really was as if I didn't have any tools installed. Have you ever heard of anyone using it in conjunction with IE? WLU 18:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, It has popups installed. I don't know why it didn't work for you. See User:Wikidudeman/wikidudemandeluxe.js for everything it uses. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, nothing. The only affect it seemed to have was to delete popups. No idea why. This is why computers are dumb. I'll live, it'd be nice to try out some other tools, but popups does a good enough job that I'm happy. WLU 19:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to try to install firefox tonight though. Use this link Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's invested in the company... I'll put it on tonight if I remember. WLU 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ever do it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you were going to ask :) I installed FF last night but haven't had much time to play around with it much yet. Looks eerily like Safari. I still won't be installing HP for the long-term 'cause my work computer is still only IE, but if you'd like I could have a gander at it tonight just to see if it works. WLU 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Firefox just takes a little getting used to. After you install the "Hodge podge" set your screen resolution to something higher than 800x600 and it should work well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Any news? Did you try Hodge podge on firefox? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lazy man, didn't do it. Barely edited at all this weekend. If I do get around to installing it, I'll be sure to let you know, the problem being I can only try it out for 2-4 days at the most, since it means I lose popups on my work computer. WLU 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You could always easily change it back when you're at work and return it to HP at your home comp. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lazy man, too much work. I'll try to drag my lazy ass to edit my monobook tonight, if nothing else than to get you off my back :P The worst thing will be if HP works incredibly well, but I can't use it at work. Then I will curse the day you ever offerred it to me. WLU 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, It's sort of like a fighter jet. It works very well if you know how to use it and get used to it, However If you don't know what you're doing then it might get you into trouble. When you install it carefully look at all of the new buttons and tabs and test them on your usertalk page. Remember. Some tabs appear on the talk page and different ones on user talk and different ones on article pages, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Any news? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lo and behold, it appears to give me a whole bunch of extra functions at home, and act like popups at work - I may just have the best of both worlds. I haven't taken much time to play around with it yet, if I run into any issues I'll let you know. I do notice that I've got a bunch more tabs at the top of the page on my mac, I haven't really explored them yet. I think it requires a quit-restart of Firefox to work, apparently clearing the cache isn't enough. WLU 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. Remember that you need to increase your screen resolution to view all of the new tabs. Does Twinkle work? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know yet, I just noticed it this morning before I left for work, you'll have to ask me after I've had a chance to play with it more. To date, I have not noticed any screen resolution issues, either because the tabs are invisible, or my resolution is already adequate. WLU 15:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

,,You should import the script directly following the directions here:User:Wikidudeman/Hodgepodge because otherwise you won't get updates. I'm always adding new abilities and tools, I actually just added some today. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Controversies about functioning labels in the autism spectrum.

In view of your contributions to the Autism article, would you please comment at this AfD (if you have not already done so). I'm looking to close that AfD, but it seems to need more comment. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol

Here is an MD who not only describes the WP in his own words, but describes Wiley's thesis behind it. I suggest you add some of this material to the page and include it as a reference. http://www.centertm.com/default.asp?contentID=103 . This is a doctor who actually uses the protocol in his practice. There are quite a few now, but I'm only showing yuo websites that are authentic. Since I cannot add it and you are the only editor, your continuing refusal to acknowledge it is tantamount to censorship. Neil Raden 03:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs) Also, I sign in and use the 4 tildes, which inserts my signature, but I always get the sinebot message too. I have checked the documentation but cannot find a reason. Can you you help please? Neil Raden 15:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs)

The problem with SineBot is probably due to the lack of a link to your user page. Note above that all of my and Debv's signatures contain a wikilink to our user pages, thus, WLU, which looks like this in raw format [[User:WLU|WLU]]. I would guess that SineBot is adding the unsigned template because your signature lacks said link to a user page. If you go to 'my preferences' at the top of the page, and unclick the Raw signature box, I'm guessing SineBot will stop following you around. Alternately, you could tweak the text contained therein to include a link to your user page. Right now I'm guessing it just says Nraden when it should say [[User:Nraden|Nraden]], [[User:Nraden|Wiley fan]] or anything else after the piped link.

