User talk:Wdford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

These are the cynical tactics being used against you. Be aware. Don't be played.[edit]

talk page notes - originally removed by vandals wanting to hide racist tactics heing used[edit]

You insert your content, but they remove it. You remove [blank]-ist dogma, they put it back. You have no choice but to perform on them what is called a revert. When other editors continue to remove your content, and you stand tall against them, you are in a revert war.

There will certainly be many users of the opposite ideology. Worse still are the "neutrals" (crypto-[blank]-ists in fact, even if they don't know it!). These users have an ideology even more extreme and yet more sinister than your ideological opposites: adherence to that nonsense, WP:NPOV. Those spoil-sports can be a real nuisance, as they can be harder to bait and harder to discredit. On the plus side, they are unlikely to care as much, so doggedness may be all you need here.

But don't worry, if you follow a few simple rules, you can prevail in most revert wars and in most editorial conflict, and thus spread the faith to your heart's content.

Basic strategy[edit]

With the sword and the faith, wikipedia can be yours!
  1. Know the editorial background and don't pick a fight you can never win. Sometimes you won't know which other users will have these pages on their watchlist. If too many users will object strongly, you can never win. In this case it's probably better not to fight in the first place. All you will gain is some unwanted fame and maybe a block or two.
  2. Do not violate WP:3RR, otherwise your opponent can have you blocked, and will thus be free to have his or her version of the particular page or pages for at least the length of your block. Being blocked also increases the chances of future admin intervention coming down against you.
  3. Be dogged. Persist as far as you can and never give up. If you persist longer than your opponent, you will win. Revert-war stamina will bring victory.

Intermediate tactics and gambits[edit]

  1. Know that the initiator has the advantage! Insertion of new content is not a revert. If your opponent inserts something first, this doesn't count as a revert. It goes like this: OPPONENTEDIT -> YOURREVERT1 -> OPPPONENTREVERT1 -> YOURREVERT2 -> OPPONENTREVERT2 -> YOURREVERT3 -> OPPONENTREVERT3 -> YOUR3RRVIOLATION. OPPONENT thus wins because OPPONENT moved first. SO then, if revert and counter-revert follow, your opponent will be emerge with an advantage. Your opponent will always win within any 24-hour cycle. If the reverting happens quickly, your daily allowance of reverts could be over in minutes. You must therefore pick your revert timing carefully. And know that the above rule can actually be used to your advantage. As WP:3RR concerns the reversion of any content, you can bleed your opponent's allowance away by insertion of different content. You can never violate WP:3RR by adding new content. Make an edit you know your opponent won't like. If he reverts it, you can add different content your opponent also won't like. If you do this three times and are reverted three times, your opponent is out of reverts for the day, and you can safely restore your preferred version.
  2. Buffer your reverts and make boring edits also count! After you've performed a major revert to your opponent, make a number of small basic edits improving the language or formatting of the article. Do as many of these as you can, preferably in separate edits. Then if your opponent reverts you, they will either have the added work of adding your small edits back or mass reverting you. I.e. you can either waste their time (more than you'll waste performing them) or make them look bad to any admin or commentator.
  3. Know your opponent's schedule. Most human beings sleep for around 8 hours each day. If you know when that will occur for your opponent, revert them just after their sleep probably begins, and you will have the whole sleep with the right version. Additionally, the opponent may have other regular hours he or she spends away from wikipedia. If you know those too, you'll be in an even better position.

Protecting yourself against forces of nature[edit]

Beware of RanSAI, random sanctimonious admininstrative intervention. This force of nature is unpredictable, and could come along at any time. As a result, you have to ensure you are as prepared as possible.

