User talk:Slp1

Crippled vs physically disabled

At Miriam Battista, your first edit to replace "crippled" was reverted by me. Your second edit to remove "crippled" was reverted by another editor. It's time for you to make your case on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it. I have now responded on the talk page of the article where I have expounded on my reasoning. --Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And you've moved into field position for WP:3RRN with your most recent revert, which you know is disputed. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What is a "field position"? I really don't know. What I do know is that I have made 3 edits to the article over a period of 10 days, which doesn't seem to be anywhere close to 3RR; as I mentioned, I have commented on the talkpage.. --Slp1 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

He

I must sheepishly admit that I also thought you were a he until I just looked at your page. Not that it matters, but I wonder why. Maybe your writing style is diff than others here? Not sure it's enough for a PhD, but another data point, at least...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about my revert

Sorry about this. --Kangaroopowah 21:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. But do be careful with those automated tools; they are powerful and can be a bit dangerous if there isn't someone very viligant in control! --Slp1 (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Torrent-Guasp

I am a reader of cardiac theory. Work by Torrent-Guasp captivated me the first time I saw the late doctors' rendering of the unfolding of the myocardium. I have seen a similar view once before in the work of Dr. Carolyn Thomas (possibly from New England), dated somewhere around 1959, connected to work by Peskin and McQueen. Further extrapolation of this work by Dr. Randas Batista allowed radical geometric remodeling of the failing ventricle, mostly in the still deadly epidemic of Chagas Disease. Work by Torrent-Guasp seems to be well reasoned and accepted in Spanish language Wikipedia but remains excluded by English Wikipedia. I respectfully request an explanation for this discrepancy.lbeben 01:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here for discussion. This is the sort of place to discuss things, not by creating an article as you did before. A few points:

• For edits here, it is irrelevant what Spanish Wikipedia has done. The two encyclopedias have different rules and organizations, and so it really isn't worth mentioning here.
• For there to be an article about Dr. Torrent-Guasp he would have to meet WP's notability criteria. These include WP:BIO "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", and/or academics WP:PROF. "Many .."academics" ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." It goes on to list the criteria (such as making a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" or "received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." I have done a quick look through the sources and do not myself find evidence that Dr. T-G would meet these or other criteria. However, you may be able to identify extra sources. You can gather the material and present it at WP:AFC, as I suggested.
• It seems based on your talkpage that you wish to include information about Dr. Torrent-Guasp's theories in other (medical) articles. Please note that on this WP we have very strict standards of sources for medically-related articles (see. WP:MEDRS. From a brief survey, Dr. T-G's theories are not (yet) accepted in the medical community, though reliable sources consider them interesting and some discuss them at length. e.g. [1][2][3][4]. These are the sort of sources (or better still scholarly medical review articles) you need if you want to propose edits to other articles.

I hope that this information helps. Note that this isn't the place to advocate for T-G's theories, even if you think that they are very interesting yourself. Collecting reliable sources about a particular topic and then summarizing them are what we do here.

A final comment. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. This will properly sign and date your posts for you automatically. Slp1 (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the theory advanced by Dr. Francisco Torrent-Guasp worthy of encyclopedic mention in any and all languages?--lbeben 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know. I don't know the field and I am afraid have other priorities at present. Why don't you collect references (and links) to high quality academic sources that mention the theory, and propose something on the talkpage of relevant articles.

As I mentioned above please sign your posts properly per WP:SIGNATURE. Your current method does not allow editors to link to your user and talkpage. Thank you. Slp1 (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent speedy deletion of Sarah Luiz

I recently stubbed the article to remove unsourced material, and added two WP:RS that clearly assert the subject's notability. Please consider restoration of this article. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here and asking about this. I appreciate it. I looked at the references you found before I deleted the article; they support that she wants a uterine transplant and that she sued Blue Cross, but why is that notable? How many other individuals want uterine transplants (lots according to the clinical ethics article); how many others have sued Blue Cross for one reason of the other and got their 5 minutes of fame about it? Do we need articles on all of them? This sort of thing doesn't make a person in any way notable to the extent that we need a biographical article, per WP:BASIC and WP:BLP1E. If there is a fuller article to write, with more reliable sources/references and more details about her life, please go ahead and write it; but remember that the article has already been a magnet for BLP violations and consider whether it will really be a benefit for her or for this encyclopedia to host it. --Slp1 (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The issues you describe should be considered at AFD. When it takes a full paragraph to explain why an article was deleted under CSD A7, speedy deletion was probably inappropriate. Since my stubbed version of the article was not an obvious BLP violation, please restore the article so that this issue can be discussed by the community. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it needn't take a full paragraph to explain the issue, but I gave you that courtesy. I guess my effort was wasted. The short version is in the deletion summary, which you have already seen. There was no claim of notability and there are in addition issues of BLP1E --Slp1 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a deletion review discussion about this article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

Hi Slp1 – I'm a bit concerned about the message that has recently appeared at the head of the article, regarding the fact that someone claims to have "detected that this page contains external links that are either on the spam blacklist or the global spam blacklist", having been flagged up by Cyberbot II – I'm not really sure what to do about it.

The obvious thing is to delete the offending link, but I'm damned if I can find it, and I don't want to have to spend hours looking for it. The message at the head of the source code indicates it as <http://books.google.com/?id=VMF_-aVJSE4C&pg=PA178&dq=British+anti-slavery+petitions+percentage%7Cbot=Cyberbot II}> which does not appear to exist anywhere in the text (unless I've stupidly overlooked it). Presumably there has got to be an easier way of finding exactly what this bot is objecting to and correcting it? Any ideas?

I'm far from happy that this has happened, and it reinforces the impression I have recently gained that Wikipedia these days is edited by powerful technicians and/or administrators who have developed what they believe to be useful robot technology (albeit probably well-meaning), but which ends up just making life difficult and unbearable for lowly contributors, who just want to make an encyclopedia, but end up gettting sick of the interminable changes and disillusioned with the whole futile process.

I'd be interested to hear your views on this.

Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)