User talk:Mdwyer

A steel toes source

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/EHSRM/EHS/PPE/footwear.html

This has some good info (although might need to dig deeper to find their sources,) about steel toes and legal jargon with respect to steel-toe requirements by employers.

A little help on the "steel toe boots" article

In my experience as a wearer of military boots, the portuguese air force issued steel toe jump boots to paratroopers. There were serious problems with those boots (that are similar to the US WWII jump boots) such as ropes that got entangled in the hooks and cuts in the feet caused by the steel toes. Later, they were replaced by boots with leather-reinforced toe boots with thicker soles and better stitching then the bates enforcer paratrooper boots series 11. As far as i know, the infantry boots are still steel-toed. If you'd like, i can send you some pictures of my portuguese jump boots (they're a little worn). Any questions to: (address removed)

WP:BOLD! Feel free to add that yourself, if you'd like. However, for it to last, we'd need to be able to find some source somewhere to cite. Is there a news release somewhere that would have this information? Do you have the manufacturer? --Mdwyer 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surgeryimages spam

See User_talk:Mdwyer/surgeryimages

LCLabs Linkspam

See User_talk:Mdwyer/LCLabs_linkspam

Slurpees

Strawberrwii banana - Yeah - first time I saw that I though it was incorrect but see [1] --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy's

Also posted this on my Talk page:

Those tags may have been a bit excessive, sorry. However, at this rate, we'll have a list of menu changes that keeps growing and growing. I figure it's either cite each of the changes, or just remove that stuff from the list. Otherwise the article becomes more of a news blog about the menu than an encyclopedic entry.

You're right, that URL probably won't stay put for long. Plus, it's a primary source, which is less preferable than a news article. I just don't think the menu changes are notable enough to be included in the article. -- Kesh 02:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blocking User_talk:Doctorlove08

Thank you for your quick work with this block. I enjoy fighting vandalism around wikipedia, and yet this is the first time I'd used a request for adminship to block an account. I was a little stunned at how quick and decisive it was. I was a little suprised you used an indefinate block instead of a 24h block. It is true that the account has so far only been used for vandalism, and I'm pretty sure it would never be used for anything good, but I'm trying to assume eventual good faith.

Anyway, I wanted to check with you to make sure I did the right thing. Did I misrepresent the user's edits, or is it common to block them after only four edits? --Mdwyer 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends upon circumstances - taking a look at the edits, you can see that they are not accidental vandalisms, so the probability increases that it is a vandal-only account. Indefinite means that the block can be repealed upon a successful review, if the editor decides to appeal. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have hopes that, with sufficient drugs and electro convulsive therapy, any vandal can become a good user... but maybe I'm being stupidly optimistic. :) In any case, thank you again! --Mdwyer 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Your edit to Talk:Slurpee

Sorry, I thought User:67.175.138.202 started the discussion (I failed the see the rest of it as I was using WP Pop-Ups). I believe WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, WP:NOT#FORUM. The whole conversation is not really questioning the article, or providing any critical commentary, so it should likely be removed ;)⋅ -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the original request was pretty snarky anyway. "I'm waiting..." As stupid as it is, the information gleaned from this conversations could be put into the Culteral references section of the article. Still, I wouldn't shed any tears if it went away.

What is the thinking on cleaning up talk pages? I'd love to wipe out some silly things on other pages, but I'm under the impressing that removing content from talk pages is frowned upon, especially if they are recurring themes. --Mdwyer 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Has no-one awarded you a barnstar yet?

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Mdwyer, for defending articles from vandals/spammers. Axl 21:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baking Soda Cure All Nonsense

No problem. I couldn't pass it up! :-D --BillyTFried 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Links

Not a problem. Some of those links were spam, so it was done with good intentions. --D-Day 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link deletion - Article: Composting 04:22, 21 January 2007

OK so why not transfer it to the Vermicompost article instead of just deleting the link altogether ? 213.122.8.1 16:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I personally didn't think it belonged there, either. I think it doesn't fit the criteria of WP:EL. --Mdwyer 00:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may well be correct but do you think you might be just a bit more constructive - even helpful. In what way do you personally think that it doesn't fit the criteria of WP:EL ? 81.131.17.57 19:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'm assuming we're talking about the UrbanHarvest.org about Vermicomposting? The nutshell guideline says Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. I removed the link from Composting because the article was about Vermicomposting, while the article was about Composting. Since Vermicomposting has its own Wikipedia article, the link was not appropriate.

As for the adding the link to Vermicomposting, the rule is to avoid Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Or in other words, the content on that page was very good, but that content should be contained within Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of links. External links are to be used as little as possible. The Right Thing to do is to bring that information into wikipedia. Of course, one cannot simply copy the text over, because that would violate Joyce Brau's copyright on the material.

Finally, although I don't think it applies in this case, I also use the guidelines at WP:SPAM.

Would you consider getting a permanent account with Wikipedia and expanding the existing Vermicomposting article as needed? An account isn't required, of course, but it does provide a fixed identity, which comes in handy at the very least during discussions like these. --Mdwyer 06:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a casual user of Wikipedia and a very occasional contributor, I am not sure that registering would serve any real purpose in my case but I do accept your point about discussions. To the point in question, I must admit that I was not aware that the Vermicompost article even existed at the time the external link was added but, in my defence (UK user), I did add the wikilink once I realised my mistake. So, I do accept that the placing was inappropriate. I regret I don't really feel qualified to successfully bring the material into the article in the way you suggest so I'll just have to let things stay. I have, however, placed the link in the External Links section of the Vermicompost article but if you still have your reservations then please feel free to delete it again from there.

