User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel/Archive 13

If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond there. If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here. I regularly clean out my watchlist, so if there has been a lull in a conversation, please restart it here.

Help need

Hi, I need your help. There is a moderator called Leuko who is preventing me from editing an article on American University of Antigua. I feel that Leuko is extremely biased against a medical school called University of Health Sciences Antigua, and has added an unnecessary line worded as, "American University of Antigua should not be mistaken for University of Health Sciences in Antigua, which is on the disapproval list in Indiana, as well as many other states." at the end of the American University of Antigua article. I feel that this line is unnecessary because these are two completely different medical schools and an intelligent prespetive medical can never get confused between the two. I had made an edit to remove that last line, but Leuko threatened to ban me. I left 2 messages on his talk page and he hasn't replied. I feel that Leuko is extremely biased and unfair, and doesn't listen to other editors; he has taken charge of bad-mouthing most foreign medical schools and prevents others from editing the respective articles. Could you please help me?

Thanks

DrGladwin 20:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Could you also ask Leuko, what exactly is the point of saying "unaccredited medical school with a similar name disapproved by many U.S. states" when UHSA is concerned? Can't he type something decently? Or does he always have to be rude and arrogant?

Thanks

DrGladwin 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I should probably note that my sympathy in this matter is pretty strongly with Leuko. He is obviously frustrated with the continual string of COI edits removing sourced material about problematic academic credentialing in those colleges. My sole concern is that his frustration has led him to overreach in cross-referencing between the schools, which I believe can be fairly resolved through discussion. Please do not resort to personal attacks. Thank you, BanyanTree 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. However, he needs to be a little more benignant as far as his choice of words is concerned. For example, I liked the way you asked him to reword the phrase in question. However, did he take your suggestion? No he didn't. What do you say about that? If he claims to be an admin, he should be a little more tolerant, and not threat editors with banning. By the way, I never threatned him with legal action. DrGladwin 02:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he offered an explanation on how my suggestion was flawed, which is fine. I'm therefore OK with the dab link as now written. While there may be a civility issue here, I can see how one might lose one's cool when repeatedly confronted by COI users who refuse to accept that one has an argument. If you wish to attract further attention to the issue, I advise you to seek a further step in dispute resolution. This issue is resolved as far as I'm concerned. - BanyanTree 10:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Chad

Hi BT, how's it going? I just wanted a rapid opinion: I wrote 2007 in Chad, mainly to provide a historical timelist and a good number of sources for future articles. I was thinking of replacing the link 2007 in Chad-related articles with 2007 in Chad, so to have a link that is effectively collegated to the relative articles. Would it be a bad idea, in your opinion?--Aldux 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Aldux, I would recommend a case-by-case approach. I'm not sure that date formatting (set in preferences) will work if the year is a piped link. (It may be worth testing.) Otherwise, I imagine that there are many cases where a link to 2007 in Chad is more useful and natural than a link to 2007, as well as vice-versa. Cheers, BanyanTree 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should limit it to politics? The argument of the 2007 info on Chad is overwhelmingly that.--Aldux 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea, at least until the page is filled out with non-political content. - BanyanTree 01:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the help, BT.--Aldux 13:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Uganda

Hi there. I had edited the article on Uganda before you moved some of it out and re-arranged it, to include the work of grassroots organisations like "CCM" ( http://www.ccmuganda.org/ ) for work with children and also with AIDS education. It disappeared after your edit. I presume you didn't think it should be kept. Why, besides the obvious ? Thanks for your excellent editing. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Hello, I've been thinking about breaking HIV/AIDS in Uganda out from the main country article for some time, and I finally did so after if popped up on my watchlist recently. I believe that I checked the reference given for the statement, and it did not support the assertion that many organizations worked in the field, and seemed rather to be an excuse to link to the front page of the non-profit. I thus removed the sentence as being primarily an advertisement. (I'm sure there's a more polite way of phrasing it, but I'm blanking on it.) Thanks, BanyanTree 01:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm back to a computer and have a bit more time. Specifically, the statement that NGOs work in the field is worth mentioning, but it's primarily a government directed affair, which is why it's so successful. The non-government stuff that is really interesting are some of the research projects run by foreign universities. I haven't looked at the OCHA or ReliefWeb lists for NGOs working in HIV/AIDS, but I imagine that there are dozens of large to medium sized NGOs in the field. Specific and sole mention of an NGO should be accompanied by why it deserves special mention. - BanyanTree 01:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi BanyanTree. Thanks for your notes. It wasn't an advert. I became aware of thier work (CCM Uganda) and was convinced in my intellect that their work was seminal and a model. I take your points. I will defer to your mouse clicks. Ta, mate. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Been ranting on Museveni's talk page. Respond. Revence27 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if you say "please". Also, new sections go at the bottom of article discussion pages. - BanyanTree 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Airbus A380

