User talk:Delldot

Archives

1: 10/05–12/06 2: 12/06–01/07 3: 01/07–02/07 4: 02/07–03/07 5: 03/07–06/07 6: 06/07–09/07 7: 09/07–11/07 8: 11/07–11/07 9: 11/07–12/07 10: 12/07–01/08 11: 01/08–02/08 12: 02/08–03/08 13: 03/08–04/08 14: 04/08–05/08 15: 05/08–06/08 16: 06/08–07/08 17: 07/08–07/08 18: 07/08–08/08 19: 08/08–10/08 20: 10/08–04/09 21: 04/09–01/10 22: 01/10–11/12 23: 12/12–03/13 24: 05/13–12/15

Thanks for dropping me a note! Don't be shy about asking questions, I'm always glad to help. I will reply to messages here, so you may want to watchlist this page.

If you'd like to undo an action of mine and can't get a hold of me within a reasonable time, go ahead. If I disagree, we can discuss it when I'm back. This applies to admin actions too.

Ok I set mine up

You suggested that I mention when I set up for my own review so I have done so now, also I have a few people who I am waiting on replies from using the template that I mentioned on the WP:ER page. Even after I have got my review I will still be happy to help other Editors out (especially if I can get better at it) because I have enjoyed the 3 I have done so far. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

SAH

Hey there! Subarachnoid hemorrhage is on the edge of FA status, and I was wondering if you could provide a source (sources?) for Image:SAH incidence graph.svg (both inline and in the image description page, please :) Thanks, and looking forward to your next GA/FA, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for catching that. How I could have failed to do that boggles the mind. Anyway, done now, thanks for the thorough reviewing work (as usual). delldot talk 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK - Level of consciousness

On 7 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Level of consciousness, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Mifter (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion

I've done a bit more. I'm afraid real-life is interfering with my WP time and I'm also trying to respond to a GA review of ketogenic diet. So, I'm going to be real slow. I see you've got another review and there are plenty other folk if you need feedback quickly. If you have concerns about your sources being up to FA level, try User:Eubulides. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 13:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all Colin, take your time. I don't really even have a time frame in mind, plus I have a lot of real life stuff too. I appreciate whatever you can do to help me, but if you end up not having time for it I completely understand. Peace, delldot talk 15:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, delldot, I haven't found time to continue reviewing it. I won't have time in the next couple of days and then I'm on holiday for a week. Have you tried printing the article, and reading it out loud? You could ask User:GrahamColm for an opinion. Good luck! Colin°^Talk 14:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem Colin, you've been very helpful already, you certainly don't owe me anything. I was just asking if you thought it was it too sorry a state to bring to FAC without any further reviewing from you. Peace, delldot talk 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look...

At Magnetic resonance neurography? I was cleaning up the references and it turns out that clearly the contributor (Afiller (talk · contribs)) is one of the inventor of the technology. While I don't think there is much COI going on, I figure it'd be best if someone with a more medical background had a look. Circeus (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can have a look. I don't have much of a medical background though, just a bachelor's. I'll let you know what I think. delldot talk 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's better than me. My (almost entirely non-academic) background is in plant science and languages :p Circeus (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, I thought it was pretty good, if a little heavy on the advantages and light on the disadvantages. I left a note on the talk page. Good catch, thanks for bringing it up! delldot talk 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa

SAH is FA. I'd stuff your userpage with barnstars, but I think even that would be an inadequate sign of appreciation. Keep up the brilliant work. JFW | T@lk 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! :D Congrats JFW, you did terrific work. Thanks much for the kind words! It was your work, though, that brought the article to the high standard it is now, no question. Peace, delldot talk 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

July 11 DYK

On 11 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Focal and diffuse brain injury, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 09:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for helping me to learn the process of reviewing other editors, and for giving me great advice on my Editor Review I have learned alot from you through both processes and just wanted you to know that I appreciate it%%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

:D Thank you! delldot talk 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Willie Wagtail