As for the weblink, I would never use that citation - there is no references used on the page, and the doctor 'gushes' far too much for my taste. It doesn't help that he's also pushing a bunch of other hormonal 'miracle' 'cures' like GH therapy and HOMEOPATHY, the single least-proven 'treatment' extant in the medical world. This highlights an overall problem with the Wiley Protocol - everything makes great sense when presented as a 'just so' story, but there's no testing or citations to back it up. The problem with the Wiley Protocol is that it is being promoted in popular literature outside of the scientific mainstream without any peer-reviewed testing or proof that I can find, bypassing the usual channels to produce reliable information consistent with the wikipedia policy. If Wiley were to actually do some double-blinded, peer-reviewed studies to test the protocol, then report them in a journal, there would be no problem. 'Innovative' theories 'ignored' by the scientific establishment are generally codewords for 'unproven and untested' and are often used to promote quackery. Scientific testing distinguishes between quackery and novel, useful therapeutic modalities. If the WP actually works, testing will inevitably show it, so be patient.

About the only thing I would be willing to say using that page would be to say that the WP is dosed to respond to lunar cycles. I can't even tease out what the doctor is saying versus what the actual WP says. If you really think the information should be in the page, take it to a WP:RFC, asking if the link is appropriate. If the RFC says it is OK, I'll put it up on the page. Though you have taken some steps recently to appropriately engage the community by speaking to admins, doing a good job of editing wikipedia to be in line with protocol and policies takes a significant investment of time. You can't just throw stuff up and expect people to do something with it. We're busy editors, and your approach doesn't exactly rub most of us (or at least me) the right way. Further:

There are quite a few now, but I'm only showing yuo websites that are authentic.

How do you measure authenticity? Is it based on comparison to the books? Having never read the books, I don't know if they're accurate or not, and you are not a reliable source, so I'm reluctant to take your word for it. Actually, you are less than a reliable source since you are Wiley's husband, and have a vested interest in the protocol selling well. If you had book reviews in reliable publications (even Time, CNN or newspapers), that would be a suitable source of information. Wikipedia publishes verifiability, not truth - we write what we can cite.

Since I cannot add it and you are the only editor, your continuing refusal to acknowledge it is tantamount to censorship

That's laughable, insulting, and is in no way increasing my interest in modifying the WP page in accordance with your interests. Were I to add said link to the page, I'd be opening the page up for equally unreliable sources to be added, such as information from wileywatch. And I don't think you would like that. Did you know you can do a RFC on users? If you'd really like, you can put in a RFC on my actions on the WP page, and see what they say. If my actions are supported, perhaps you'd consider not insulting me with jibes like 'censorship', bias and 'conflict of interest'. Your continual insistence on demanding what you would like to see done to the page, without bothering to refer to policy, are increasing my bias against you, though they aren't really changing how I feel about the page itself.

WLU 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about the sig, let's see if that solves it. The rest of your comments I find strange. OK, homeopathy, no clinical trials, I can see where you're coming from. So why not just say that? Here is what it is, it isn't proven. Instead, we load the page with negatives. There are thousands of women who feel differently about that, an observational trial started at a university and two MAJOR research universities vying for federal funds to study it big time. No other BHRT can say that. So go ahead, say it's unproven in clinical study, but at least allow it to be described adequately. Can't you find a way to do that without endorsing it? There is an adequate description in the Senate testimony. I'd be happy to give you a paragraph or two to work with if you'd rather do that. And BTW, I'm more interested in my wife's name not being defamed than I am in the commercial value of the protocol. And she is more interested in women's health than the commercial value. Neil Raden 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at Neil Raden's two latest comments on the Wiley Protocol talk page (dated Oct. 5)? By my reading of WP:NPA, these are both personal attacks on the grounds of "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." I would like to know what you think as you're more familiar with the policy and its application than I.

I have so far bridled my responses expecting that this sort of thing is not going to be tolerated by other editors. It appears that Wikidudeman is not currently interested in mediating the disputes on these pages -- perhaps his hands are full elsewhere -- leaving something of a vacuum.

Thank you. Debv 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see personal attacks so significant it could result in a block. Further, I am not an admin, and neither is WDM. We're regular editors with no special powers. You could bring it up to an admin, the WP page is pretty touchy for everyone. I trust User:Isotope23 and User:FisherQueen and they're usually on-line fairly frequently, but there's not enough there for any real action. The problem with Wiley is that there is no documented evidence by reliable sources of anything positive or negative that is firm enough for definitive statements, so everyone fights over the scraps of theory and counter-theory. Keep cool and suggest direct changes backed up by reliable sources. Raden's comments, if not backed by reliable sources, are never going up on the page. He can insult and challenge credibility/motivation all he wants, but he can't edit the page. WLU 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A section just for Wikidudeman and Hodgepodge

Because I know it's coming... I'll play with the current version a bit, then remind me in a week or so to try the upgrades. I reverted back to popups because wikipedia refuses to show me my watchlist, but I think it's unrelated and I'm going back to HP shortly. WLU 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Same problem here. Nothing to do with HP, It's fixed now. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Popups works for me so it should work for you, At least if you're using Firefox. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm getting this problem when HP/Popups was working fine this morning. This is on IE, where it was both working this morning, and not working now. I'll see what happens tomorrow morning, perhaps restarting my computer will magically fix it. I'll let you know. WLU 17:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Try importing Hodgepodge and clearing your cache, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, When I try HP on Internet explorer it doesn't work at all. The tabs don't show up, Nothing works. It's meant to be used only on firefox and that's it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Internal Linking

Hi there WLU once again, thanks for your cooperation you've been really helpful.