Thanks for observing my ITN-nomination! --Camptown 11:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating it. Cheers, BanyanTree 11:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Lakwena

I've mentioned on Talk:Alice Auma that I think the article should be moved to Alice Lakwena. Since you were the one who decided to create the article at the current title, you might want to weigh in. I'm trying to gauge whether it's safe to use the move tab or better to start a formal requested move (or wiser to just drop it). --Groggy Dice T | C 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of writing a note contesting the move right now.  :) Thanks, BanyanTree 03:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment sought

On this Republic of Congo edit by a new user. Discussion here. Thanks. Best, El_C 09:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. - BanyanTree 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ITN length

I was under the impression that the aim was to keep the TFA/DYK column the same length as the ITN/OTD column, not just TFA/ITN. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-24 12:08

That's true but not entirely complete. The ultimate goal is to have even left-right balance. Ideally this would take the form of left-right mirror proportions, e.g. TFA=ITN and DYK=OTD, with TFA being the "fixed" length that ITN has to adjust to and OTD being the "fixed" length DYK has to adjust to. In practice, ITN normally takes so long to update when a short TFA is followed by a long TFA, as is the case now, OTD uncomments some alternatives to lengthen their side. DYK has by far the most flexibility, given their perpetual backlog and 6-8 hour rotations, so we rely on them for fine tuning. When there are a series of long TFAs coupled with a slow news period, ITN hooks have stayed up for about a week. I don't think I've ever seen this written down but it's what I've observed in practice. Cheers, BanyanTree 12:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Union Monument image

As far as I can tell, I did nothing wrong. Cezarika1 uploaded the image to ro.wiki using a Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that license applies to all Wikimedia projects. I then uploaded the image to en.wiki using the closest equivalent (a tag covering versions 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, and 1.0). I never attempted to change, nor, I believe, did I change any copyright licenses. Biruitorul 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The closest en.wiki equivalent is {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, which is the only 'correct' tag. The other CC versions have slightly different wordings, while the GFDL tag, which you also added [1], has some significant differences that are the subject of periodic discussion between Wikimedia and CC foundation people on mailing lists. As I mentioned on your talk, the Commons Helper tool makes all of this painless. - BanyanTree 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that CC licenses are designed to be backwards-compatible, e.g. 2.5 should cover 2.0 and 1.0, but not necessarily 3.0. The GFDL is an entirely different creature. Interpreting licenses generally leads to poor results. - BanyanTree 00:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abyei, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Uganda Coat of Arms large.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Uganda Coat of Arms large.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudan Tribune etc.

Replied on User_talk:CygnetSaIad#deletion_discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CygnetSaIad (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mosul Dam

On 4 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mosul Dam, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 01:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Military history of Uganda

I thought I'd advise you of this new article, since you're the undoubted expert on this area, and it's in pretty bad shape. I'd be open to doing some collaborative edits on it under your direction should you so wish. Best regards Buckshot06 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Buckshot, Thanks for the note. I've also informed Ezeu, who wrote Ugandan Bush War and other related articles. I can handle the wiki only in small doses these days, but will try to give it some attention. Some of the sectioning choices are interesting. Cheers, BanyanTree 01:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re reverts: it doesn't appear to have been changed since you made your last update. It's on my watchlist now and I will keep an eye on it. Another request; you seem to do, or be associated with people who can do, maps of African conflict areas. I cannot sort out exactly at the moment which bits of North Kivu are under the control of Laurent Nkunda and which bits under the FDLR. Do you know the regions they control, and is there any chance of a map? Cheers Buckshot06 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Damnation and fire! I just saw this post! Many apologies.

The only map that springs to mind is the one that the Washington Post did a while back. (link) Note the fuzzy lines for Nkunda's territory, which is about what one would expect for mostly light infantry wandering around montane rainforest. I don't recall any maps for the FDLR. Mark Dingemanse did the fine maps for Lord's Resistance Army, but he has been wandering about in rural West Africa recently and is rarely on-wiki. Petercorless created a number of maps for the battles in Somalia earlier this year but, after an astonishingly productive few months, is now largely off-wiki as well. So I'm basically out of map makers I can ask favors from at this point. There's always Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, I suppose... - BanyanTree 10:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tracking page visits

Is there a way to track the number of pages served for a particular topic? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The primary purpose of tracking hits is to tell advertisers what they are buying. As there are no ads on Wikipedia, and counting hits per page slows down the servers, hit counting has been disabled for a long time. That said, there is currently an experimental counter for the top pages at Wikicharts, while Wikirage charts edits, not views. Cheers, BanyanTree 01:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Military history of Uganda DYK

On 7 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Military history of Uganda, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wow, that's a solid article! GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! DYK notifications are so much more exciting when you don't expect them! - BanyanTree 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a Survey

dear Wikipedia Administrator ,

thank you for your kind attention to this message.