I am just waiting on trying to get a map but have the content just about right. A quick look-over to alert me to any grammar or flow glitches would be much appreciated... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

pick 1 from the following: 1/you have been exceedingly busy, mostly with subarachnoid haemorrhage. 2/ you have just been letting me figure out for myself that the idea i proposed 10 days ago was too clever by half (with clever, in this case, not being a +). 3/ i have somehow given offence. that said, i have an odd situation here. i have a reference with an only copyright date of 1928. (don't worry, it's not on medicine.)i know for sure that my copy dates much later than that. on the copyright page it has the usual 'all rights reserved, no reproduction ,blah, blah, blah. my understanding of copyright law is that the copyright on this should have expired in 1998. i would like to be able to make pretty much free use of this in an article, including some pix.it's one of the major references in its field. any thoughts? advice? pax vobiscum.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm really sorry Toyokuni, I just forgot to respond! I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to ignore you, and you definitely haven't given offense! I didn't really know how to respond, so I thought I would look into it later, and I forgot. I don't have any experience with lists, so I wasn't sure if that was a cohesive enough thing to base a list on. Did you check WP:LIST and look at other biography-related lists for similar themes? I can try to help with this if you like, just give me an update.

I'm not really sure about the copyright question either, but I believe it's the death date of the author that's important, not the publication date. It sounds reasonable to say that if it hasn't been changed in the more recent publications, it's still public domain, though again I'm not sure (In other words, a Shakespeare play would still be public domain even if it was republished, while for a new textbook edition the clock would start over, but I'm just making that up). But copyright law is very complicated, and it depends on a lot of variables, including country of origin (see Wikipedia:Public domain). For images, the copyright expires after the death of the author plus 70 years I believe, at least if it was published in the US first. Sorry, wish I could be more definitive help. Did you try asking at the help desk? I can ask around more, and I can probably help more if you give me more info. Peace, delldot talk 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: I asked in the commons IRC channel, and others confirmed that unchanged republication would not reset the expiration date: it would be based on original publication or the death date of the author. It was also confirmed that the copyright expiration is the death of the author + 70 years, not the original publication date, but that it might be different depending on the country. Peace, delldot talk 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

many thanks. not the answer i wanted to hear, but it kept me from putting in work that just would have had to be removed. back to the drawing board. paix. Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Great suggestion!

So I spent some time playing around with the image map extension. I have already put it to use. with the help of Wikipe-tan and the Trifecta I have created a great little adaptation to the image on the WP:TRI page.

Thanks again for all your help! %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 21:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Now why didn't I think of that? :P I bet there's a ton of stuff like that that you'd enjoy playing with, that was just the first thing that came to mind. You should talk to the bot type people, they might have more ideas for how to put your skills to good use. Do you ever use IRC? You should join #wikipedia-en on freenode and ask around some time. delldot talk 01:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am on there right now, just wanted to check my watchlist while I was at it :) I may indeed bring it up. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww, too bad I missed you, but I'm on there all the time. Maybe next time. delldot talk 04:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist International

Just so you know, the article has been reposted and is virtually identical to the original one that was deleted. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. If it gets re-created a third time I would suggest blocking it from recreation. Zazaban (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I hate to salt it though, since there could conceivably some day be a notable thing called "Anarchist International" that could deserve an article. I'll just watchlist it. Thanks for your vigilance and for handling this so well. delldot talk 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Anna

She's now trying to argue that the deletion of the Anarchist International article is an act of vandalism and I am being called a vandal. Also, she's claiming that the anon who blanked my userpage and tried to sabotage the vote is not a vandal. Zazaban (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. I'll try talk to her, I don't know if she'll see it my way though. Are you able to ignore the unpleasantness, or are you going to want to take it to ANI or whatnot if it continues? delldot talk 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to ignore her, she misrepresents her organization to an incredible degree (She claims it to be somehow related to the IWW) and generally uses underhanded tactics for reasons only known to her. She hasn't even ever been able to prove her organization really exists beyond its website. Zazaban (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. Anyway, that's my advice, take it or leave it. delldot talk 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked her to take it to deletion review. Zazaban (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Does she have a problem with the process by which the consensus to delete was decided? Or with the fact that Wikipedians decided to delete? If it's the latter, DRV isn't really appropriate, it's just for review of the way the AFD was carried out, not for the article's merits. Seems like a pointless exercise anyway if the article doesn't have any RS, you know? I suggested that she work on a new article in her userspace with RS. delldot talk 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