Now I have been looking for some info related to internal linking (linking articles), I wonder if it is OK to link every word that has an article related to the main article, I mean lets take menopause as an example.

If I do get to find "hot flashes" 4 times in the article, should I link them all??, should be the first one, I don't know. And I'm not even sure if it has a particular criteria.

Thanks.

JenniferFisher 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Best bet is to read for yourself, here and here.

If it's a small example of another full page, put in a {{main}} and link to the first instance of the word in the subsequent paragraph. Links should occur at least once per page, and for longer pages, duplicate links may be used if it is particularly relevant to the section or if it has been several sections since an earlier link. Think of it as a reader - you'll want a link for the first use of the word, and if it's a new or confusing concept, you may want to look it up again if you need a reminder of what was being discussed. Don't link them all, but the rest is context. Anything I say that is contradicted by policy, go with policy. In general, a good thing to do is look for a policy or a manual of style guideline. Note that medical articles have their own MOS guidelines. WLU 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pratchett sources

Thanks for the support, but I have no idea what User:Mystar's problem is, and I don't care enough to find out.--Per Abrahamsen 12:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I barred from commenting on that particular user ('arbitration' in my archive) and you don't have e-mail hooked up. I can't actually figure out what the Terry Pratchett dispute is about. WLU 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

CreepyCrawler sockpuppet

Stop vandalising my page and my work, WLU.

This is your last warning. I will report you if you do it again. Stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager Bogg (talk • contribs) 10:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New additions to talk pages should go at the bottom of pages, rather than the top. Please see WP:TALK for more details. WLU 10:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please make a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! WLU 11:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Voyager Bogg has been indef blocked. The Rambling Man 11:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I still make the report at WP:SSP? I don't mind the learning experience, but I also don't want to waste my time if its unnecessary. WLU 12:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Fantasy Worlds

Hi, reply is on my page. Please reply on my page. Thanks! Akiyama 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New reply on my page. Will be offline for a while, so do what you think best. I was really doing this mostly for my personal use (ideally, I would like a complete list of fantasy worlds, in chronological order, with links - so when I discovered that there was already a list on Wikipedia, I thought "hey, someone has done half the work for me, it just needs improving . . ."); if I really hate what you do with it, I suppose the archived version will always be there for me to look at, or move elsewhere (I have my own wiki at Wikidot), or use as the basis for a new edit! Akiyama 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's funny there's no explicit mention of it on WP:NOT, but I'm pretty sure the spirit is that wikipedia is not here as a personal resource. But you are correct, it will always be here. You could always use a sub page to work on the RPG pages or links before adding them to mainspace. WLU 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha!

I knew you were CIA WLU, ever since I saw that black helicopter flying over my house, dropping magic pixie dust to brainwash me into going to work and being a good member of the hive mind society! You never suspected, but the metal fillings in my teeth started acting as a Radio transmitter, and I picked up the secret CIA channel, where George Bush (senior) came on the channel and said "10-4 WLU, end mission Isosceles Triangle and return to Area 51". Jello Biafra was right about you!--Isotope23 ^talk 19:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

.

.

.

Perhaps you're thinking of another WLU...or you should lay off the pixie dust :)

From the hive mind, WLU 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

I've been wondering, but would you consider adopting me? Andy pyro 20:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure! My other adoptees seem to have dropped off the face of the internet so I've got the time. I'm hoping it's the natural attrition of wikipedia rather than something about me.

My first recommendation to you is to install popups as it's a huge time saver. Also, it's a very, very good investment of time to at least skim some policies - WP:5P, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NOT are all very, very handy. There is a simplified ruleset that is handyish, but eventually you should read the full policies. Also, deletion debates are a great way to familiarize yourself with policy and are kinda fun!

