User talk:WLU

Please note that I usually don't do e-mail; if it's about wikipedia use my talk page.

If I judge it requires discretion, I'll contact you. This is tremendously one-sided. I assure you, I feel terrible about it. Really I do.

External links not in English are okay

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Tales&diff=300831298&oldid=282385135 Here you said "removed external links (should be English only)" - To my knowledge this is not correct. We not only link to non English external links, but we also use non-English sources too. If there are too many external links, generally only the English ones are kept, but in this case this is the only External link. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding WP:EL:

• the section "Links Normally to be Avoided" says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:"
• Wikipedia:EL#Non-English_language_content says "may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" - We are talking about an official website, and we are talking about a website in the subject's original language.
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Non-English-language_sites says "Webpages in English are highly preferred. Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in the following cases: when the website is the subject of the article"

Therefore the external link needs to stay. And this is an official site about the subject, not a simple sales link. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I also found http://www.mediafactory.co.jp/poke-daisukiehon/ - Which is another official website about the subject WhisperToMe (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Histamine

Well, there's always User:Immature Basophil... he's clearly a new user and not in any way a sockpuppet, but I like the cut of his jib. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry, I did specify admin. Any admin sock accounts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiley

I made a suggestion on the discussion page of the Suzanne Somers article (forgive, I've been off W for a while, I forgot how to reference pages) that the phrase "so-called Wiley Protocol" was biased and needed to be corrected. I also made a comment on the Wiley Protocol discussion page about the progress of the WP and how far out of whack the article is now. I'll be in London for a week ending November 5. Let me know if you're around for a beer Neil Raden (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

London, UK? Not much chance of that. London, Ontario? Slightly greater chance, but really not much more. I'll have a look at the pages (Talk:Suzanne Somers and talk:Wiley Protocol?) and give an opinion. I'll try to do so tomorrow, I don't edit nearly so much these days. I also have a couple more recent sources that mention Wiley, review articles which is good, so I'll see if I can read and digest them in order to add to the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought it was UK. Anyway, let me know about the new material. Also, what is the Wikipedia POV on a doctor giving a testimonial on YouTube? Neil Raden (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Testimonials in general are not reliable sources for any medical articles (WP:MEDRS) and YouTube would fall into a self-published source. Wiley Protocol is a medical article, pretty much every strong positive claim needs to adhere to MEDRS and be cited to a journal article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

WLU, I note your recent edit to Conversion therapy [1]. You've probably noticed that that article is in the middle of a dispute that doesn't look as though it will be resolved quickly. I understand if you are reluctant to comment on those disputes, however, any comment by editors who have not been involved in previous arguments there over article content would be extremely helpful. BG talk 06:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I did notice but doubt I'll get a chance to comment as there is a lot there and I've a couple other pages I'm trying to deal with right now where I know the page history and disputes. You may try asking either User:Slp1 or User:FisherQueen - both are very good people to work with, very experienced admins, and FQ is interested in LGBT issues, Slp1 in psychological ones. There's also the inevitable RFC if need be. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to squat

I have a problem with several of your edits to squat. My problem is that some people have made sane edits that you have reverted without comment.

1. [2]: You undeleted "the deeper the squat, the greater the training effect but also the greater the risk of injury."

I took out that sentence because there is no citation supporting that statement, and it is quite widely disputed. Even if you found a citation, it wouldn't be enough to have a sentence like that in the article. I've read many articles that say that squatting below parallel is injurious, but I've also read many that say it is safer. Since many qualified accounts differ, you just can't state something like that as fact. Personally, I think it's safer because I go below parallel and it feels better. I'm sure you think you are right because you have gone below parallel and it hurts you. The point is that there is no consensus. At least I posted a topic in the discussion explaining why I took the sentence out. In fact, there should be a section in the article describing the discrepancy of opinions among qualified people.

1. [3]: You undeleted "(even with proper form, conventional squats run the risk of injury)"

This wasn't my edit, but I saw this one too. You know, I don't care whether this is true. Actually, the reason it should be deleted is that it is redundant. The statement before the above statement says that doing squats properly minimizes the risk of injury, clearly implying that there is still a risk of injury. Otherwise the statement would have read "doing squats properly eliminates the risk of injury," but since it says minimizes, your addition is redundant. There is also the implication that there is risk of injury simply because any exercise has a risk of injury, however trivial. Whoever deleted that sentence was just trying to make the article sound better and reflect a more encyclopedic style.

These are not big deals, but Wikipedia is not a resource on how to train effectively; the statements should be purely objective or describe the subjectivity of a common viewpoint. Wikipedia is not a bodybuilder website. I mean, what do you even mean by "the greater the training effect"? You might be able to say "the greater the range of motion," but that would be obvious. Just because it's an article about squatting, doesn't mean you can use a substandard vocabulary or writing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesemonkyloma (talk • contribs) September 26, 2009

Both these statements are sourced, to books published by Human Kinetics (publisher). If you have another source that is reliable but disputes this, then we can discuss. These edits are not based on my personal experience, they are based on books. You are also misusing WP:CONSENSUS since there has been neither dispute nor discussion on the talk page. The essential point is that any unsourced statement can be removed per WP:PROVEIT, but a sourced statement can not be unless it is demonstrated to be undue weight, outdated, inaccurate (using reliable sources).

Wikipedia should not be a source of effective training information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I Don't care that the second statement is sourced! It is redundant! I know it's true, did you even read what I said? It's not about whether it's a fact or whatever, it's just about the style of the page, and that sentence doesn't belong. And for the first statement, did you actually check the discussion page before saying there was no discussion about it? I said something about deleting it and saying it's not true, and someone agreed with me by saying "there is little research to substantiate the claim that proper full squatting increases any risk of injury." That is discussion right there! And I just read the consensus page... since I'm disagreeing with you right now and there is a discussion on the discussion page that means there is not a consensus. I'm sure your book is a reliable source but that doesn't mean it's right. And if you are going to put something like that in the article you have to explain why, you can't just say it's injurious. If your source is truly reliable they should give a reason for squatting below parallel to cause injury. It's virtually meaningless to say that without explanation. What could possibly cause that anyway? Sockigami (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Your signature is confusing and makes it harder to tell who posts what comment - when I looked for your post I was looking for something signed by Chesemonkyloma, in the month of September. That's not there. It is standard to match user name and signature, and I would suggest you do so. I can't find your reply or discussion on the talk page because it is a huge mess with a variety of posts and replies intermixed - new posts should go at the bottom and I don't feel like re-reading the entire page. Your contributions show no edits to talk:squat (exercise) so again I can't tell what you actually wrote. But having read the final section of the talk page, my comment is exactly the same - the statements you are insisting is wrong is sourced to a reliable publisher. Without another source disputing this, there is no basis to change the page. Consensus is not two statements by two anonymous IPs which contradict a reliable source. A reliable source overcomes bare opinion.

The two sentences are not redundant. Proper from minimizes the risk of injury, but it is still present even if squats are done properly. That's not redundant, that's a clear statement that squats are risky no matter what precautions are taken. As for the why, we can see results without knowing why (i.e. the Broad street pump). And again, sourced beats out opinion. If I can find a source explaining why, I will certainly put it in.

Your statement about a reliable book being wrong means you should read WP:V. Wikipedia reports what is verifiable, not truth. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You changed my whole page with spelling error as well

1. [4]

I don't know what the real problem is. Please help me edit it. I saw one of the comments that there was a conflict of interest because my Username is DrErikaTS. I am not the subject nor related to her. If one of the problems is my username, how can i correct that? Can I delete this page and start a new one with a different username? Thank you.DrErikaTS (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)