  1. Make an appearance of using the talk page now and then. This will ameliorate the bad appearance of "edit warring" in any random admin's eyes.
  2. Try to appear to follow wikipedia guidelines on editorial interaction, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Serious violations of these are considered by many trigger-happy admins to be blockable offenses in their own right, and they also increase the chances of being blocked for edit warring by reducing the admin's sympathy for you.
  3. Be as subtley discourteous towards your opponent as possible. This may require detailed knowledge of the opponent's character, but if pulled off can be very rewarding. Causing your opponent offense and frustration without obviously doing so can make them violate WP:CIVIL with no loss to yourself. Your opponent will be discredited, and if blocked, you will be allowed to edit unopposed and retain your own preferred versions of pages for at least the length of the block.
  4. If a RanSAI does occur, try to get in the admin's good-books as quickly as you can. Appeal to the admin's self-righteousness. This may mean apologizing immediately for any offence you "may have caused". Try at least to seize the initiative, and if you see it coming, get to the admin before your opponent does. You can even, if your opponent has violated WP:CIVIL (or even if he hasn't), collect some diffs and bring it to the admin's attention. If new to the situation, the admin will probably take the view that things have just got heated, so you should say this before the admin does and suggest that you "probably need to cool down".
  5. Once RanSAI has occurred, it is likely that the intensity of your opponent's opposition will die down for a while. You should be very careful about how you take advantage of this, as the admin may still be watching. One approach in many cases is to bombard the admin with more info than he or she will be interested in reading or be able to process. This will at least discourage some other admins from fresh interference, and it may even cause the de facto end to the entire RanSAI, leaving you once again one-on-one.

Wikiculture and dealing with neutral "experts"[edit]

David hoists the severed head of Goliath.

The good news is that on wikipedia, despite being an encyclopedia, knowledge is egalitarian, discipline is not. This is one of your biggest advantages. The enforcers of wikipedia policy, its administrative class, are unlikely to be a big deal to you, as long as you aren't too clumsy. Admins enforce disciplinary policies, not encyclopedic policies. Yes WP:NPOV is in theory a policy, but they won't have any knowledge of your pet-topics or much interest in them, being primarily a collection of seasoned vandal-fighters and talk-loving, action-shy mandarins. The only policies taken seriously in general and in practice are policies concerning behaviour and discipline. With encyclopedic information, all you need to prevail are numbers! Thus, even if some "neutral" has more knowledge than you, you can still make him your bitch.

  1. When engaged in a revert-war with this "expert", bombard him with endless posts on the talk page. If he makes any arguments which are hard to refute, well, just skip over them in your response and they are as good as nullified (who else is reading, after all!). He then may do one of the following. 1) Get tired and go away ... good! 2) Ignore you and continue reverting ... in which case you can try to have him blocked for revert-warring without discussion. 3) Get frustrated and become "uncivil" ... again, have some champagne, you can get him blocked.
  2. Bog him down. The "expert" doesn't have a lot of time, and probably wants to do something else. With all the time you have, with any luck you can drive him into the ground and away from your issues and perhaps from wikipedia.
  3. Tag sentences elsewhere. Staying with the theme of time-wasting, check out some of this "expert"'s other articles and see if they have many sentences in "need" of citations. Stick some tags on them, especially if the article in question was written long ago. Either your "expert" will need to find and write out a bunch of citations, killing loads of his time, or your "expert" will, knowing he can never prove you've only done this in bad faith, get frustrated, lose his restraint and perhaps get himself closer to that block or warning you're after.
  4. Find brothers-of-the-faith. With proper use of email, instant messenger, talk pages and "project pages", you can overwhelm with numbers. After all, it's all a numbers game, and three brothers alone will can nullify one "expert" in a revert war without performing more than one revert. With the recent advent of blind anti-"edit-warring" ideology in the admin community, he has no chance. If he continues to try to enforce WP:NPOV (even if he is an admin!), you can bust his sorry ass into blockville. You can revert, he must edit-war. He can spend all his wiki-time pouring his little heart and brain into the talk pages, and, as long as you or one of your friends "responds" occassionally, you can watch and laugh knowing your article is safe!
  5. If the above doesn't work, you can always create brothers-of-the-faith. This means creating sockpuppets, new usernames which you control. You can create, in theory, as many as you like. If you think this is wrong, then just remember it's merely a small wrong which you are using to overcome a greater wrong! Whenever you need a friend to add extra weight to a discussion, or just that one more revert, your new friend or friends will definitely be there for you. You can even close votes and create your own WP:Consensus from time to time, when the issue is important enough. The downside is that if you do this too often, you'll create suspicion which may lead to a checkuser discovering your holy misdemeanors. The upside on that is that if you are careful and use your new friends conservatively, it will take months, maybe even years, and a lot of work, to find you out. If you are careful enough, perhaps even never. And even if they do, you can start again from scratch!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/How_to_win_a_revert_war Thatmanbolt (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