There's a whole series of steps to complete the adoption process - I can either do it for you or you can do it yourself (which is possibly a better learning experience). Mostly I exist to answer questions and provide feedback - that's seemed to help my previous adoptees the most. If you're still interested, let me know. WLU 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am still interested! Thank you for the recommendations! Oh, and I'm having trouble with popups. Do you have any recommendations for that? Thanks! Andy pyro 22:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, let me know what you'd like for a next step (including nothing at all)). Incidentally, the indentation level on talk pages is used to distinguish remarks from each other in time and user. Note that your comment I indented one more level to distinguish from mine above, and this one is an additional level more than yours. A different way of spacing comments is everyone sticks with a specific heading level (i.e. I would always post with no indent, you would use one), but it's much less common.

What problems are you having? I don't think I can edit your monobook directly, but I may be able to look at it. Note that popups is only one of several nav tools available. Some people use Twinkle, User:Wikidudeman has created his own called hodgepodge which mixes several and he's extremely eager to get feedback. WLU 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! I'm starting to understand now! I have the main idea of how to get popups, I think! Andy pyro 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

NGHS

There is truth is some articles such as on Nanyang Girls' High School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.89 (talk • contribs)

Then source it and stop just reverting. WLU 19:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Further - if it is a notably important bit of information and not just an attempt to put up information you consider amusing, it should appear on the school's website or other source. A source will mean an end to the back and forth reverting. Currently it just looks like you enjoy the information being on the page for God knows what reason, and given your contribution history with multiple warnings on your talk page, that means a very quick revert. Consider a) finding a source and b) getting an account. WLU 19:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hodgepodge

You should just try importing it directly, opposed to copying everything in the file itself. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what that means, do you have a wikilink to spare me the time?

FYI, I'm having a go at your editor review. It's tough. WLU 14:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You could follow the directions here: User:Wikidudeman/Hodgepodge. Or simply do this:

1. Remove everything from your monobook file.

2. Add this to it:

//
 
// [[User:Wikidudeman/wikidudemandeluxe.js]]      
importScript('User:Wikidudeman/wikidudemandeluxe.js');
 
//

3. Save it.

4. Hold "Shift" and press reload while holding shift until the page is done reloading. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, and try it tonight. Will I be able to revert between popups and HP using undo? I may have to switch depending on if I'm using IE or FF. WLU 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That has done some weird things to my tabs, and I've lost popups again. I'll try to keep you posted on what comes out tonight. WLU 16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Popups works with it. It should work as well, but Twinkle rollbacks and reverts are a lot faster. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry WDM, at least with IE popups do not work, and I've yet to access the Twinkle functions. I'll have a gander at home. WLU 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to be on firefox. This is how it should look. It's a screenshot. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to be, but until work OK's the installation of FF (not going to happen), I'm stuck with two different browsers. Hopefully I'll have some good things to say after I try it out tonight. From what I've seen at home, it does look pretty useful. WLU 16:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Dear WLU, Many people have tried to engage in discussion with Jfdwolff on his "vandalism" of the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis page, with constant redirects to the CFS page. Please see Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis - I was updating this as you reverted my changes... Kmclellan 01:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I trust Jfdwolff, an admin with whom I've had many dealings, far more than a redlinked user who verges on a single purpose account and thinks the RFC is a vote. If ME and CFS are distinct entities, reference it in reliable sources or attempt to find a consensus rather than reverting and reverting and reverting. Reliable sources will be far more useful than debating. If the problems are not documented in reliable sources, it is possible that it is premature, or original research to insist on a position that is not held by the majority of researchers. Better is to discuss the controversy, documenting with reliable sources, on the talk page, or perhaps draw up a draft on a subpage and have discussion there. I've yet to see anything that convinced me there is a need for two articles. WLU 11:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Malazan

I think we should go through the characters and write their story since no other site has in great length. However, how do we determine who is fit and who is not; for example, Withal he forges the sword for the Crippled God and is a living survivor of the third city of Meckros, but is a fairly minor character. Or Kulp who is a squad mage and sends the Coastal Guard for Heboric. Thus, who is worth to be on the page?

Also how do you create new pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krmarshall (talk • contribs) 03:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The major characters or groups can be given their own pages, such as The Bridgeburners and Anomander Rake. Dancer already has his own page for instance. Other characters can be combined into single pages, like the Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen have been. The page would probably be called Minor characters in the Malazan Book of the Fallen. It'd doubtless be a very, very long page. You could look at what has been done for other books for examples by the way (i.e. check out the pages that link to A Song of Ice and Fire. Don't look at The Sword of Truth pages, they look like they were written by illiterate fifth graders. Withal and Kulp would be good candidates for 'minor characters', while Heboric would be a main one.