She disagrees with it no matter what the process, so it would be the latter. She claims I'm a vandal and that the people who voted to delete are 'ochlarchists' and therefore their votes are invalid to her, if only because they contradict her. Zazaban (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so not DRV then. It's too bad about the conflict, but I wouldn't worry about it. If she edits disruptively, she'll be blocked. If not, she can be safely ignored. delldot talk 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that the IP that was attacking my userpage and such was her using a meatpuppet, it talks just like her, nobody else uses the word 'ochlarchist'. I'm thinking about reporting her as a suspected meatpuppeteer, but I can't prove she is. Zazaban (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess if the disruption continues you'll have to report it, but I don't know how effective it'll be if you don't have any proof. I mean, if someone's being disruptive, they can be blocked just for that, whether or not they're a meatpuppet. delldot talk 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

G&A

The pulmonary contusion stuff from Grainger and Allison is from Ch 20... I don't know how to indicate this with the template. I use an online edition so I have no page numbers. Antelan 02:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem, thanks again Antelan! delldot talk 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rebel!

"sometimes I eat peanut butter and jelly with no bread"

Yeah! I saw that! :O

— CycloneNimrod^Talk? 16:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:O Busted! Also, when no bread is available but tortillas are, it's PB&J burritos! delldot talk 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You disgust me! — CycloneNimrod^Talk? 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really :D — CycloneNimrod^Talk? 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's only disgusting when you spread all the way to the edges and PB&J squishes out. Any real burrito maker can tell you that. :P delldot talk 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion FAC

Good luck! Although I'm not sure who your "chest trauma experts" are. I'm a pulmonologist, not a trauma surgeon. ;-) Axl (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much Axl! The chest trauma experts are an author and editor of an emedicine article on penetrating chest trauma and the author of one of the reviews in the references section. I don't know how thoroughly they read the article, but each declared it good, and two made minor suggestions (this was all done through email, though). delldot talk 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anarchist International Wikipedia page again

At my "user talk" I have quoted several newspaper-articles (~from paper editions, etc) and a book as independent sources to the Anarchist International page. Take a look at it and see if it is enough independent sources to put up the Anarchist International page again. In case you have other comments I would be glad to hear it. I can of course change the content a bit if you mean it is still not compatible with the Wikipedia standard, just give me a hint.(Anna Quist (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

Proposal to Anarchist International Wikipedia article in "sandbox"

I have recreated the Anarchist International Wikipedia page in a Anna Quist sandbox page for discussion and perhaps changes, to reach a consensus, for later to publish it (based on general consent). Feel free to make comments. The sooner we can reach consensus and publishing, the better. (Anna Quist (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

My reply delldot talk 03:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to the proposal to Anarchist International Wikipedia page for discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)).

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

What a pleasure it was to see your image added to traumatic diaphragmatic hernia, only moments after I created the article. Keep up the good work. --Arcadian (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing! I noticed it when you added it to the injuries template. I had it around anyway for something that's been languishing in my user space. Weird cooincidence, huh? Keep up your amazing work yourself Arcadian, you're a tremendous asset to the project. Peace, delldot talk 04:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist International Wikipedia page again

To delldot. You wrote:"If you want, I can mark the sentences in your sandbox that I think need citations." I think this is a good idea. Hope you have time soon to do it, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International for placing comments. I have also updated relevant information on my talk page(Anna Quist (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

My reply delldot talk 14:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Another question, this time about how to find out if images are for free use

Hi again Dell, I hope you are well. I know images aren't your area but I thought I would ask anyways. :) On the article Quackwatch there is the logo there for the official website. How would I go about finding out if it should be in the article and not copyright protected? I would appreciate your help if you know. If you do not know, not a problem either. I am just curious how to do this for use overall in Wikipedia. Thanks and no rush, I won't be online here for much longer. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I got this one! I think the image is copyright protected, logos usually are. A copyrighted logo can be used, but only under Fair use. For each article it's used in, there needs to be a rationale for that article on the image page. So the Quackwatch logo is not cutting it now: it could actually get deleted, because there's no rationale for the article. So let's add a rationale! You basically need an explanation for why you need to use it and to fill out each item on the list in Template:logo fur. How about you try to fill in the template as best you can and I'll explain anything that needs more explaining and help fill out any fields you have trouble with. This is from Template:logo fur, they have some explanations on that page. Cut and paste it into the image page Image:QuackWatch logo.png, and fill out each of the fields. Let me know what you need help with!

{{logo fur
| Article           = 
| Use               = <!--Choose: Infobox / Org / Brand / Product -->
| Used for          = 
| Owner             = 
| Website           = 
| History           = 
| Commentary        =
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = <!--Must be specified if Use is not Infobox / Org / Brand / Product-->
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = 
}}

Peace, delldot talk 16:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help again. I was going to delete it but I think fixing it to comply is even better.

