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.

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, every time I say I may be able to contribute to any sort of sustained effort I inevitably crap out. The only way I can keep editing wikipedia is if I just stick to what interests me in the moment. Good luck, one thing I can help with is if you need a proofread or wordsmithing. Aside from that, I'm almost inevitably going to disappoint :( WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You've yet to disappoint. ;) Proofreading would be great. I'll let you know if we get it up and going. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do so, I actually enjoy proofreading and flatter myself that I have some small measure of ability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all spread too thin. Stick with the medical articles, because there has been a huge drop-off in numbers. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lay off our proofreader! (WLU does nightwork as a crack alternative medicine and social science source-erer, copyeditor, donchaknow?) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly Ocaasi, there has been a huge drop-off in editors of medical articles. Two years ago, my watchlist would spin through articles. I could never keep up. Now, articles aren't edited very frequently, and it's not because they're good. The only editing I see is the occasional POV pusher or random IP troll who comes through and tries to say that something or another works. Or that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Or the blah blah blah does blah blah blah. WLU, MastCell and two or three others are the only ones around. And half the time WLU is mining cheese on the moon (see above or an archive). Anyways, my comments were 57.3% humor.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take the other 42.7% and just note that I wouldn't ask WLU for something trivial. These articles are some of the most important in the entire realm of modern politics and social science. Besides, all work and no play... dull boy. That sort of thing. So WLU, if you need a break from ridding the world of medical misconceptions, you know where to find me. Orangemarlin, less baseball chat and you'll have a new lease on C-Class core med articles. My weakness is help documentation, but at least it works it's way around. Baseball I lost passion for after I realized other pitchers would keep growing, and all of the sudden my 47 mph sinking fastball wasn't as clutch. Cheers, 57.3. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually add much content these days, I usually just check my contribution history and watch for edits on my most recent article activity. I think we've seen a drop-off in content and contributors because most of the articles are adequate enough they don't need the raw work. We're getting to the point that it requires specialists to add and adjust content. I know if I want to adjust acupuncture and do a really good job of it, I'll have to do a lot of reading, reading that even the pro-acupuncture crowd is unwilling to do for the most part.

Also, I don't get, and don't like sports metaphors. So I shan't be playing with you two in that regard :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've created a new and hopefully amusing page: WP:SVB. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bad influence

Now you're dropping f-bombs at Talk:Acupuncture. The admins will be blaming me for this situation.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I drop f-bombs all the time when my patients is exhausted and the person I'm talking to is showing evidence of illiteracy or being unable to understand my points. No worries, I was already corrupted. Fortunately I've yet to run into an admin who considers my overall behaviour problematic. Perhaps it's my enviable charm... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the template:pmid advice

Thanks for the template:Cite pmid advice! I could see what it was doing. And now I know about cite doi as well as a few others I am less likely to need. I also needed to fix a few minor bugs in the citations that I had entered. Definitely cool! M.boli (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Makes generating citations a whole hell of a lot easier than it once was. I'm just surprised there's no {{cite isbn}}. You may also be interested in pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator, incredibly useful, uses the pubmed number or isbn to automatically generate a citation template for you; the most useful if you have a pubmed or ISBN. Used to be my favourite citation generator until {{cite pmid}} showed up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Protocol