My name is Zhan Li and I am a PhD student at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. ( You can view my bio (scroll down) for verification here: http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Doctoral/1.aspx )

I am asking approx. 200 randomly selected Wikipedia administrators if they would like to participate in a brief (it might take you about 10 minutes) online survey about their use of open content online encyclopedias. I am conducting this research for an introductory research methods class under Professor Peter Monge ( http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~monge/ ).

I hope that, if possible, you will participate in this survey. Please note that you must be 18 years older or over to participate.

Here is the link for the online survey, which begins with information pages detailing survey conditions and participant rights as well as my contact details for any questions:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=a73oeHUjW9QKvYB7fmIb0A_3d_3d

The survey will close at Pacific Standard Time 12:15 AM on Wednesday 14th November. If you have any problems accessing this link, please let me know.

I appreciate your consideration of this request.

Thank you very much Zhan Li ( email: zhanli at usc dot edu ) Zhanliusc 06:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting; How to wrap around and get tables aligned to right of page

I've noticed but cannot find how to get those boxes placed to the right side of pages. I have some data tables that I'd to place on the right side of the page. Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're envisioning, but you're probably looking for one of the links from Wikipedia:How to use tables. If you are attempting to copy a format you saw in another article, the easiest course of action is normally to open up the edit window in the other article and examine the table markup code to see how it does what it does. Also, please sign your talk posts, rather than relying on a bot. Thanks, BanyanTree 08:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Chamoru Wikipedia-

Hi. I see you've marked some pages for deletion at Chamoru Wikipedia. Do you speak Chamoru? What's the reason for deletion? Thanks. --Coppertwig 00:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I speak just enough Chamoru to know when something is definitely not Chamoru. That page is written in something Eastern European, almost certainly Czech. Normally the random pages created at ch are in Swiss German because of the CH domain name, but all manner of very lost editors end up there. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki ordering

Hi David, per your response about interwiki sorting order, can I ask that you update the relevant FAQ section, as it appears I missed this? Thanks, BanyanTree 08:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Is this okay? —David Levy 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! I must have not been paying attention to that template for the past several months... Thanks muchly, BanyanTree 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll forgive it just this once.  ;) Congratulations and happy editing, BanyanTree 10:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Privacy concerns

Hi, BanyanTree. I recently edited User talk:BanyanTree/Archive8 to remove my real name from the page. I have reason to be concerned about my online privacy lately, and this page listed my real name in a format that is easily found with a simple Google search. I apologize for editing your user space directly, but I hope you can forgive the intrusion. Thanks, — Amcaja (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Amcaja! Welcome to the ranks of the "paranoid about revealing their real life identity"! I tried to remove every mention I had made to my personal history within a year of arriving, so you're long overdue. Thanks for the courtesy note and I'll see you around. Cheers, BanyanTree 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Applied Kinesiology

Hi,

You've helped me before. This is in regards to the talk page on Applied kinesiology. Perhaps I am approaching it the wrong way. Please note my notes over the past two days and let me know what you think. Thanks Anthon01 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please don't overwrite other people's discussion sections, as you did above.

To your issue, this is your edit and this is Fyslee's response. In your edit, the unreferenced section template is redundant to the specific fact tags and is unneeded. Also, you removed a section which appears to adequately support the assertion made. In contrast, Fyslee's edit sources several challenged statements and restores the section. Content contributions are king on Wikipedia and, on that basis, Fyslee wins as being more knowledgeable on both the topic and Wikipedia editing practice. I'm not going to read several pages of discussion in detail, but I will say that the status quo on an article is the default and the burden of evidence lies on the user who is trying to change the status quo to provide better sources and more refined arguments. Therefore, I don't consider your statement, "State the claim I don't agree with and then source that supports it", which caught my eye, as being intended to do anything other than confound, as it requires the other user to prove a negative, which is basically impossible, as well as read your mind. I long ago learned to walk away from any argument that started to span more than one section heading, which is my advice to you. After your self-imposed timeout, you may wish to find some relevant sources and return to the article, preferably by adding content, rather than starting off by removing sections of content. - BanyanTree 21:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't realize I overwrote someone else's discussion section.