New pages are created in one of two ways:

• If a redlink exists on a page, click on the red link and it opens a new window with its own edit pane. Start editing and save per normal. You could star The Bridgeburners page using the above redlink.
• Type in the name of the page; make sure you use proper capitalization per the capitalization guidelines. There will be two redlinks at the top of the page, one following "You searched for:", the other that says "You can create this page". Click on either link and edit as normal.

Also, it's always handy to have guidelines. WP:BOOK has guidelines for books I think, and as I said, the other pages work as guides. Pick good ones though, ASOIAF I've been quite impressed with as I said above. Plus, it's always good to review wikipedia policies, like WP:FICT for fictional pages, and the WP:5P in general. WLU 11:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to sign your posts and it would probably be handy to review the talk page guidelines - they make it much easier to understand communication on talk pages. WLU 11:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was Kimloc's song invested into the shell that Fiddler was given that started the 'singing', once broke, which both Kalam and 'Strings' heard. That is the same book in which the Bridgeburners came back to fight as ghosts. Also heres a quote from Deadhouse Gates, "There is in a Tano song the potential for Ascendancy...". However, in MoI Paran does say, "All right, it's probably far too late. But I bless you, one and all." (p 765, TOR softback) Krmarshall 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but wasn't the song responsible for them being able to fight as ghosts, while it was Paran's blessing that boosted them to ascendancy? The two events were contemporaneous in the Malazan timeline. I'll have to re-read sections to be sure (if I make the time), and it's always possible that the question can't be answered, now or ever. I think the answer could be found in Bonehunters when Paran calls them out of lake Raraku perhaps, in Paran's conversation with Hedge. The tano song has the potential, but so does the blessing of the Master of the Deck. Unfortunately, encyclopedia malazica is silent on this from what I can find. Too bad we don't have Erikson to ask. WLU 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict - the Paran thing from MoI is what I remember as being resp. WLU 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement

Hey WLU,

Thanks for complementing me on fixing a typo rather than vandalizing a page:

It's nice to see someone who is actually correcting a typo rather than just using it as an excuse for vandalism :) WLU 00:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and it's nice to know that there's a community of people like you that are somehow able to stay sane and welcome new users through the explosion of WP. I try to put back what I get in by doing small edits for clarity or grammar (I like linguistics), but it's also nice to know that there are some heavy lifters around, too.

Thanks,

Justin

Your new Status Template

I've fixed your Status page for you. I created User:WLU/StatusTemplate, which is required for it to work. I used the same style as mine, You can change it if you want. Now it looks like this opposed to simply having a redlink saying "Status template" as it did before. I also put it on your userpage for you. Feel free to revert it or remove it if you want. Or you can ask me how to put it somewhere else or change it's style, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gracias. I may remove it simply because my time on wikipedia tends to be rather unpredictable and I'm almost certainly going to forget about updating it. I appreciate having the option though, thanks for the fix. WLU 13:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I frequently forget also. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My Bad

Taylor423 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC) I apologize for sticking my neck in where it doesn't belong, at least not yet. New user. My boss was tired of incorrect info appearing on the page and wants to fix it. However, while our publications are referenced, our website does not list its references. So we have decided to reference our website properly and attain HON certification before making changes to this site. I will have to learn proper protocol. Again, apologies. Lots to learn here. Thanks for being understanding.

This changes things significantly. If it is your website, you should not be adding it in the first place, per our conflict of interest guidelines. If the information on the page is incorrect, you, as a citizen or editor, can correct it through referral to relaible sources. As a representative of an organization however, editing to conform to your point of view is a violation of our policy on a neutral point of view. If your publications are referenced, they could be added by another editor if they are found to be accurate and pass review. But not by you.

Your signature should also appear at the end of your statement. It's less important than the above policies, it just makes it easier for other editors.

