Jump to content

User talk:WLU: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Wikidudeman (talk | contribs)
About Ray harris1989 edit on Talk:Asperger syndrome
Line 6: Line 6:


[[User:WLU|WLU]] 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[[User:WLU|WLU]] 18:51, 2 September 2006 (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. [[User:Ray harris1989|Ray harris1989]] 08:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
==ABA mediation==
==ABA mediation==
=== Formal request for mediation filed. ===
=== Formal request for mediation filed. ===

Revision as of 08:12, 3 July 2007

Anyone want to discuss my edits? Do so on my discussion page. I'll justify why I do what I do.

WLU 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Vandalism?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs)

Reply on his talk page WLU

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Adoption

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Mangojuicetalk 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]