User talk:2over0: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:42, 24 September 2010

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2over0.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gift

Aha, you found it :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although that did remove the implication in those two redlinks that creating a page about untouchable issues is itself an issue deserving of the caper toss treatment. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use easter eggs! Hmm, tasty. WP:TENFOOTPOLE -Atmoz (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is the weather in London, anyway? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Possum Drop

Sorry, I had though there was a bot that automatically notified people if their article was suggested for Speedy Deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Gadel

Hi, I accept your apology but the stub is a clear copyvio of {http://www.nme.com/artists/elena-gadel}. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my CSD, I see now that NME has used the Wikipedia article. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to eliminate confusion regarding two pages

There are a couple of pages whose names are quite similar, Hyborian Age (which is about the fictional universe created by author Robert E. Howard as the setting for his Conan stories) and The Hyborian Age (the essay originally written by Howard about the setting), and it causes some confusion when trying to figure out which is which even for me (and I visit the former quite frequently), so I want to suggest a solution to alleviate this confusion.

What I propose is that the pages be renamed to Hyborian Age (essay) for the page about the essay, and Hyborian Age (fictional universe) for the page about the universe itself. I think this would be the best naming pattern for them because it provides each one a title with clear visual distinction regarding its content during a search.

Please respond to me on my talk page regarding this issue when you have a few minutes. Thank you for your time. Spartan198 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit of Faith healing: reference to Benors' analysis of clinical trials

Hi,

You reverted (on 23:20, 17 September 2010) my edit of the Faith healing article taking out the reference to Benors analysis of trials citing WP:MEDRS. (I had assumed that using an analysis of trials rather than quoting the results of one trial would "average out" a variation in each trials' results.) Would you be able to offer any advice about obtaining a suitable analysis of trials - what websites / search hints?.

Thank you,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, any decent biomedical journal will be indexed by PubMed and searchable here. I believe they have a tutorial explaining the fields and the use of limiters such as database or field or date of publication. Once you find a paper that covers information relevant to the topic about which you want to write, searching by the key words listed for that paper can help you retrieve additional relevant results. Though results are often incomplete (especially when a reference is not well-formed), I also find it helpful to use the 'find papers that cite this paper' function of Google Scholar and some databases. Searching out other papers lets you see the state of the relevant field as a whole so that our articles can reflect that rather than being a mere amalgam of whichever papers editors happen across. Always read the original paper before citing it; abstracts and especially lay summaries may be misleading.

For covering aspects of a topic related to the history or the sociological impact, PubMed is less useful. The same advice regarding searching out additional sources to gain an understanding of the field as a whole continues to apply, though.

On the issue of well-formed citations, you may find these tools I have bookmarked on my user page helpful.

On this particular paper, you are absolutely correct that reviews are, with some caveats, preferred to individual studies. One of those caveats is that pretty much any paper from 1990 is likely to be of only historical interest. As more papers are published, they will be summarized by updated reviews. Quality and historical importance are also concerns, but as a general rule of thumb it is best to consider only the most recent few reviews. Reviews can use different methodologies and examine slightly different questions, though, so it is important not to throw out a good source solely based on the publication of a new review.

It is always worthwhile to consider the source of any paper you consider citing. Complementary Medical Research (now Complementary Therapies in Medicine) was founded by the Research Council for Complementary Medicine, though apparently they have been taken up by Elsevier now; I am not sure off hand who published it in 1990. Reviewing Benor's oeuvre, I would be wary of citing him for anything other than his own opinion; his opinion may be relevant in a few articles, but should always be properly attributed.

This review is a very good source, as it is relatively recent and comprehensive, explains its methodology transparently, and is published by the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration.

Hope this helps, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey

On 19 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Edit warring

Why have you not warned QuackGuru re edit warring. This is biased and a completely unacceptable violation of wikipedia's guidelines re edit warring - he is also involved in the edit war. QuackGuru is reverting without discussion against wikipedia's guidelines. Please see Talk:Chiropractic#Systematic_review_about_safety --Javsav (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comment there. In case it is not clear, my admin hat is firmly in the corner on this and all other alternative medicine articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Gallery

Could you please undelete this article? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to :). The deleted talkpage is associated with the article that was A7ed previously, so I have not restored that. There was anyway no content but for a WikiProject London tag. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the OTRS tag now. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wp:DTTR

just as a point of information user:The_Transhumanist has four times as many edits as you do, so hitting him with a newbie template is a bit rude. I'm not defending him, mind you, just pointing out the obvious. --Ludwigs2 06:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit notice, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by that - I'm quite aware that this is a user talk page, which is all your edit notice seems to say - but c'est la vie. no real need to explain, because I have no real interest in pursuing the issue further. --Ludwigs2 07:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was unduly cryptic of me. I am aware of the essay in question, but disagree with its advice. In my edit notice, I state my preference that other editors template me, as the wording of the templates has been carefully crafted. That article has been subject to several moves over the years, and the most recent one was rather protracted. See you on talk if the move discussion continues. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, please delete these articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Public_Service_Commission,_District_1_-_Southern_Election,_2008 And then please delete my first 3 contributions.

And then delete (totally, so it does not show up in history) this post, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBLibertarian (talk • contribs) 08:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who made you admin

No matter who reports this user has violated the rules

DO you have any reson why you declined. do you know what is violation of rules ?

if you dont know the rules why dont you leave this issues to any experienced administrator-- LONTECH Talk 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 18:41, 24 September 2010 edit Lontech (talk \| contribs) 410 edits →Hi ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:42, 24 September 2010 edit undo Lontech (talk \| contribs) 410 edits →who made you admin Next edit →
Line 108:		Line 108:
	DO you have any reson why you declined. do you know what is violation of rules ?		DO you have any reson why you declined. do you know what is violation of rules ?

	if you dont know the rules why dont you leave this issues to any experienced administrator		if you dont know the rules why dont you leave this issues to any experienced administrator--<span style="background:#27408B">[[User:lontech\|<font style="font-size:11px;color:#EAEAEA;"> LONTECH</font>]] [[User_talk:Lontech\|<font style="font-size:12.5px; color:#accC10;background:#FFF68F;"> Talk </font>]] </span> 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)