Finally, fibromyalgia, like many diseases and conditions, is a very powerful topic for many people, and can lead to biased editing, or edit warring. Please review the five pillars of wikipedia, as well as the policies on conflict of interest, reliable sources, neutral point of view and the talk page guidelines - it will make it easier on your future contributions. Also, WP:FRINGE may be appropriate to look at, depending on how main-stream your organizations approach to FM is. WLU 17:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not my MY website. I was just asked to figure out Wikipedia and edit . The journal this woman produces is medically reviewed, written and referenced from research articles on PubMed relating to fibromyalgia. I don't think she will have any problem with content and referencing. Personally, I am only concerned about some of the things I read on that website. They are not correct. The first thing I noted was reference No.1."It is not contagious, and recent studies suggest that people with fibromyalgia may be genetically predisposed.[1]" but the link to ref 1 goes to nothing that references this statement. However, there is "some" evidence of genetic predisposition, and as an editor I would place the proper reference to the research, but I am afraid to do this. I know that's what this website is all about, but who am I going to piss off in the process.? Taylor423 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your statement still puts you in WP:COI, enormously so. Incidentally, try this page of the pamphlet, which does indeed justify the statement - my guess would be people linked to the 'whole pamphlet' rather than the sub-page for ease of referencing - you have to read a couple pages to get to that particular bit of info, but by using the start page, you can reference the whole pamphlet. Not the best solution, but one that makes sense to me. (If the link is kaput, go through the pamphlet until you get to the page entitled "What Causes Fibromyalgia". If you have pubmed articles, particularly 2007 ones, that justify the statement better, add them. No-one is going to be pissed off by the addition of peer-reviewed sources from pubmed. Use this link, all you need is the pubmed id, put it between <ref></ref> tags next to the statement it is justifying, and you shouldn't piss anyone off. The sincere addition of good information won't make anyone mad, they'll just use it to improve the article and fix any mistakes you make. Be sure to use talk pages however, part of why I was pissed off was because you kept reverting without discussing, despite repeated messages to your talk page. If you want to frustrate people, ignore their messages unless the threaten to block you - it's frustrating for me and makes ME look bad. WLU 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not intended. Just ignorance on my part. All excellent suggestions. It Can be a good informational site. thanks Taylor423 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bridgeburners

Thanks for your note. I looked at the article again, and it looks much better. Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Lovely, glad to have an outside opinion. WLU 17:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon comment

Thank you so much for responding and the suggestions. (here_) I appreciate your response and I am not offended. By the way, you mentioned you are his former adopter? What does that mean? 99.225.102.106 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a program that is designed to help new users learn quickly and integrate more smoothly with the wikipedia community at large. It's at WP:ADOPT. I basically provided suggestions, looked over edits, and generally tried to help them learn what every wikipedian knows, but faster. Then two months later they drop out of the project and I never hear from them again :) Something about me I guess. WLU 04:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Henckels comment

We get a lot of people who ask about the friodur ice hardening process that is used in manufacturing some of henckels knives. would it be ok to post information about how this process is accomplished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgioacchini (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When you say 'we', does that mean your employer, J.A. Henckels? WLU 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, J.A. Henckels. Wikipedia is a great place to post this kind of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgioacchini (talk • contribs)

You just stated that you are employed by Henckels, and are editing the wikipedia page. Cease immediately. Read WP:COI. WLU 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you're confused? I don't work for J.A. Henckels. They are located in Germany. I'm editing a page about J.A. Henckels. I work in Irvington, NY at an Internet startup, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. We bought some knives from Henckels months ago and my boss's brother in California was interested in more information. Apparently their website was not specific enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgioacchini (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the spamming concerns, as my own company also has issues with that. My information came from the Henckels webpage and the brochures that came with the product. I found this information on the website http://usa.jahenckels.com/index.php?simple_view=15 . That's all I was going to add. I do think it's kind of crazy and paranoid to remove my posting abilities. I never knowingly posted anything in violation, and have tried to follow the rules. In addition to the Henckels page, I've contributed to many wiki pages in cooperation with other users, never had this issue. Personally I have no interest in Henckels, it was more of a minor request from my boss and a chance to work on some type of editorial content. As a side note, the knives are pretty good though, we got a Four Star set here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgioacchini (talk • contribs) 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

High Houses

I was thinking it would actually be a lot easier this way rather than make small pages for each character. but for:

High House Shadow

High House Shadow is a House of the Deck of Dragons in the fantasy series the Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson. The House encompasses both a list of Ascendants occupying specific roles within the house, as well as Meanas, the realm of Shadow. High House Shadow has been a realm of conflict and turmoil for millenia, and contains the chained remains of many beings who have attempted to claim its thrown.

Inhabitants

Within the Deck of Dragons

• King (Shadowthrone/Ammanas)
• Queen
• Assassin (The Rope/Cotillion)
• Magi (Iskaral Pust)
• Knight (Trull Sengar)
• Hound (The Hounds of Shadow)
• Apprentice
• Mistress (Vorcan Radok)

Demons

• Apt, an three-legged, single-eyed Aptorian demon
• Artorallah, an undescribed race of demons capable of buidling boats
• Azalan, a type of demon sometimes used by Cotillion for tasks; intelligent, multi-limbed and extremely fast

That is 6 characters into one page with a redirect on the original Cotillion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krmarshall (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That would acutally work pretty well... you could link the characters within each house to the subheading within the specific house page as well. The link for Iskaral Pust is completely wrong by the way - the mention in that section is very brief, and doesn't really help people understand his role. I'd just leave it blank for now.