• Re: "being more knowledgeable on both the topic" What doesa this mean. I have been praticing AK for 20+ years. How is he more knowledgeable the me. Did you mean the topic of editing? Anthon01 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm being unclear. Let me clarify. Wikipedia does not allow appeals to off-wiki expertise. Notable figures have reverted over the biographical details of their own lives when they don't provide proper citations, and a good thing too. The only thing that matters is the quality of your on-wiki editing, which means providing reliable sources that verify your statements. If this wasn't the case, the wiki would be awash in people with their detailed theories that gravity is actually fire, and such. Fyslee made a better edit that you, e.g. providing sources for challenged content, while you made a bad edit, aka removing content that is supported by a given citation. If there is a supporting citation, the only way to change the content is by providing a source with equal or greater credibility, e.g. peer reviewed journals trump mainstream media trumps alternative press trump blogs. You do not appear to be having a "my source is better than your source"-discussion, but making a "I know better than the given source, so listen to me"-assertion. Note that Wikipedia probably loses many expert contributors because they grow infuriated that nobody will accept their off-wiki credentials in an argument, which appears to be generally agreed as regrettable but acceptable. - BanyanTree 04:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Personal knowledge doesn't fly. What do you do when the source is not appropriate? For instance, I've have seen several instances where a source is used, but a careful reading of the source does not support the content or the inclusion of the content in a particular article? I have seen an expert commenting on a subject that is not their expertise. Those comments are used to support the content. Every statement made by an expert is not an expert opinion. Anthon01 (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Only if you're providing a better source. Statements made by basically anyone can be used as a citation, though online forums and most blogs are laughable, and cited content cannot be replaced by uncited content. For a classic example of a person trying to fix mistakes made by news media, but without sources, check out the story of Mike Scott (musician). It's possible that you have a source that reduces the credibility of the given source. You can easily add a sentence to the paragraph you wish to challenge stating, "Mrs. X was found guilty of criminal insanity in 2005[cite]", which reduces the credibility of the information. If the information is damning, aka "Mrs. X claims to be an expert in Foo, but the National Association of Foo issued a statement in 1997 denouncing Mrs. X as a fraud who intentional misleads others[cite]", note it on the talk page and remove the info. If you wonder how an article can ever get anywhere given how dysfunctional this sounds, every once and while, a contributor who has built up credibility in a given topic will use their social capital to make "this is true but unimportant and should be pruned out" and "this sourced statement is considered false by more recent sources"-type edits, in the hopes that everyone else will accept their expertise in the matter (Note: On-wiki authority built up by edits, not off-wiki credentials). If you haven't built up cred in the topic, and with the editors in that topic, such an approach will likely result in a bruising edit war. - BanyanTree 09:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean that added content takes precedent over removing content? So if I add content then the burden would fall on Fyslee to prove it shouldn't be there? Anthon01 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not precisely. Content is considered more credible the longer it lasts, based on the assumption that every user who views it without changing it is giving it an implicit vote of confidence. I didn't look through the article history, but assume that the content you are contesting has been around for a while.

The content was merged from Intuitive Kinesiology on the 10th of this month. Is that 'a while?' Anthon01 (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was added to Wikipedia in May 2007 and merged to the current location after agreement by a couple editors. - BanyanTree 09:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing unsourced content to other unsourced content is sort of the 'bottom of the barrel' of editing practice, and, if contested, is often reverted simply by an appeal to these implicit votes. (Not that many editors phrase it this way or even think about it explicitly.) You cannot edit an article and then expect the new article revision be seen as the status quo. Note that citations absolutely trump implicit credibility, so all you have to do is find some third-party sources that back up your assertions and use them to source (or better source, as the case may be) contributions to the article. It is also the case that adding content is much less contentious than removing or modifying content, especially in an article as badly sourced as that one. - BanyanTree 04:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Re: "as being intended to do anything other than confound," I'm not sure what you mean here. "State the claim I don't agree with and then source that supports it" was a response to Fyslee saying "It also mentions claims about AK which you feel to be wrong, but those claims are documented and sourced, and therefore should stay" All he had to do is highlight the claim and the source. Very doable. Anthon01 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that may be me misreading the sentence as I was scanning to get the gist of discussion. Sorry. - BanyanTree 04:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"After your self-imposed timeout" What are you talking about? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm advising you to walk away from the article, think about it for a bit, and find some credible sources that back up your points, thereby building your credibility back up. For the reasons outlined above - appeals to private personal knowledge and removing sourced content - your credibility on that article is well and truly in tatters, though Fyslee's manner on the talk page appears overly abrupt in instances. The situation is probably not at the point where it requires administrative attention but, if an administrator did have to make a judgment on the relative merits, I would give about a 95% chance that it would be something that you would be disappointed with. - BanyanTree 04:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of attention might this require? I just trying to get a better understanding of how Wikipedia functions. Anthon01 (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't read Fyslee's mind, but he may have been thinking of a user block, or he may have simply wanted an experienced third party to read it over. Admins shouldn't have extra authority, beyond access to the special buttons, but they are nevertheless often called upon to give opinions and mediate disputes. - BanyanTree 09:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a few quick comments here. I don't doubt that your intentions are honorable, they just aren't totally in harmony with the purpose of an encyclopedia. Don't worry, you'll learn it. That's why I repeatedly kept urging you to do your learning on articles that aren't as controversial. That way any beginner problems won't cause much disruption or wasted time. I share some of your concerns. The article has quite a bit of sourcing, but there are portions that could be sourced better. It seems to take it for granted that the reader should know this stuff, and not all readers do, and some, like yourself, are coming from other backgrounds and haven't seen AK from that angle or seen it practiced in those ways. I've seen it practiced in several countries, had numerous patients tell of their experiences, nearly witnessed in a court case against a chiropractor who scammed people with it, have read Thie's textbook through (and many chiros and other AK practitioners do consider it the "bible" (my word) of AK). I had a teacher in PT school who was an avid AK enthusiast who tried to get us to fall for it. That stimulated a team of graduates to write a thesis on AK and interview numerous practitioners. We had a teacher who had AK practitioners come and demonstrate their wares, simply because it was a good opportunity for us to examine and witness pseudoscientific quackery in practice. It was fun to trick them and manipulate them into revealing just how they were deluding themselves. This was actual classwork in a class on scientific method and philosphy, and we did it with numerous alternative medicine practitioners. We had excellent teachers, in fact the best in the country. Life just isn't simple, and this subject is far more complicated than seen from the viewpoint of one experienced practitioner. Every editor here, whether or not they are trained in AK, can make contributions to the article, as long as they abide by our culture, policies, and collaborative editing process. Good luck. -- Fyslee / talk 09:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and good wishes. Although Touch for Health was written by an AK practitioner, it is not sanctioned by the ICAK or representative of AK. Anyone who practices AK ala Touch for Health isn't practicing AK. Surrogate testing is sanctioned to be used in a particular way and in certain circumstances. Not the way Susan Shumsky uses it. I am aware of the myriad ways in which "muscle testing" is used to do everything from checking for the strength of a muscle to finding the numbers for the next winning lottery ticket. So if someone starts a technique, puts up a website and some videos and claims they can talk to spacemen using muscle testing, that would justify the inclusion of such under applied kinesiology? But I guess I will have to find a reference that says all muscle testing does not equal AK in order to counter the inclusion of every technique or parlor trick that utilizes muscle testing. Goodheart is the originator of applied kinesiology and I would think his opinion and the opinion of those who continue to teach and research would take precedent over someone who took a weekend course or read a book or a magazine article and decided to start their own technique using muscle testing as a tool. Just because someone claims they are an AK practitioner doesn't mean they are. Reading a book or taking a weekend course doesn't make someone an AK practitioner either. Neither does it prevent them from claiming they are. Just because someone uses muscle testing in an 'unproven' technique doesn't mean they are practicing AK. I don't have a problem with critically reviewing applied kinesiology. I invite it. But my problem is with trying to lump all muscle testing 'techniques' under one banner.