How would I check if pictures in articles are Fair use and not Copyright protection though? Is there a system to check this or would I have to go to the download site and then see where it came from and go there to see if it is protected? It's too early for me to do this now, need a couple cups of coffee at least, but I will try what you told me and get back to you so you can check what I did to make sure I did it correctly. Thanks my friend, I always appreciate your help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem Crohnie, always glad to. You would have to go to the site and see if it says anything about the image itself. A lot of the time they'll have something at the bottom of the page asserting that everything on the page is their copyright. It's a safe assumption, though, that any logo you find will be copyright protected. That's the thing about fair use--it's for using images that are copyrighted, like album covers or logos. We can use copyrighted images as fair use, but only in a very strict, limited set of circumstances. That's why we need the rationale on the image page: we have to be able to explain why this is one of those circumstances. Luckily, it is: use of a group's logo on the group's article to illustrate the group is well established. So let me know if you have any trouble filling out the rationale template and I'll help out! Peace, delldot talk 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Mmmmmm, coffee sounds good

The Anarchist International Wikipedia page again

Thank you for the comments Delldot. I will change my proposal to a new Anarchist International Wikipedia page according to your advice. I will also work with the anarchist historian H. Fagerhus and the International Institute for Organization Research to get sources to the relevant documents regarding the decisions of IFA-IAF-AI congresses and other meetings and from the International Anarchist Tribunal. We also have the e-mail source where the southern IFA-federation's secretary states the AI is lunatic. That speaks for itself. When I have made a new proposal I hope you have time to take a look at it, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International , again, for new comments. (Anna Quist (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)).

Glad to Anna, thanks again for putting in so much work to bring this up to a high quality. If the source for the 'lunatic' quote is an email, it shouldn't stay in the article. Remember, only information from reliable, published sources like books, journals, magazines, and newspapers. Email would be considered original research or, at absolute best, a primary source, which I don't think would cut it here. I may not have been clear enough, but I feel that the whole couple paragraphs that discuss that conflict should either be removed or pared down to a couple, extremely neutral sentences. I can't see how the 'lunatic' quote has much relevance anyway. I look forward to seeing your changes to User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International! Let me know when you're ready to have me take another look. Peace, delldot talk 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - we will drop the quote from the e-mail stating the AI is lunatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Anna, thanks much. delldot talk 18:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

INTI College Sabah

Hi there,

When I read your discussion, I can understand the problem. Now I am editing this topic (INTI College Sabah - Programmes) all over again. Also now I am trying editing to explain what this courses are all about by using my own words and not from the advertisement and brochures. So please check and see whether my work is alright or not so that I will be on a right track.

Also, there is one question I would like to ask, is it ok to plot down the list of subjects for each course (except English Improvement Programme) so that the people who surf the Wikipedia website will know what this courses are all about?

Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisceslalena (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pisceslalena, Thanks much for contacting me to learn about Wikipedia and for working to improve the article. It's good that you're using your own words. However, I think the content you have added back will have to go. This is because it is not backed up by reliable sources that are independent of the subject (i.e. the school itself had nothing to do with writing or publishing them). In fact, I doubt this information has ever been published in a reliable source such as a newspaper, journal, or book. In Wikipedia, every fact must be backed up by a reliable source in order to comply with our very fundamental verifiability policy. I also recommend checking out What Wikipedia is not to get more of a feel for the type of content that is supposed to be included. You can also look at other school articles such as Baltimore City College to get a feel for the kind of information that's usually included. It is fine, however, to include the school's website with all this information in the External links. You could even include the main website and the website(s) with all this course information in an "External links" section, with a note explaining what information the page holds. That way people looking for this information will be able to find it, while people looking for a more general encyclopedia article will have a concise article. Would you like to remove the course info, or shall I? Sorry to ask you to do it, I see you've put a lot of work into it. Definitely let me know if you have any questions or anything to discuss, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot talk 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion

Congratulations on bringing it to FA. [And thanks for the barnstar. Much appreciated.] Axl (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are most deserving! delldot talk 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK so let's try flattery now