User talk:Master of Puppets[edit]

I also kill puppies and kittens[edit]

You forgot that in your personal attacks. --Ari (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is in reference to.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
One of Ari's favourite ploys when his POV is opposed, is to create the false impression that his opposer is contravening WP:Uncivil. He repeats the lie over and over through the course of the talk page discussion, in the hopes that a less-than-diligent admin will get the impression from his own comments that he is being attacked. When I didn't bite this time, he tried to stir things up by posting this inflammatory heading and comment on my talk page. Sad, really. Wdford (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds sad. BTW what do you think of Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Getting_a_handle_on_the_various_definitions_.28again.29? As I point out if you go through the archive you see these points raised again and again by other editors and IMHO confusion abounds as to just what the Christ Myth Theory really is. Another part of the problem is that on occasion the reliable sources totally flub it. Schweitzer in 1931 including James George Frazer with John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith and Arthur Drews as well as nearly everybody except Van Voorst missing the boat regarding Wells post-Jesus Myth position are two main examples.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand your frustration re the definitions. However, there seems to be considerable consensus (although not unanimity) that the Christ Myth Theory holds that "The Jesus of the Gospels was not a historical person". This still allows for the possibility that there may have been arbitrary other holy men named Jesus in the area around that time (Jesus was after all a common name, and being a holy man was a common occupation). The CMT also allows for the possibility that various historical events and actions may have been falsely ascribed to the Mythical Jesus by various subsequent writers for various reasons. Lastly, we need to guard against allowing the definition of the CMT to be fudged by the possibly-ulterior writings of an uninformed/biased writer who may have been deliberately trying to muddy the waters. Wdford (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually there seems to ambiguity in the Christ Myth Theory regarding "the possibility that there may have been arbitrary other holy men named Jesus in the area around that time". In the three sources that break up the historical Jesus spectrum into four categorizes (Remsburg, Dan Barker, and Boyd-Eddy) we have what I called "The Gospel Jesus is a "pure myth" ie a total fiction with no more historical basis than Osiris or Zeus" position that after going through the "The Gospel Jesus story is so mythologized that all trace of an actual man has been lost (Jesus agnosticism)" position turns into the minimalist position (ie a first century Jesus existed but the connection to the Gospels is basically nil).
The problem as best demonstrated by Remsburg is that some minimalists will use the exact same arguments the "pure" Christ Myth theorists use with the only difference being that the minimalists say that odds are there was a flesh and blood 1st century teacher involved. It is clear that the various definitions we have don't agree and that some were created to strawman more mainstream argument that the Gospels are largely mythical and only a small portion of them is historical. Personally I agree with those editors that feel the whole article is big WP:CFORK and should be merged with either Quest for the historical Jesus or Historicity of Jesus if only to end the endless politicking that has gone on with the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh on a side note I am creating a new FAQ User:BruceGrubb/CMT_Material/FAQ to try and help the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Information.svg Hey there Wdford, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Wdford. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please slow down[edit]

Bill the Cat 7's Talk page is not a reliable source. You're adding a ton material to Historicity of Jesus at a very fast pace, and not much of it is discussed. Can you reply to my concerns about your edits to the Gospels section? Noloop (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean that you don't consider them reliable sources. Wikipedia does. There are even quotes in the list on my page that are from proponents of the CMT. Are they not reliable sources to you too? LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wdford. You have said on the HoJ talk page that the reliability of the NT is questionable and the reader should be informed. I totally agree. Do you think it would be enough to say that the established view on Jesus is a hypothesis? Bertil Ablrektson, an Old Testament scholar has said this. I would rather like to see what you suggest.-Civilizededucationtalk 11:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wdford. Best regards. The gospels look like fairy tales with impossible contradictions. I know of this from Bart Ehrman. There are videos of him on his website in which he debates someone and asserts that the gospels are not historically reliable documents. Do you think this could be useful? There are some more videos on You Tube.-Civilizededucationtalk 16:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I am quite amazed by your explaination of "when analyzed critically". Actually I too find this phrase irritating. I couldn't quite crystallize the reasons for my irritation. Maybe because I couldn't see what it means and maybe because it hints that I am a layman who couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of the issues involved and should simply accept what (biased) scholars say. This left me unsatisfied. Your explanation has provided many answers to me.-Civilizededucationtalk 03:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Great work simplifying the lead by the way. Thank you, Vesal (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was removed quite fast.-Civilizededucationtalk 16:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Great Sphinx of Giza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Early Dynastic Period (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ancient Egyptian race controversy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Arab Egypt
Taurids (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tunguska

