User talk:Slp1

Olivia Manning

Thanks for the invitation - it will give me something to do :). I'll try to make my edit summaries less supercilious - it will be difficult, as I'm a smart-arse by nature, but I'll try. PiCo (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Olivia, such a bitch. Have a look at the Paul Scott article (the writer - it's a disambig page with three options). Really well-written article. PiCo (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I read a Paul Scott bio years ago, and was similarly disappointed by what a horrid specimen of humanity he was! Ditto for Thomas Hardy, though with him the final words of the Mayor of Casterbridge were enough to put this generally optimistic person off for life. From memory, after a nice little "happy ending" he ends the novel with something like she soon realised that happiness was but a brief interlude in the general drama of pain." I mean, what kind of a downer is that?? And once I learned how cruel Hardy was to his wife/family.... --Slp1 (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A very good bio on Natalie Clifford Barney. I'm sure Olivia can reach the same level. As for the lovableness of writers, are they, any of them? Gerald Durrell seems to have been a much nicer person than Lawrence, for example.PiCo (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendations of articles to emulate. I'll certainly take a look and please feel free to upgrade her yourself as you see fit. I think I'm a bit to close to the article, at times. As far as nasty authors are concerned, take a look at this timely summary. But we are enjoined not to judge the book by its cover or its author; though perhaps it does inform the reading and understanding? --Slp1 (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"None of this enjoyable speculation affects the standing of [insert name of choice here] as a great novelist..." Never a truer word. Not only Evelyn, whose name was originally there, but, it seems, just about everyone we find on our High School and post-grad reading lists. Perhaps the moral really is that Great Writers are just like the rest of us - skill with words, like skill at ball games, doesn't imply moral superiority. Not, I hasten to add, that I've ever committed rape, or attempted rape, but perhaps Evelyn's sin (not sharing the bananas) is not so uncommon. And the Seven Deadly Sins remain the mainstay of all literary art. So read, enjoy, and don't expect too much. (Funny, I just had an exchange of emails with a lady-Buddhist-monk-nun in Cambodia, all about how certain chants are emotionally harrowing, and how she has to deal with the emotions they evoke: is literature so very different?) And, of course, the speculation is entertaining - man is a gossiping animal. PiCo (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Spite reverts

Check it out, given the WHOIS I suspect a CCRC with a grudge. Special:Contributions/69.172.110.142 WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that wasn't the only one. Sorry I was not around to help.--Slp1 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

T. Fox

Dear Sir or Madam,

Why did you suddenly unprotect Terry Fox? There has been 3 anon IP vandalism of his article in just 2 days since your actions as you can see from its history here The article was protected because it was a magnet for crazies in the first place. Now, it will be targeted by anon IP's again...and again.

We can't even honour Terry's memory in peace! Let those who care about him register an account and make a contribution here I say. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being in touch, Leoboudv. Sorry for the delay in responding. As you probably know, permanent semi-protection is only done in cases of heavy and persistent vandalism. I personally don't consider the level of vandalism from IP addresses to be heavy at all, and I note that there have even been several rather helpful IP edits. I don't doubt that some temporary semi-protection may be necessary at times, perhaps especially around the time of the Terry Fox Run, but the current rate does not justify it at present, in my view. I will keep an eye on the article, and won't hesitate to reinstate the semi-protection if I feel it is needed. If you don't agree, or would like another opinion (or if you notice heavy vandalism from IP addresses, you could make a request here or here . --Slp1 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Essjay Controversy