Delldot, I think my last response to your GA review comments on Mental status examination might have been ungracious. Your comments and advice have in fact been very helpful and I think the article is vastly better as a consequence. I have also learnt a lot from the process. I was just getting a bit tired of the whole thing, and had other stuff to do, but I have since gone back and done a bit more (including adding some cool images) ... and I've had another look at WP:GACR and I do think it is good enough for GA ... would you mind having another look? Anonymaus (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Anonymaus, no, you weren't ungracious at all. Lots of people would have been though, since I'm sure it was frustrating to have your work critiqued by someone with so little familiarity with the subject. Sorry, I don't think I'm the right person to give you a review, and I'm glad we decided I should step back: I don't know enough about the subject. I found myself only being able to give superficial advice about the prose and appearance of the article, not enough on the content. It isn't fair to you, or your work, to give it only a superficial review. I had a vague feeling that the article wasn't comprehensive enough, but I couldn't prove it because I don't actually know anything about the subject. When I stepped back, I asked Jfdwolff if he would have a look because he's a doc who knows the subject and had shown interest in reviewing it before. He said he might be willing after some GANs and the FAC of subarachnoid hemorrhage was over, which they are now. Maybe you could drop a request on his talk page. Also, I notice user:Stevenfruitsmaak has taken an interest in the article, a lot of times potential reviewers leave a comment or two before jumping in to see if they'll get a response (if not, we figure it's a waste of time to review). Maybe you could ask him for one on his talk page. You could also put a request for a review at the talk pages of the relevant wikiprojects, or I would be glad to. Sorry for the long wait Anony, I'm sure I did you a disservice by partially reviewing it, it'll probably have to wait even longer than (the already very long) average. While mine were languishing up there, I consoled myself with the knowledge that they'd probably come down pretty quick once they hit the "oldest GAC" list, and they did. Best of luck, I'm glad to help with anything you need if you let me know about it. Peace, delldot talk 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

'ello Gov'ner!

Not much up with me at all, my friend. On-wiki, I've been spending most of my time trying to diversify my skills. Off-wiki, my life kind of revolves around my upcoming wedding in a couple of months. So I guess things are peachy.

So, 'sup wit u? I see you're still kicking butt left and right on this delldot-pedia. Hope everything A-OK off-wiki.

Thanks for hitting me up the way you did. I think it's sweet that you remembered.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear back from you! Congrats on the wedding, hope it goes well! Those things can be stressful, or so I hear. Everything is A-OK off wiki, but I'm going to have to impose a limit on the amount of time I spend on wiki because it's taking over my life (again). My off-wiki life kind of revolves around trying to get a van converted to run on vegetable oil, with zero mechanical knowledge or skill. Best of luck with everything! Peace, delldot talk 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear you. You definitely take Wikipedia a little more seriously than an average bear which is great for Wikipedia (and for some other people) but it may be a little hard on you. Anyways, you're one of the smartest people I know so I'm sure you don't need advice from me on how to handle your bidness.

Sorry I can't be of any help with the vegetable oil van. I may be a man (barely, I'm told sometimes) but I'm not much of a mechanic. If my car breaks down and the gas gauge doesn't say "EMPTY", I'm screwed. If it does say empty, then I can proudly grab my toolbox and fix the problem. But I hope it makes you feel better that I also eat PB&J minus bread. It's a mostly a time constraint thing but sometimes I feel bread dillutes the flavour. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Awwwww, thanks SWik, you're (overly) kind. Hopefully throttling down the amount of time I spend here will work, otherwise it's another wikibreak for me, maybe 2 or 3 months this time (Noooooooooo!). I think being really addicted to Wikipedia and having no life are kind of a feedback loop, don't you? Anyways, no worries, any and all advice is welcome.

I hear you, I'm at about that level of mechanical skill myself. The job would take a mechanic maybe 4 hours, and so far it's taken us since May (and we still haven't actually cut into any hoses). But we have high hopes, because we actually figured out where some of the stuff we need (e.g. fuel line, fuel pump) is, and we even think we know what some of the other stuff is (e.g. the jug thing by the battery is probably a reserve tank for the coolant). Diesels are very puzzling though (e.g. why are there two batteries, and why does it still go when we disconnect one??) Updates as further events merit!