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Sphinx water erosion hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NOVA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of proper sources per policy[edit]

Please do not add sources to Wikipedia that run against WP:V. This source you added does not relate to the subject and is a product spec. The same applies to this source. These are clearly not discussing the topic, and your reliance on them runs against WP:V, for you are arguing for "truth". Please read WP:V "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth". Please self-revert and remove those improper sources now. History2007 (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I noted that you again edited the page and kept the product specifications and referred to truth/falsehood. You have no references for your edit and are clearly, clearly running against WP:V. That is clear. You need to delete those product specifications. And again, you need to read WP:V about the use of sources. History2007 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, now you deleted the specs, but deleted sources and added unsourced content! You need to read WP:RS now then correct the situation. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war avoidance[edit]

Please avoid an edit war by repeatedly changing sentences around while the subject is bing discussed. You are adding unsourced items, deleting sourced items, and adding statements that are not supported by the sources. I have not reverted you to avoid an edit war. Do not invite an edit war, for I will not take part in it but will seek other suitable remedies. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources that fail verification[edit]

I am sorry, but I am getting tired of telling you about the proper use of sources. Now you have added sources that clearly fail to support the statements being made by you. This type of source addition needs to stop. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

DRN discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

AE race controversy[edit]

Started a discussion at WP:NPOVN, quoted you there but I'll remove that if you wish. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bismarck[edit]

The sentence is about the destruction of the ship, not the forces arrayed against it. The paragraph already makes clear that the British assigned considerable forces to hunt down and destroy Bismarck. More detail is unnecessary for the introduction. As for the "capture" bit, having it there unqualified in any way gives the false impression that the British intended on capturing the ship, and fully explaining the issue requires too much space and does not belong in the lead section. Please stop edit-warring and discuss the issue, either here or on the article talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

After the tough slog that it was, I think this is in order:

Starhalf Hires.png The Half Barnstar
For helping make improvements to the Bismarck article, many thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you - this is most unexpected. Wdford (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not one for grudges - think we should close the DRN thread? I don't know the exact procedure, but it doesn't look like we're going to need their help. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I have no idea how it works either, but I assume that if all parties say they are working smoothly again then nobody up there will argue? Wdford (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd guess so. I already left a note saying we were working on a compromise solution, so you might want to confirm that everything is worked out. I think we can then leave it to them to archive or delete the section as they see fit. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
It's done. Wdford (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I realized that we hadn't done anything with the Wreckage section yet, so I went ahead and made some changes. I didn't add much, just collected the relevant statements into one paragraph at the end. See if that looks good to you. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black Egyptian Hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Typological (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DRN discussion 2[edit]

You are cordially invited to comment here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Lütjens[edit]

Would you be so kind as to review the section Günther Lütjens#Legacy for me? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have done my best, and I have moved the film para to the top because of chronological sequence. However its not clear to me the sequence of events around the christening scandal, and Schroeder's comments. Please recheck that I have done it correctly? Wdford (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, the exact sequence is impossible to derive from the Spiegel article. It looks good as it stands now. Thanks againMisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