It was fun to trick them and manipulate them into revealing just how they were deluding themselves.

What do you think you proved? What you don't realize is that the conditions you set up in this experiment are not scientific. AK is not practiced in a room with a number of students trying to trick the practitioner. A double blind study with a fully trained practitioner testing an ICAK sanctioned procedure would have been noteable. Back in 1979, Goodheart treated Irving Dardik, MD for a long standing calf problem that prevented him from running. After one treatment Goodheart was invited to participate in the 1980 Winter Olympics at Lake Placid, N.Y. Dardik was the Medical Director of the US Olympic Committee and he was able to run two miles after one AK treatment. AK have been involved with the Olympics ever since. The AK practitioner is often the busiest person in the Olympic medical suite. This wikipedia page gives voice to a very different and ugly reality, based on techniques not sanctioned or taught by the ICAK. I think putting the junk on another page "Other muscle testing techniques" would better serve the interest of the reader, wikipedia, and AK. Perhaps you have a suggestion on how to procced in getting that done.

P.S. It would be nice to have a "before you start page" that briefly list on 1 page the pertinent elements of wikipedia's culture, policies, and collaborative editing process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's actually mind-bogglingly difficult to understand Wikipedia as a system as anything may change at any time. Editors gain experience through reading policy pages but mainly through stumbling about looking foolish. That said, being polite and citing your contributions will get you through pretty much any interaction on an article. - BanyanTree 09:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple notes: (1) Fyslee, your tone appears condescending and thus unnecessarily irritating. (2) Both of you are making declarative statements and neither of you is citing sources (3) Both of you are using my talk page to continue a conversation better kept at Talk:Applied kinesiology. If neither of you feel that there is an issue of behavior that needs my attention, please continue your discussion there. I do not feel that there is an issue requiring either a page protection or a user block. If you continue to disagree, please follow dispute resolution. (4) As an off-the-cuff suggestion, you may wish to consider removing all unsourced content from the article, rather than picking and choosing specific sentences to challenge. This would be supportable under verifiability. Thanks, BanyanTree 09:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Anthon01 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Médecins Sans Frontières and Nigerian Civil War

Hi,

Just wanted to talk you up regarding your recent edits to these subjects. I've been picking around different perspectives in regards to the Nigerian Civil War, and I had thought that I'd seen enough to believe that "Biafran Genocide" would be a justifiable article or subsection. I suspect you disagree!