Many thanks for explaining your position. 81.131.57.169 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link will have to do until someone does the work.

I have to apologize, though: I removed another link from Composting, for much the same reason as yours — there's already a link to Humanure and the external link already exists on that page. After I did the edit, though, I checked on who made the edit and it appears it was your edit!

I'm sorry! I assure you I'm not out to get you! I just happen to keep an eye on the Composting page (among others). --Mdwyer 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

biff

I know, I checked what it was before removing it. Do you suppose we add all email programs to the e-mail article? A link to Microsoft Outlook, Eudora, pine (I think). I don't think so. Yonatanh 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing stale warnings

Hi Mdwyer, it's usually a good idea to leave at least one or two months worth of warnings instead of removing all of them as you did here, so as to justify to new editors why their shared IP has been blocked in the first place. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:UW stuff says that the warnings should be removed in favor of only the block message. Did I understand that correctly? --Mdwyer 05:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Messages should be removed without archival after three months or less, depending on the number of warnings. In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed." -- Netsnipe ► 05:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users should be cleared of all content except the block notice. This block notice should explain the block reason, or link to the block log which does so." --Mdwyer 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, it doesn't seem like the Right Thing to do... I'll mention it on the UW discussion... --Mdwyer 05:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Indefinite blocks should not be used on IPs". schoolblocks are usually set to 6 months, not indefinite. -- Netsnipe ► 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlight001 Dispute

Moved to /Sunlight001

Vandalism at cartoons

Thanks for removing the vandalism from cartoons Bingoplayer

My pleasure! --Mdwyer 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's disease

I've noticed you've been watching recent edits made to the Parkinson's disease article. In that case, you should be aware of the banned user General Tojo. I've just reverted edits made by his latest sockpuppet Agfa4000 (talk • contribs). Note the use of a URL shortening service to circumvent the blacklisting of viartis.net. -- Netsnipe ► 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food Photos

Hi! I was just wondering what I should put if I have a photo of food that I want to upload that isn't my work. Since, most pictures of food on Wikipedia were created by the uploader I don't know what to put. I do have permission to use the image.--Sportman2 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the copyright rules aren't very forgiving. The reason most photo uploads are the work of the uploader is because they are usually the only person who can fully release the rights to the photo. Putting a photo up on Wikipedia requires VERY liberal licensing. You say that you do have permission to use the photo. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia demands a bit more than that. The creator has to release the image under a Creative Commons or other open license. I'm, personally, not too familiar with it. You might Start Here or ask around at Wikipedia Help Desk. Sorry! --Mdwyer 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My warning

I just wanted to let you know that I acknowledge my warning--I just wanted to point out to that guy the blatant stupidity of leaving out essential information from an article and merely putting on the "talk" page in answer to soemone's question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Edits to Talk:Diabetes mellitus

I think you may have made a mistake when you removed a users comments in Talk:Diabetes mellitus. While I do not agree with what he has to say, it IS on a talk page, and probably not subject to summary deletion. Also, we do encourage people to sign talk page additions, which is what made me think you may have thought it was in the main article. Anyway, I didn't revert it cause I figured it would look better if you did it yourself. NipokNek 17:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I feel like an idiot. Yes, that was a complete mistake. Thank you very much for catching it. I have attached a little explanation and apology to the original text. --Mdwyer 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheilding

Hi.. its Mr. Anony Mous. i checked out that article and the one on electromagnetic sheilding. both explain how they the cage sheilds from static and radio waves, and it says stuff about the cage holes have to be smaller than the wavelenght being sheilded. obviously a mesh cant sheild from light because light has a very short wavelength. but it still doesnt explain why saltwater (no holes at all. well actually, the distance between the atoms.. but thats way smaller than the wavelenths of light).. so why doesnt sheilding occur? any other ideas..? 209.53.181.69 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

A user with the ip address 67.175.157.96 has committed numerous acts of vandalism. His most recent accussed a prominent historian of plagiarism when there is no evidence of this. You have in the past threatned to block this user (and he or she has been threatned by another). I would suggest that you block this user.

First of all, I'm not an admin. I cannot block users. I can only request that users be blocked (you can, too! WP:AIV). If I made a request today, the admins would reject it -- there's not enough current evidence of vandalism from this IP. Right now, all we can do is document the vandalism; I've attached user warnings to the talk page. If they do one more this month, they'll probably get blocked, but only temporarily. Unfortunatly, someone from that IP address is also providing good edits, too.

In any case, thanks for the heads-up. I'll try to keep an eye on them. --Mdwyer 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link on Medulloblastoma Page

Why did you remove this link from the medulloblastoma page without even bothering to offer an explanation? It does not represent spam by any stretch of the imagination.

That page contains an article written by Dr. Packer of Children's National Medical Center in DC, followed by a list of clinical trials. Dr. Packer is one of the world's foremost experts on medulloblastoma, the standard treatment for medulloblastoma is called the "Packer protocol", see here and PMID 11305414 (reference to Packer Protocol in article on adult medullo).

Webwench 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I switched it to a citation. I've been trying to improve that article and sometimes I will place a link as more or less a placeholder until I am able to cite it.

That article is most definitely a work in progress. My son has a variant of medulloblastoma and I've learned much. The previous article was full of uncited factual inaccuracies. I'm working on trying to fix that. Webwench 16:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UW future?

Hi Mdwyer,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur radio/N0ZAP

The callsign is ineed a vanity call. I couldn't believe it was available! When first licencsed in 2003-02, I was unhappy with my original callsign, so kilo golf six, pretty darn yucky only lasted a few weeks. ;-) 73 DE K6WEB Peter K. Sheerin, K6WEB 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]