SILVER SOL[edit]

hello, silver sol is a variant of colloidal silver. Thats how the company which invented it refers to it in their approved us patent. I have seen some editor removed excessive repetition of the side effects, however the edit was reverted. This is due to personal opinion of vsmith, who believes that cs is not effective and harmful. Thats why the article looks excessively biased. For some reason he believes that he knows about the subject more than fda which approved the cs containing asap gel. He is even willing not to follow wp:medrs which was designed specifically for medicines. He rules undue weight, yet in my opinion the first ever cs which got fda approval shall have a section on the cs and other forms of silver usage page. You are right, that bandages and external use of silver is already established. So this is precisely the innovation, for using cs allows actually to considerably decrease the amount of silver which is applied or comes in contact with the wound. Ryanspir (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Edit your entry on talk page[edit]

if its ok, please edit your entry on the talk page, so that the people who are reading it will not be misinformed. Silver sol is a variant of cs, produced by american biotech labs. They produce the gel which is fda approved and which exclusively contains the silver sol as the active substance. If you cannot find the link to their patent to verify what i'm saying, kindly go to history, see my removed edit, and follow the link to the first patent. Ryanspir (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Lusitania[edit]

I don't really care one way or another about the section title, but someone had mentioned on the talk page that Depth charges would not work well to damage a ship on the sea floor. The article and sources also mention Hedgehog (weapon) contact mines in the area. The source mentions damage by depth charges as well as 'Swiss cheese' damage that seems more like the damage a hedgehog would do.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It was probably me that raised that concern. I agree that using depth-charges on a target on the sea-floor is improbable, but that's what the source claimed to have seen. I also agree that hedgehogs are a much more likely weapon to use for bombarding a target on the sea-bed. However my objective is to distinguish the deliberate bombardment of the wreck from "other explosives", such as the alleged gun-cotton etc that she was apparently carrying on her final voyage. I am open to any alternative title that makes that distinction. How about the more generic "British anti-submarine weapons" - although maybe that is a bit lengthy? Wdford (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks good now. Thanks for helping improve it. I am wondering if it was bombarded before the 50's as it seems the hedgehogs were replaced in 1943. Without sources it can't be added but there may yet surface more info on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Resolved

Cs in vitro[edit]

hello, you have previously said that everyones agree that cs is effective for external application and as disinfectant. So i have removed a faulty study made in botswana which contradicts fda, epa, and reliable studies for external application. What do you think about it?Ryanspir (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are sure that it was faulty, then fine. Wdford (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

faulty study[edit]

yes, i'm sure. Both of us agree that cs is effective externally and as disinfectant. Could you please remove this study?Ryanspir (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In the section "hospital surface disinfectant" you have written: "Thanks. Nobody disagrees about using silver as an external disinfectant,..". It's understood that Botswana study directly contradicts this, because it says cs is ineffective in vitro. Thus cs cannot be effective as a disinfectant. That's why I have asked you if you could remove this faulty study.

Further reasoning: If its ineffective in vitro, obviously it's ineffective in vivo. Altogether, it would mean that FDA cleared a compound which is absolutely ineffective and EPA approved in 2003, reapproved in 2006 and reapproved again in 2009 a cs disinfectant which doesn't kill germs. Thus putting lives of patients at direct risk of acquiring infection due to ineffective disinfection. It would also invalidate all the references which are already on the article, such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18069039 with a reference #63 that says: "results show that CS solutions with an ionic silver concentration of 30 ppm or higher are strong enough to destroy S. aureus.". According to wiki policy, a study which disapproves everything previously known considered extraordinary and it must come from extraordinary source to be accepted per medrs. I don't see a study in Botswana as an extraordinary. I'll post it on the talk page as well I'll remove it.Ryanspir (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

edit conflict[edit]

Hi. I hope that I didn't walk all over your addition to History in Med Uses of Silver as I was rearranging the sections into what I consider a more logical progression at the same time, I think. If I screwed up your stuff, I am sorry.Desoto10 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I went back and checked and it looks as though your new stuff is intact, but please do check. Thanks, Desoto10 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, everything looks fine. Separate question - do we really need to have a detailed explanation here of argyria - it is linked to the main Argyria article already? We really seem to mention it a lot of times, considering its such a small part of the topic. Maybe we could rationalise the adverse effects and regulations material to remove duplications? Wdford (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
We should probably move this conversation over to the article talk page, but yes, I was wondering the same thing. To the best of my understanding, the medical consensus is that the exact amount of silver and the timeframe over which someone is exposed to silver that causes argyria is unclear. The EPA and other "toxic exposure" regulatory bodies seem to use the old 1935 data where people were injected with silver in pretty large doses to get their minimum "safe" amounts. Since there are currently no legitimate medicines for ingestion that contain silver we cannot use these high doses to rationalize the validity of the nutritional supplements that contain smaller amounts of silver. One problem with editing this article is that there seems to be a lack of knowledge about the differences between drugs, devices, and supplements and how the FDA, NIH, EPA, CDC are involved. I'll move this conversation now.Desoto10 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disinfectant[edit]