I reviewed Alex de Waal's book (superficially), and I've noticed that he suggests "genocide" is the wrong word, but he is making the assertion on the basis of there not having been genocidal massacres. In fact, most of the authors I'd looked through suggest that there was a Biafran Genocide, in the form of a complete blockade; that is, genocide by deliberate starvation, rather than by massacre as de Waal seems to understand the term. This was also a contention of Ojukwu's Ahiara Declaration.

Now, I had approached the issue looking to read about perspectives on the Biafran genocide, so my reading thus far has surely been slanted to the Ibo side. But I really don't like asserting that there was no genocide, without qualifying that as the perspective of some parties, as in your Médecins Sans Frontières edit. What do you think? Cheers! DBaba (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I should point out that I do not have nearly the depth of knowledge about the Nigeria conflict as some of the wars in eastern and central Africa. The Biafran conflict is included as a chapter of several books on my shelf, but I certainly lack in-depth knowledge.I picked up de Waal's book recently and was wondering if the critique of humanitarian aid was included, which reminded me of the FAed MSF article I had read a long time ago. Let me break the issue into two parts: the definition of genocide and the sourcing issue.

First, as Genocide states, genocide is not an act, but an intention by a person or group. If someone thinks, "In order to end the rebellion, I must put a total embargo on goods into the rebellious area, even if that results in massive civilian death and suffering" that is not genocidal. This is precisely the issue that has made the definition of Darfur conflict as a genocide so contentious. One cannot say, speaking strictly, "the situation in Biafra was a genocide". One has to state, "Mr Foo (or Foo group) intended to commit genocide", which is much trickier. Of course, many advocacy groups ignore this rather key point and call any event where large numbers of civilians are killed genocide. Mao Zedong said (paraphrasing), 'the populace is the water in which the rebel swims', so the objective of most counterinsurgencies is to empty the water. This is brutal and horrific, but not, as far as I have read, genocide, since the intention is to defeat the insurgency. If de Waal is correct in asserting that there was no systematic attempt to kill civilians, or otherwise destroy their 'Biafran-ness', in regions after they were captured by government troops, that would appear to be strong evidence that there was no genocidal intent.

Second, I'm thoroughly OK with both assertions being put forth, e.g. in a point-counterpoint format. Based on de Waal's description, he appears to be drawing support for the lack of genocide from a number of sources; besides Smillie, he draws from de St Jorre (1972) as well as Oxfam's official history, Black (1992). (This is so much easier since you have the book!) I will see if I have anything else on my bookshelf that may shed some light, but am quite far from a decent library so can't do proper research. - BanyanTree 09:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see your point in the distinction between the deliberate attempt to eradicate the group, and the doing so only in as much as breaks the insurgency. Actually after leaving that comment I saw several other authors voice similar remarks, in searching Google Books.

I'm seeing quite a broad array of perspectives on it, really. There are several people in that camp that are openly scoffing at the word, a couple that suggest "genocide-in-part"[2][3] and others who say unequivocally "The Nigerian government was a perpetrator of genocide"[4] These are pretty wildly diverging perspectives!

Anyway that's really interesting in itself. Lots of politics there! I don't know what to do with the subject for now. I'll probably add some material soon suggesting that some scholars regard the starvation of the Ibo as genocide. Ah well, thanks for the info. And I've noticed you seem to feel the same way, about how annoying it is to see the Nigerian Civil War pushed into the background of Doctors Without Borders... The story of a million dead Ibo, somehow turned around to be the story of how lovely and magnanimous the west is! DBaba (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... my books aren't nearly as useful as I thought they would be. Though the chapter on Nigeria in Understanding Civil War, published by the World Bank (2005), has some interesting analysis on the economic factors (surprise surprise), particularly oil revenues, that factored into the conflict trigger.

Back to the topic at hand - I really don't have enough sources to triangulate and figure out a consensus. So I'm happy to let you figure it out.  ;) I imagine that the Ibo-friendly sources and people who make their living talking about genocide will say it's a genocide, while government sources will say its not. The interesting bit, for me, would be the political scientists and military historians, who I would be willing to bet fall mostly in the "not genocide" camp.

Yeah, it's always a struggle to make articles on such Africa-related topics be descriptions of the topic, rather than descriptions on what some surrogate Westerner experienced in relation to the topic. For example: the well-meaning editors adding content to Lord's Resistance Army about how they marched around Ottawa in sympathy with the child victims or what the UN force did during the Rwandan Genocide, as opposed to describing the actual genocide. Anyway, I'll leave you to it. Drop me a line if I can help. Cheers, BanyanTree 13:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Uganda People's Army DYK