WLU - you may or may not recall some edits that I had proposed some time ago, regarding the Marshall Protocol. Originally, the article read more as an endorsement, but after your revisions, was fine. However, I now notice that some significant re-edits have been made by proponents of the protocol. For example, references to Marshall's "hypothesis" appear to be presented as authoritative and peer-reviewed, but in fact are mentioned in a privately published book (i.e., Springer publishers). Another point of concern: the Marshall Protocol authors cite "physicians" as prescribing Benicar, leading to the inference that physicians may be routinely adhering to, and prescribing the protocol, when in fact, the vast majority do not---as it is not an approved FDA therapy. Thus, I think there are a number of issues here, but I'm not quite sure how to proceed with edits. So I'd appreciate if you could took a look? Ronsword (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll sharpen my knives and have a gander. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ThanksRonsword (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done if you want to look. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. And I just corrected a few typos, so we should be good to go.Ronsword (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow up and say, your commentary on what is, and is not appropriate (example: recent Marshall Protocol talk) is excellent and essential reading for any Wikipedian. I have learned much from these exchanges about what is, and isn't valid presentation per the very nuanced and necessarily, rigid guidelines of Wikipedia. As an advocate of alternative/complementary therapies, it took me a while to really assimilate this concept. And now, I use my own quick-reference guideline when considering material for entry or editing: if it's not something you'd see in the NEJM, or in a treatment brouchure in a board certified MD's office, it likely won't work in Wiki as an authoritative article, regardless of the ongoing experimental research that may be happening and that may seem groundbreaking. (Yet, this concept is often difficult for contributors to grasp). Perhaps one of these days, you might do an instructive article on this very subject as per the flavor of a pharmanoia etc.? Just a thought Ronsword (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: there appear to be two current articles on "Trevor Marshall." One contains the recent BLP revisions with all references to the protocol and his theory trimmed out or deleted. But the other, also entitled "Trevor Marshall" consists of the most recent revisions to the original page, complete with the references to lack of secondary sources, clinical trials etc. More confusing (to me at least), when you enter a Wikipedia search for "Marshall Protocol," you are re-directed to a 'Trevor Marshall' page. I know that a new revision has been proposed just dealing with the 'protocol' so I'm a little confused as to why the two articles, same name? Should I change the second article title to 'Marshall Protocol' or is the entire article an oversight? Ronsword (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ronsword, before you make any more edits to the Bio, would you like to declare any potential conflicts of interest? Are there any relevant contracts you or your spouse may have signed with potentially hostile third parties, perhaps ? Trevmar (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? And what is meant by: 'relevant contracts signed with potentially hostile third parties'? Please explain so I might possibly put you at ease. Also, you might be better served response wise, by expressing your concerns on my talk page(talk) Ronsword (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There can't be two pages called Trevor Marshall. You may be seeing different versions of the same page. If you can link me to both, I may be able to sort it out. The reason you are redirected from Marshall Protocol to Trevor Marshall is because it is a redirect. Redirects are not perfect, it may be that we're better off with one page about Marshall and a second about the protocol, or perhaps we delete both as failing WP:N.

Trevmar, your accusation is uncivil and bad faith. You have a definite conflict of interest, Ronsword does not (that I've seen). Often editors who are skeptical or add critical commentary to pages are accused of having a bias. Sometimes they do, sometimes it's just that the person accusing them of bias has their own bias that blinds them to how a page should be edited according to wikipedia's guidelines. That appears to be what is occurring here. You sought outside input, and it ended up pretty much agreeing with my opinion. Such is the breaks. See WP:BOOMERANG. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I made no accusation, I made no assumptions, I asked a direct question. The question had nothing to do with Ronsword's editing. The answer was no, and that is now on the public record, so I accept the answer. Trevmar (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Over 45K

Hi WLU,
In X!'s Edit Counter, for users such as we, "Top Edited Articles are disabled for users with over 45000 edits."
But not for you. Your edit breakdowns are active.
Which magical power did you use? Varlaam (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No idea. My edit count is just over 45,000 (45,155 as I check now) and it could be that the difference is due to my deleted edits. I know I've got at least a couple hundred. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that's it.

I did "speak" to X some time back, by the way:

Since that legal case, or complaint, or whatever, the edit breakdown has been disabled automatically for everybody. You have to be pretty experienced to re-enable it, and few have.

Therefore I argued that the +45K group should get the feature back, if they want it, since virtually no one else has it active nowadays.

Fell on deaf ears, or something.

I like it; it gives you a decent idea of what the editor is expert at, or very interested in at any rate.

Mine's disabled, otherwise you would know that I'm really interested in the Care Bears, and My Little Pony. (Joke.)

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI - ANI

hI, your contributions have been mentioned at ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Bio_about_me_keeps_accumulating_demeaning_and_Defaming_material - thanks Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just checked the history on Trevor Marshall and JIMBO HIMSELF has edited the page. Now I can retire. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)