I have put my attention that someone removed the link to epa and instead posted some unknown reference without a link for a context that you have added some time ago. I wouldn't like to revert 3rd time, so i'm asking you to do the undo. Ryanspir (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DNA history of Ancient Egypt, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Early Dynastic and Arab Egypt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


3RR[edit]

Looks like you have reverted a good 4 times in less than 24 hrs. Probably a good idea to revert your last edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

note to self re referencing[edit]

Hi, the "manual" way is to use Template:Cite journal, filling in as many fields as possible, but it's much easier to find the article's DOI and then use {{cite doi|put-the-doi-here}}, as Wikipedia will then (usually!) auto-expand the reference for you. There's a free utility from CrossRef for finding article DOIs here.

note to self re referencing[edit]

Hi, the "manual" way is to use Template:Cite journal, filling in as many fields as possible, but it's much easier to find the article's DOI and then use {{cite doi|put-the-doi-here}}, as Wikipedia will then (usually!) auto-expand the reference for you. There's a free utility from CrossRef for finding article DOIs here.

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DNA history of Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Early Dynastic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


Your edit summaries[edit]

Passing along this useful info from DougWeller. Please keep your edit summaries neutral - as they stand you are using them as commentary on editors, authors, etc. This isn't occasional, it seems to be your standard way of using edit summaries. WP:Edit summaries says "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult" and "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved."Rod (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Kingdom of Aksum[edit]

Same issues really. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Three and a bit years later....[edit]

You made this contribution to Argyria in November 2009 and amazingly no-one has since asked you who Lansdown is. Can you add details. Moriori (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Dr Alan BG Lansdown was a founder member of the British Society for Developmental Pathology. He has published more than 250 scientific papers and book chapters and lectured widely. Although presently retired, he holds the position of Honorary Senior Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Chemical Pathology, Clinical Chemistry, Investigative Sciences, Charing Cross Campus, Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, London. He is a toxicological consultant with special interests in the microbial efficacy and safety of silver and zinc, but writes on the toxicology of metals in the environment. See [1] and [2]. How much of this do you want to add? Wdford (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Enough to make the article encyclopedic and complete. We can't attribute quotes to someone without giving him initials/christian name and explaining who/what he is. Moriori (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin[edit]

Sir, nowhere in the articles did they state that the scientist believes that the pieces of linen used in the experiments were of apocryphal origin, and it only hurts Wikipedia's credibility when the context is presented in such a manner. If you have a source that suggests that the scientist obtained inauthentic fibers of linen, than please post it and I won't have the problem adding "he believes" to the source. If not, I believe the fairest and most impartial text should state that the linen fibers were used in the earlier Carbon Dating.

Regards,

As you have added a source that the fibers may not be authentic, I have no problem with the addition now.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Last battle of the battleship Bismarck incomplete reference[edit]

Several years ago, you inserted at Last battle of the battleship Bismarck references to ‘Bercuson Herwig, p. 293. ^ Gaack Carr, pp. 80–81. ^ Zetterling Tamelander, p. 281.’ without any details. Would you please fill up the required information? Thanks in advance.

Lgfcd (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in the name of God'' ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285</ref><ref>[[Robert M. Price]] (an atheist]] who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy[edit]

An IP has just posted on WP:AN regarding this article - you seem to be involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Your views about history[edit]

I have been trying for a while to try and understand what exactly goes on the Historicity page and other related pages, but not having read much myself on this historiographical status of the subject, and this not being so far one of my main field of inquiries, I just keep peeping in here and there, and postponing any major reading on the subject that would be required before I may decide to dive into the WP debates on the subject.