On 3 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uganda People's Army, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - BanyanTree 05:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at my recent edits to Ugandan-Tanzanian War and amend if necessary, especially if you know if Lukuya has had a change of names.. Buckshot06 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to be Lukaya, a town in Masaka District, and have changed it accordingly. Otherwise it looks good and offers some detail I haven't seen. Nice work. - BanyanTree 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, on second reading, the Pan-African Islamic Legion bears a striking resemblance to Libya's Islamic Legion. I've asked Aldux, our resident Chadian-Libyan conflict expert, if he can weigh in. Cheers, BanyanTree 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to see we've managed to join the dots on that one. Is Kakiri a real place in Uganda? I was surprised while researching the UDPF divisional headquarters to find that it's not linked at all in WP apart from the one I've just inserted. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a small market town in Wakiso District, located within the Luwero Triangle north of Entebbe. I guess it's the "Kampala" headquarters for the UPDF. - BanyanTree 10:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do take a look at my recent edits to Uganda People's Defence Force#History and weigh in/change/expand as required. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. That's actually more detail on the mutiny than I've seen before. Happy new year, BanyanTree 03:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

James De La Vega

Wasn't this article deleted? --David Shankbone 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I was reminded of the article yesterday after reading a BBC article on Banksy and wandered by to see how it was doing. After seeing that it had been prodded for lack of reliable sources, I restored the article and added some. Salon, Smithsonian and NY Times would seem adequate in asserting that the deletion was the result of inactivity by editors rather than the notability of the subject. There are still some obvious issues with tone and some overly gushing uncited wording, but some of the articles are a bit gushing themselves. Cheers, BanyanTree 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I just went through it with the proverbial wiki-chainsaw. - BanyanTree 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthon01

You tone has changed considerably since your unvarnished posting of 01:27, 6 December 2007 . I deleted it because of its tone. Perhaps you might consider applying the varnish. Fyslee stated I need to leave your post up on my page. That deleting it was wrong or would make it hard to AGF. Is that your view also? How about the block. Was I suppose to leave that up also? Fyslee undid my deletion of your 01:27, 6 December 2007 comment on my talk page effectively reverting my edit. Is that an acceptable edit to my talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... no it hasn't. The two posts express exactly the same thought. Read them again.

You can do whatever you want in your user space, short of using it as a personal website or promulgating hate speech. Blanking warnings or contentious discussion off of your talk space is usually seen as antisocial, either an attempt to ignore the other user or conceal your actions, but you can report Fyslee for disruption if he continues.

I'm never on the wiki for long enough these days to wait for the varnish to dry. As far as I'm concerned our interactions have been (1) you ask me for advice (2) I write extensive replies (3) You ignore my advice and then ask me for help (4) I call you on it (5) You blank my message and note that I'm a big meanie. If you're looking for sympathy, I am not your man. You would need months of congenial and reasonable editing to dig yourself out of the credibility hole you're in. Like I said, better than 50-50 chance. - BanyanTree 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As you said, "Editors gain experience through reading policy pages but mainly through stumbling about looking foolish." Experience is the best teacher. There is a huge learning curve here. Stumbling through has helped understand better what you meant about stumbling through. Your statement "I advised you to take a break ... you then immediately went and edit warred to remove cited content." You didn't specify how long. The edit war occured 2.5 weeks later. I take it you consider that to be immediate? In all honesty, I didn't think, at the time, I was edit warring because in my mind 'I thought' I was following what other users were doing and policy WP:CCC. There is no mention of "new citations" there just consensus. I didn't interpret your comments of Nov 22th (or thereabouts) as "the absolute tyranny of citations." I appreciate your input and will undertake a careful rereading of your recommendations from Nov 22th. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous User deleting sourced content

I am having a problem with an anonymous user at the Physical therapy article. THe anonymous user says "Revert to previous version. The addition of PT and Science is biased and not balanced - well referenced or not. It belongs in an article on evidenced based medicine or the like." The material he is removing is well sourced from peer-review journals. I believe the material was removed 2 times by the same person but am not sure. The IPs are different but from the same geographic area. You guidance would be appreciated. He left a note on the talk page after his second deletion. I warned the first time and sent him a welcome message at his first IP address User:24.63.148.5 and a message at User talk:24.63.148.5. I left a message here, and got a response that seems different from what you have recommended. Your thoughts would be appreciated. The text was originally entered on Dec 2nd. I reverted once and stopped there. --Anthon01 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have zero knowledge of the topic, so can't make a judgment based on the facts. Does the anon have a point? If it's obvious BS to any good-faith potential editor, then revert and, if he continues and won't be talked down on the discussion page, report him to an admin who actually knows something about the topic so they can make a judgment based on the merits. If there is an argument here based on undue weight then you're going to have to talk it out, though my first instinct is that it's the responsibility of the anon to add sourced content as a counterpoint to your addition, not your responsibility to remove your content to make the anon happy. (Unless of course the info should be removed.) This would be easier if you got one or more editors in the subject to weigh in so an admin could see if there was a consensus either way, as right now it's a complete muddle as far as I'm concerned. - BanyanTree 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The content is very well sourced (peer-reviewed physical therapy journals). There is room to add more to the existing content and provide more balance, but the existing text is NPOV. The BS is that the existing text should remain and more material can be added by the anon. Thank you. --Anthon01 (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensive Peace Agreement