Oh, and please sign your posts, just to get sinebot off your back :) WLU 17:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the above changes? We'd have to figure a way of working in the characters, I think each could in turn be made into a heading, with a brief description and links to {{main}} articles for Cotillion, Shadowthrone, Trull and the Hounds. WLU 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

High House Death

• King (Hood)
• Queen
• Knight (Baudin)
• Magi
• Herald (formerly Gethol)
• Soldier (formerly the Seguleh Second)
• Spinner
• Mason (formerly Whiskyjack)
• Virgin (formerly Sorry-Apsalar)

Krmarshall 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Good stuff; include less detail so it avoids the in-universe tag, is comprehensible to non-MBOTF readers, and avoid speculation. The Mason bit is kinda flamboyant too. Also, rather than using my page as a building-site, could you use a sub page instead? On your talk or main page, create an entry User:Krmarshall/Malazan sub-page, and start putting stuff there; leave me notes on my talk page when you think you'd like feedback on the entries. Also, don't forget to put the {{MBF}} template on all Malazan pages - it makes it easier to find them and they should be standard. WLU 17:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I pasted over your text 'cause of an edit conflict and I don't have time right now to look over the changes. Have a look, and please note my suggestion of using a sub-page as I do need my talk page for other things :) Also, good job signing, it's a good habit to get into. WLU 17:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok i figure we can combine the realm and High House Structure.Krmarshall 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What we really need is a description of the houses and/vs realms somewhere, but unfortuantely Erikson has been rude enough to delay the encyclopedia until after the books are published. Tsk. Shameful really. WLU 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Individual pages

I believe that we need to put as much character information on the High House pages, for if we make new pages for every single character how would we group them? Books, no since they are a page themselves. um...maybe by plotlines. But where does that leave Kellanved's family and the Tiste b/c there are already pages that touch on some of this but not all of it, kinda. Write up some ideas, lemme know. Also i havent finished the Bridgeburners page yet. Krmarshall 03:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also the Baudin thing was an oops.

"...should be restricted to individuals in their roles as extra info for most of the characters is better placed in their own articles, without speculation"

• its not necessarily speculation with Sorry/Aspalar. Its analyzing the data.
  
  

also if "the wording should be in keeping with WP:TONE." means my wordiness, i just like to get all the details in. If its informal writing, i'm sorry. That's where you come in ;)

Krmarshall 04:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To my mind (and I don't think there's a real policy on this, it's just for the most uniform presentation that makes sense) the High House pages should be most exclusively about the High Houses and Deck of Dragons information. For characters that appear exclusively in their role of (whatever) in High House (whatever), such as the Seguleh Second, the detail can be slightly more since we know nothing about him except that his role is as the 2nd. For other characers that have a role beyond their House role, they should either have their own page, or be rolled into the 'minor characters' page. I'm not sure what you would mean about 'grouping pages' - do you mean in the {{MBF}} template? Or what's been done with the Bridgeburners? Basically if there's a logical grouping (like the Bridgeburners), we can put them in that. If they're really important (like Rake), they get their own page. If they don't really fit in any 'grouping', they should go in the eventually-created Minor characters in the Malazan Book of the Fallen page. Which I might work on today. We don't have to cram everyone into categories if they don't fit, it's perfectly acceptable in my mind to have a 'catch all' page.

Since it's wikipedia, we know we'll be expanding and are capable of expanding the coverage of the books. We don't have to have all the information up right now or cram it into existing pages. It could be temporarily placed on the talk page until it's ready to be integrated for instance.

The tone editing (thanks for leaving me the fun stuff by the way, nothing like proofreading to make your day exciting :P) is why I remove information that seems jarring. Don't worry, most of the info will make it onto a page in some form or another, but it's not necessary to include, oh, say, a description of every single weapon carried by the Soldier of Death. Anyway, it'll work itself out I suppose, I shouldn't micromanage as it takes the joy out of it. Good work to date, it's nice to have someone else working with the Malazan pages as it gives me motivation to expand them myself. WLU 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tiste Characters

I created a Tiste Characters page since there are only 20 Tiste characters with half of them nearly one sentence characters. Just thought i'd let you know and you could go from there. Also i thought we could break the minor characters into groups (for example Lethers, The 14th Army, Paran's Host, etc)