However, I just read this contribution by you, and I liked very much what you have to say about the purported accuracy of history as a "science." I liked your Churchill example very much, since I've thought a lot about recemt similar examples and how they compare to historical figures that are older, even early modern figures. But your way of explaining it, by comparing the available historiographical record of a specific historical figure to the existing historiographical record of older figures was, in my view, pretty original, and actually very good. It was actually much better than anything I have thought along the years about this matter, without being able myself to ever articulate it the way you did. So now, as I continue trying to catch on on the subject matter, I know where you stand and I will keep following your arguments as closely as I can. Kudos! warshy¥¥ 18:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus article[edit]

I notice that you are working on the Herodotus article, and I just thought I should let you know that after your remarks on Herodotus on the Historicity of Jesus talk page, I have requested editors at the Classical Greece and Rome Wikiproject to help in revising the article. You can see what I wrote here - [3].Smeat75 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Egyptian Hypothesis[edit]

Without counting, you are close to or at 3RR. I've given the other editor the templated statement but I'm assuming you know the ins and outs of WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Black people". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Black Egyptian Hypothesis". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 January 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Your superior knowledge of the black Egyptian "controversy," as well as your articulation of several important points in the debate, is extraordinary! I have no bone to pick with either side of the debate, but I'm really irked by militant afrocentrism (or any other forms of ultra-nationalism for that matter). I'm humbled by your ability to call BS on many claims made on the talkpage that could've otherwise flown under the radar. Thanks buddy! Λuα (Operibus anteire) 02:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DNA history of Egypt[edit]

These new edits bother me and I've moved them to the talk page, see Talk:DNA history of Egypt#Section on "Recent DNA Studies of Amarna and Ramesses III Lineages" moved here from article. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AN You May Have Interest In[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

ArbComm[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Hello, we are still awaiting statements for you regarding Ancient Egyptian Long-Term Editor Misconduct as you are a party, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests[edit]

Hi, Wdford. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources and the Hawass article[edit]

I think you also misunderstand how we should use sources. See for instance WP:VRS - sources should directly discuss the subject. And of course WP:SYN. The Hawass article clearly doesn't discuss the subject of all the articles it's being added to - it doesn't discuss Black Egyptians, for instance. In fact it's not about genetic origins. Then there is WP:SYN - adding another source to someone make a point. That's why 3 editors have been removing it entirely. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Black Egyptian Hypothesis, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Can I draw your attention...[edit]

to this? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Move request at Central East Africa[edit]

Now who do you think this new editor is who started the move request (I've move-locked the page, by the way). Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the post above. No surprise there, eh? Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep. It was to be expected though. We will just need to be extra alert is all. Wdford (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin[edit]

Remember you are now at 3RR. I've reported the other editor as he is at 4RR and I warned him a couple of weeks ago. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to remind you that while 3RR is a bright line, users can still be blocked for edit warring without going over 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Instead of continually reverting disruptive material, consider reporting the user to administrators instead. Tiptoety talk 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have reported it to User talk:Dougweller. Wdford (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

CMT Definition[edit]

Thanks for your support for v9b, Wdford. You probably gave up more than anyone else with the compromises. Please note that after you posted support, I made a change to the last sentence regarding Jesus agnosticism which is the position of Thompson, Verenna and Davies, and I expect it will be a major theme in Carrier's new book. Hope you agree. Radath (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Will you removal the POV tag if I can get consensus that "Jesus of Nazareth as described in the gospels" back into the definition? Radath (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hoping you will support the compromise I have proposed. Radath (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please support v9g, Wdford. We get just about everything we have asked for. Radath (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Christ myth theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Noah's ark[edit]

Can you please take a look at the talk page bottom about citations. Some of this is your edit [4] but no sources were added. Mixing citation styles can create problems, and although I love Harvard referencing it's hard to move from page to page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, I have copied over all the detailed references. All the citations linked up automatically except the Stewart citation, which won't link to the reference. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Please assist? Wdford (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Belated thanks. Try the WP:Help desk as I'm not sure what the problem is. (Didn't notice this, best to ping me next time). Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)