A heads-up for you, BanyanTree: Comprehensive Peace Agreement can also refer to the 2003 CPA that was negotiated in Accra that ended the Liberian civil war (finally!) How do you think we ought to incorporate this? Move the Sudan CPA page to Naivasha Agreement and make Comprehensive Peace Agreement a disambig? What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Darn, and here I was all impressed that Sudan was the only place where people went for the obvious name. Your proposal sounds good. You're thinking of creating Comprehensive Peace Agreement (Liberia) or some similar title? - BanyanTree 11:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure so far, but it at least clears a space for an article, maybe Accra Comprehensive Peace Agreement or 2003 Liberia Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Belated thank you

Hello. Just wanted to give a very belated "thanks!" for your kind welcome [5]. Earlier this month I became an admin, in large part because I often took advantage of the super-helpful welcome links you provided. With the help of these links, my early Wikipedia days were both less confusing and more fun, which ultimately lead me to develope a real passion for the project. Thank you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes like this make Wikipedia a more pleasant place. Thank you for dropping by and congratulations on getting access to the shiny buttons! - BanyanTree 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with, today it's the turn of the "B"s and "C"s! I'm hoping at least one of you chaps will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LRA abduction drawing by Goeffrey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LRA abduction drawing by Goeffrey.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Uganda

You may want to join WikiProject Uganda. Look forward to seeing you about!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Death_criteria

That was neither helpful nor constructive. If you don't want to say anything nice, perhaps you could not bother replying at all? Neıl ☎ 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I had considered it, but didn't want to leave the impression that I thought you actually had an argument and I was running off with my tail between my leg. Perhaps going silently would have been the classier option. For what it's worth, the "good luck" was sincere. BanyanTree 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration, that was snippy - I apologise. It's been a long day. I think you took offense to "oh my god ITN will be overrun with recent deaths so we can't have any on the main page" - that wasn't directed at you personally, rather the oft-repeated opinion in general. I'd rather try it and see what happens, rather than assume things won't work. Experimentation is the key to improving any process. Neıl ☎ 17:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just grew irritated and bored when my response required me to waste space correcting at least two assumptions/misreading you had made of my previous post, rather than actually moving forward with a discussion. Anyway, I've removed myself from the discussion so it doesn't matter. I've found myself getting incredibly bored over the past year or so by the way project space discussion tends to feed on itself rather than any supposed issue at hand, so I perhaps need to figure out a way to prevent myself getting involved in the first place. I appreciate the impulse behind the apology. You may be right, so I will again wish you good luck and hope to see you in happier circumstances in the main namespace. - BanyanTree 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

removing spaces after section headers

Thanks for leaving the message. I realize this is a petty edit but it really doesn't take any extra time when I use AWB. AWB allows me to store repetative edits like this and does them automatically when I open the page. It also allows me to do mass search and edit queries (such as against a whole category or group of categories) and all I have to do is look at the page to make sure the edits are correct and save it. I have a couple of hundred edits (such as this, spelling errors, formatting errors, wikilinks, fixes for couble redirects, etc) in addition to the ones that come with AWB and I add to it all the time as I find new things. I hope this helps to clarify but please let me know if you have any more questions.--Kumioko (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

hey

Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, (based on the New York Times for goodness sake) but I can't get it on.

Fact: Circumcision decreases a man's risk of getting HIV Fact: Circmcision INcreases a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia.

The article on "circumcision" mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once.

Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my ONE sentence I want to add? Thanks here's the New York Times article... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&fta=y

I used to love Wikipedia until I wanted to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, crosspost much? - BanyanTree 11:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Sorry for the intrusion but could you look at this article? A series of anon IPs (same person based on comments) has added an unusual addition under popular culture with no attribution other than his/her viewpoint/OR. Of a more serious nature, the editor has also made inappropriate comments on the article's discussion page and my talk page. Thanks for your assistance. FWIW, I may be asking a number of admins for their review of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

I do not yet see a reason to involve an admin. Once consensus at to the merits of inclusion/removal has been reached, it should be implemented. I would be happy to consider a block when and if the anon edit wars against consensus. People pursuing their pet obsession are to be expected on the wiki. If someone is ranting on your talk page, a short "That's very interesting. Shall we centralize discussion on the article talk page?" is an appropriate response. - BanyanTree 19:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fujiwhara

Hi, I found your correction of title regarding the topic "Fujiwara effect". You changed the original "Fujiwhara" to "Fujiwara", but I'm 100% sure that "Fujiwhara" is the proper spelling for him. I left my message explaining why this happens, and I hope you understand the reason and correct the title. Thanks.