My PBJ thing is mainly a bread availability issue. Also, I don't really like bread. But It's so nice to know I'm not the only freak! Do you do this with other sandwiches too? What are your thoughts on using only one slice when at least one is absolutely necessary? delldot talk 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Even outside of PB&J I'm a huge proponent of folded single bread slice sandwiches. I like being able to eat with one hand for many reasons one of which is that I'm the messiest eater you'll (n)ever meet and I tend to touch things (Why? I don't know.) while I eat and leave a sample menu of my lunch on my clothes and other belongings. I've found one handed eating of single slice sandwiches to help out with this problem. Does any of that even make sense? I didn't think so.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bwahaha! Ah, I haven't experimented with folding! I'll have to try that. I too am a messy eater. In fact, I think I'll go make a delicious mess with a peanut butter and honey burrito right now (why? because there's no jelly or bread, but there are honey and tortillas). You'd think burritos would be less messy because they're encapsulated, but I have not found that to be the case at all! delldot talk 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Always make sure to fold over one end of the burrito so the filling doesn't slide out when you bite into it. I understand the theory behind it but I always overfill the burrito and render it incapable of being folded in this manner.

Anyways, enjoy your snack. It's always nice to hear from you.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anarchist International Wikipedia page proposal is finnished

Hello Delldot! Together with H. Fagerhus, the well known Norwegian anarchist historian, I have made a new proposal to the The Anarchist International Wikipedia page, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International

I hope this is according to the guidelines of Wikipedia, and that it should be published. However if you have any new proposals for improvement, it is very welcome. All things can be imropeved.

(Anna Quist (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Much improved Anna, I see the inline citations and that you've taken care of some of my concerns about the NPOV. Thanks much for taking out the stuff about the conflict with the Marxists, I think it's a much more purely factual article now.

The main thing I think will keep the article from being kept if you "publish" now is the lack of independent, reliable sources. Especially considering that the article was deleted because of notability and verifiability concerns, and because there seems to be beef with ... er ... certain parties who are almost certain to nominate it for deletion again. Therefore you're going to need iron-clad sources proving that this group exists and meets the notability guideline linked above. As I've said, I don't think the anarchy.no page will cut it in AFD: it's a website. I don't think you need to remove those citations, just add others in addition. You do have the journal, which I think is good. So that's one. For multiple reliable sources, I would say aim for at least three. If the group has never been discussed in a newspaper article, I really don't feel they are notable enough for an article, and I doubt the article will survive another AfD.

I'm sorry Anna, I'm sure this has got to be incredibly frustrating. Note that you don't need my permission for anything, you're free to move it to the mainspace and see how it fares at AfD. I'm merely offering my opinion that it won't survive based on my lengthy experience here. It would be a shame to see it deleted again after all the hard work you've put in. If you do move it, I won't nominate it for deletion myself; I won't be involved at all unless someone asks me to. But it is my strong recommendation that you find other reliable sources that metion the group. Peace, delldot talk 14:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I see the link to the external sources, that's great. I recommend finding the reliable sources listed there that cover Anarchist International in depth, and cite them in the article. You can add a "Further reading" section, or, better, use facts from the publications to source facts in the article. This will be iron-clad sourcing. (The problem now is that the reader doesn't know whether or to what extent the organization is actually covered in those sources). Peace delldot talk 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anarchist International Wikipedia pgae - Further readings?

Hello Delldot. I will add a chapter about Further readings with weight on third party sources. I am a bit confused about how I shall do it. Can you give me some advice and perhaps give a link with an example on how this is done? (Anna Quist (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)).

Sure, the further reading section just lists books, articles, and other materials about the group. You start a new header, ==Further reading==, and under it, in a bulleted list (use * to make bullets at the start of each new line) list your sources. In other words, the further reading section is a list of print materials (not websites, those would go in external links) that you're not using to cite a particular statement in your article, but that still cover the topic.

However, I wouldn't use this as a replacement for inline citations. You need the inline references so people can quickly check whether the subject is significantly covered in those sources. You can do it as you have done, or you can use <ref> ... </ref> tags to provide inline citations (with {{reflist}} in the ==References== section). Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else. delldot talk 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Further readings - AI Wikipedia page

Thank you for the advice about creating a chapter on Further readings. However I would like to see a good Wikipedia page that has such a section, so I can make a similar chapter. Can you provide me with a couple of relevant links to Wikipedia articles?