Also, I would like to thank you for helping out with this. I am rereading the series and starting on MoI i've been writing brief notes to myself so i can help more on the site. I'm currently on MT so i might be more focused there. Once again, thanks. Krmarshall 05:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i was really tired when i created the page, so i didn't go back for the extra spaces. Was gonna do that today.Krmarshall 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I mostly pass along tidbits like this to spare us time in the future - easier to make sure you know about the policies and formatting in advance than spend time correcting stuff. WLU 17:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for Pyridine Edit

When I read the talk page on Vaginal Lubrication, I saw that many were writing sceptically about the presence of pyridine as a "toxic" and "carcenogenic" substance in vaginal secretion. Nobody seemed to make a direct response to such questioning people, so I decided to make as best a response as I could make, hoping to settle things. By the way, one of the sources was from gynecologist Dr. Elizabeth Stewart (Vagasil). I was not attempting to spam Paul Spinrad. Though, much of what I wrote was not really original research, I would accept its deletion if the edit was vain and unnecessary. Richontaban 19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya, but since talk pages aren't here to reassure people or respond to questions, there's no real need. And nothing there appears to deal with improvements or changes to the main page, which is the main, or really only purpose of a talk page.

And a webpage, even to a self-proclaimed gynecologist, is a very tenuous reliable source. All my postings and comments were mostly to suss out if you were a vandal or not, and by your replies, you aren't. So I'm not worried or doing anything. I would have concerns were you adding it to the main page, but you don't appear to be, so everything's kosher. WLU 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks WLU for informing me about the reference desk. I'll use it on a seldom basis to ask or answer questions from now on. Richontaban 20:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

De nada. Actually, answering questions is exactly what the RD is for, so that's a great page to work on if you like answering questions. WLU 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Links to stress

Yes, I added these links and use them on several pages on rheology, viscosity etc. Term normal stress has different names in different disciplines, such as extensional stress in rheology, longitudinal stress in Acoustics. I hope this clarifies the purpose. User:AndreiDukhin, October 22, 5:23 PM —Preceding comment was added at 21:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Blade

Honestly, I've tried to write stuff for the Malazan pages, but I just can't ever make anything that satisfies me. It's just such a massive series, and I don't have all my copies anymore, so fact checking would be a total terror for me. I'll stick to my Matt Stover articles for now, I think. If this new guy wants to viciously attack articles with gusto and chutzpah, let 'im. Or 'er, as it may be. Howa0082 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keen Footwear

Thanks for cleaning up the references, not to mention thanks for the welcome! :-) It's been strangely hard to find published articles that support this, but Keen really is a big brand of shoes. I see them on people's feet all summer long, and they consistently get top billing in catalogs like REI. Other companies, like Lands' End, produce knock-off's of their most recognizable shoes. Of course, these observations don't exactly fit the letter of WP:CORP. I'm sure that the right kind of article is out there, though. I just don't know any tricks for finding them, when the Google results are full of retailers and blogs. Thanks again! Samosa Poderosa 03:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

El Gisho

I am working on the addition to the article about Gish's claims regarding science in general. I will put it in the talk section once I get it to a reasonable level. You make a good point about having a general section about his claims rather than just the one about the 2nd law. Cheers!!! Baegis 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm awesome. Thanks for the heads-up. I'd suggest working with our red-linked user on said section, or at least alerting him, as he may be interested in the process even if his contributions are somewhat...optimistic? WLU 18:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Creepy Crawler

Thanks for the info. I've seen his "barefoot" edits pop up a few times before. Quite annoying. Kusonaga 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith

I know, I know, I know, I know, I know.....I just get so irritated so quickly with troll's mental capacity. If you can't tie your own shoes, you shouldn't be helping write WP. C'est la vie. Baegis 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oui, c'est vrai, mais votre impatience ne nous aide pas. Pardon my bad French. Also note that comments like the above, in sufficient quantity, can get you blocked. The best reply to an irritating contributor, regardless of the page, is a good source. True trolls will be blocked, sincere contributors will become one of us :) I've my own bugbear, it's something you have to live with 'cause arbitration is painful, time consuming and tends to get you blocked from editing the pages dear to your heart. WLU 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't know about the citation template. Thank you, I'll have a look. Yes, it took me two edits to move it because I was editing only one section at a time. Simple edits are slowed when there are references involved; not easy to be clean quick.Professor marginalia 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• More: Thanks again, I'll try to figure that one out too. It would be better in the footnote.Professor marginalia 00:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Level of support for evolution

thanks for your effort in making that article better. Keep up the good work. Northfox 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I rule. WLU 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)