User talk:WLU

Cloverfield

The idea is that the sections are there, even if empty, to indicate that the sections should be filled as they are necessary. As to the other issue, do what you feel best. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

Thank you very much! Felix Felix Basinger (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. WLU (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Weeds

Weeds is not automatically paired with 'widow's' - see Ye Sacred Muses and, doubtlesss, other examples of that era. Have reverted. Linuxlad (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'Weed' (singular) is legit if rather dated 'Modern English' (ie Shakespeare and his kind) for a piece of cloth. See say Chambers 20th C. Just because it is often coupled with widow, does not make that automatic. In Byrd's lament it's the Muses, presumably unwidowable, who are in 'mourning weeds'. As a word it's probably got more life left than a TV show! (I for one had never heard of the (American?) show, but have known the 'archaic' usage from (English) childhood!) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The show is good, if you like ribald humour. Closer to Benny Hill and Keeping Up Appearances than Blackadder from my knolwedge of British humour. Let's see what the WT:DAB discussion says. WLU (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Southern tick-associated rash illness

Hi there, did I use the correct ICD codes in the infobox? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, but to my chagrin I can't be certain. If it's an emerging illness then I don't know if they'd have an ICD code. The best I can say is I can't see anything wrong with it, my apologies. WLU (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex boy

Thanks for your recent copyedit in Alex Constantine. I've just added my comment in talk page. —Cesar Tort 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• "I've never seen in any other source the allegation that SRA is used to create alters", you stated in Satanic ritual abuse talk. IIRC, our beloved Alex boy claims that CIA used SRA to create them. LOL! :) —Cesar Tort 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's a reliable source, right? Oh, hold on, it's not. So Noblitt is the only researcher/therapist who thinks satanic cults systematically rapes and tortures small children to force them to do their bidding, so it's out. Lovely. If Constantine ever publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, perhaps we could put it in then. WLU (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find Cory Hammond made similar claims in the early 1990s in relation to SRA, DID/MPD and the CIA. So, too, has Cesar Tort's favorite, Colin Ross.

I don't know what to make of such claims, but they aren't the sole province of nutjobs. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well. At least there's something in which we agree, Biao: skepticism of CIA's SRA experiments. WLU: I see that you've got Ross' book. Let me state that he can be very skeptic and very credulous. When I visited him & his therapy group sessions in 1997 I confronted him in private that he seemed to take at face value his patients' claims of extra-sensory perception powers. I believe he is a supberb clinician, but he falls in all the traps of clinicians: believing more than what is needed. It's a huge subject and I don't want to overwhelm this page with it. Just advising to approach Ross with due caution (of course, you know how to do that). BTW, most of the edits in Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, which I started, are mine. —Cesar Tort 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll get the book out and review it, any edits I make will be based on what I read. WLU (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Going back on break

WLU, good luck with the mess I generated by way of that list ... sorry about that :(. I have to stick to my guns this time and really stay away from this place--SRA is frustrating but the other situation that brought me back, and now looks to be turning into another disruptive and nonsensical fiasco just drains me of everything positive. I'll be on email, but I have to leave you all hanging at the SRA entry. Hey at least maybe some of those sources prove useful. Sincerest apologies and good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

More sources are always useful! Even if I (personally) don't think the exercise in ranking and categorization is useful, awareness of more sources always a help and it's easier to plug in titles to a search engine than track 'em down. I persist in believing that there is nothing special about SRA and nothing that can not be addressed through the judicious use of noticeboards and requests for comments. Thanks for your help, I hope you don't mind if I sporadically pepper you with e-mail requests for journal articles I can't access from my local library? You are of course always free to say no 'cause we all have real-life to drag us away from wikipedia. WLU (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Useful Audio Links

Hi WLU, please put down the gun, and let's talk. I'm not spamming. Sure, I need to get used to Wikipedia's nuances, and I'll change the links so that there is no mention of ejunto. I've seen a number of links to free audio from LibriVox and this is the same idea. Anyway, I'm more than happy to reformat, or relocate the links, but this content is highly relevant for Wikipedia users...just like all the other external links. I've reviewed the external links guidelines and think the content of the link conforms. If not, please advise why. Thanks.