Material about Anarchist International (IFA -IAF- AI) organizations and their resolutions, are published in several articles of the CRIFA bulletin in English, French and Spanish, in the French (FAF) anarchist paper Le Monde Libertaire, and in The Italian anarchist paper Humanita Nova. How shall I quote these? They are not available online, it is paper editions. Shall I translate to English, or is it ok to quote the article names in French, Spanish and Italian? (Anna Quist (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Sure, see at the bottom of Japan. Another way to do it is presented in Paulins Kill. Those resources you mentioned sound great. I would translate the title but be sure to mention in the citation what language they're in. You could also put the translation or the original title in parentheses. You can use the {{cite journal}} template, it automatically formats it for you: {{cite journal |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |month= |title= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |id= |url= |accessdate= |language= }} fill out as much info as you can, but you don't need all fields. The language= one is where you put what language it's in. Peace, delldot talk 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Further readings at the AI Wikipedia page

I have looked at the two pages you mentioned, and will create a Further readings section.

(Anna Quist (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)).

The AI Wikipedia page with Further readings

Hello Delldeot

The section with Further readings is finnished. What is your opinion? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International (Anna Quist (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)).

The Anarchist International Wikipedia page again

Hello Delldot. As mentioned I have made a Further readings section with reliable third party sources and also added several external links, mostly with independent third party sources, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International. I think the page is ready for publication. I would like to hear your opinion.

(Anna Quist (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)).

Speedy deletion oh The Anarchist International Wikipedia page?

Hello Delldot. Speedy deletion oh The Anarchist International Wikipedia page?

I posted the new The Anarchist International Wikipedia page, but it was tagged with speedy deletion. I protested the deletion at the talkpage. What do you mean I shall do now? I need help or else it will probably be deleted(Anna Quist (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)).

The new AI page is deleted

Hello Delldot. The new AI page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_International is deleted. I have however asked adminstrator Alex.muller to send me a copy of it. Perhaps I can publish it on another site. Is there any possiblity to recover it on the Wikipedia? Please give me some advice. I and Fagerhus have put some effort in making a good page, so we are a bit disappointed. We are also interested to know who, and on what ground, the deleting is done.

(Anna Quist (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

The new AI page is deleted

Hello Delldot. The new AI page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_International is deleted. I have however asked adminstrator Alex.muller to send me a copy of it. Perhaps I can publish it on another site. Is there any possiblity to recover it on the Wikipedia? Please give me some advice. I and Fagerhus have put some effort in making a good page, so we are a bit disappointed. We are also interested to know who, and on what ground, the deleting is done.

(Anna Quist (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Oh, I'm so sorry to hear it Anna! I didn't think the thing would be speedy deleted, but I did figure it might not survive an AfD because of the problems I've noted above with lack of in-line citations to reliable sources. The deletion was requested by Triwbe and carried out by Maxim as a repost of the original article. I'm looking at the versions and I do see substantial similarity, I can understand why they would say it's exactly the same. Really the only differences are the added references and a bit of material added and removed in the last paragraphs. Given that the inline citations are not to a reliable source, I can see how they'd feel it's essentially the same. I can speak to them about it if you like, I'm sure they'll be reasonable. They may be willing to undelete and see how it fares at AfD. I kind of see undeleting it and taking it to AFD as pointless because I don't think it'll survive AfD.

To be honest, in my view the article is close but doesn't really cut it yet. The further reading section is fine, but I don't see "Anarchist International" in the titles of any of the artciles, so it's impossible to know how substantially the group is covered. If it's just a trivial mention in one sentence in each article, that's probably not enough; that is why I have kept emphasizing the need for in-line citations to reliable sources, especially for facts that assert the notability of the group (explain why it is important, see also WP:ORG). (Again, I don't consider anarchy.no to be a reliable source). Given its lack of coverage in reliable sources, I'm not really seeing the claim of notability.

If you'd like to publish it elsewhere, that's fine. Certainly anarchopedia.org would be a great place. Wherever you publish it, since it was originally here, you'll need to release it under the GFDL, ensuring that it will always be free content. In order to be in compliance with the GFDL, the page history will have to be intact so that you can reference the Wikipedia page in the article you publish elsewhere (so that each person that edited the page is "credited"). I can move these revisions to your userspace so you can refer to them there, but I think it would be best to only do that once you've decided not to continue working on the article here, or it will be more difficult to follow the history in any deletion discussions that take place. Once again, sorry for the hassle and disappointment. Peace delldot talk 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Hi dell. Any chance of a bit of peer reviewing on this one? Casliber made a start but has become a bit overwhelmed by other things I think. Fainites ^barley 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, when I have time, maybe in the next couple days. Peace, delldot talk 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)