I was working on this article last year with a few editors. We managed to get it to G-rated status. Fa-status failed for a variety of reasons, but I'd like to take baby steps back up the ladder. Any chance you'd be interested in helping to get it to A-class status? It requires a look at the legal ramifications (if any) in the courtroom databases and any further fallout by journalists, academics, etc since last year. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly help with looking for updated sources, and could have a run-through the article for copyediting purposes at some point. I'm not exactly sure how A class works; I think I nominated something for A-class a while ago and it just languished without anybody ever evaluating it; I'm also personally not that motivated to get the article much more than updated. There are so many more important articles out there that need work, and I don't ever seem to have time for them!! I'll do what I can, however, in the next week or so. --Slp1 (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The article has been very stable for six months since it was upgraded to GA-status. I thought it might be worth getting it one rung higher on the quality ladder. I agree that there are much more important articles deserving attention, so don't feel obligated to say yes or no. Overall, I respect your work and time. (Speaking of time, thanks for all your help on finding reliable sources for Lindsay Perigo article. That's another one that I would like to improve when I can find the time...if I had any time, of course!) J Readings (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Sigh. I wish it wasn't necessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Only a small hurdle, I fear. Let me know if there are others that need something similar.--Slp1 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I already had another admin do me a similar favour and I'm reluctant to do this outside of regular channels. It hasn't been that bad lately and usually one round of protection is enough to dissuade yon sockpuppet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it a favour, myself, and I didn't (and wouldn't) protect pages as such. If it needs doing, it needs doing. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Sometimes it is just faster and more expedient to work with people who know the history, and don't have to check too deeply. On the other hand, I agree, that it is not a bad idea to keep the eyes of the community on such situations, making sure that everything is shipshape and Bristol-fashion.--Slp1 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking over some of the evidence you've got, and it's pretty compelling that it's a long-term problem. So now I'm giving a contradictory opinion - you should keep it in because it's compelling, but leave it out because it's too much detail.

Perhaps an option would be some instructive links for the older stuff accompanied by a pointer to your subpage with the rest of the older, long-term stuff, then the usual dump of diffs for the recent and relevant items. Otherwise it looks good and in my mind quite compelling.

Also corrected a redirect on your user page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Upgrade procedure from "essay" to "guideline"?

Sorry to keep bothering you lately, Slp1. I realize that you're busy.

A question arose on the single-purpose account talk-page (see WP:SPA) regarding a recent ArbCom decision that cited the essay in its ruling and extended upon it. A few editors now feel that it has legitimized both the essay and the concept, thus deserving a chance at upgrade. Unfortunately, no one (myself included) knows what the procedure is for such an upgrade. Would you happen to know? J Readings (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm really not sure, but I think that you are on the right track that it is very important to get as many people as possible involved so as to have a clear consensus on the change. This page WP:POL has some important info, and it looks like WP:VPP is one place that you should post for comment; it may be important to tag the essay with this sort of proposal tag CAT:PRO, and this essay looks like it has lots of advice to get you started too. Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy SPA is an important essay, and warrants some work and thought, so I encourage you and the others to get it up to snuff.--Slp1 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

AIT

Hey there ! Do you have this watchlisted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reviewed his contribs and edit summaries, and saw a WQA already launched ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. Not good. I will be sure to take a closer look as soon as possible. Thanks for letting me know.Slp1 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

William

Great to see that you're still around and, like me, keeping your eyes peeled re the article about our old friend. I'm now trying to finally give some attention (long overdue) to his colleague, my near namesake, Beilby Porteus – but there's a long way to go! Take care. Bruce – Agendum (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The dyslexia project: A new beginning

Hi All

I have added some new sections below which have come from various talk pages in recent days but all realted in some way to the dyslexia project. So I have added them all below, in the hope that we can all begin to add our own input as one person working alone can cause also sorts of problems as can be seen above. I will post a copy of this to all who I think may wish to the new begining of the Dyslexia project and a copy will appear on your individual discussion pages ( I hope you do not mind). The oringinal copy of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexiathe talk page of the main project article you will see revise project template, the changes on the tamplate is the addition of a Project pages section, which includes the orinal project pages and the new STAGE TWO page which is hopefuly the new starting point. the STAGE TWO page has the dyslexia article as it is now. And we can tinker with it without changing the actual article itself and discuss and issue we may have before making further changes to the article itself.

dolfrog (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created an Auditory Processing Disorder article in the Dyslexoia project work area, and I have started a referece sction on the discussion page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Auditory Processing Disorder Hopefully soon I can add more DIOs ect when the dyslexia sub articles have been tidied up. I will ad a link to the UK Medical Research Councils Web site APD section, which provides direct links to abstacts and documents. dolfrog (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a few potential reference article to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles which may of interest to you and covers some of the issues we have been previously discussing dolfrog (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Braincomputerguy

Thanks for taking care of that. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore/Garland

Thanks. I added the editors' names, but I think that will do it. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hibari Misora

Please stop your vandal edits to this article, they are not constructive and contain false information. Moreover please do not edit my talk page again. If you want to contribute to an article, then do so correctly and not with nonsense. 中村ヒトミ (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism! it is not acceptable and is poor conduct as a person. You have not contributed to the article in anyway, but appear to watch it to dictate misleading information for vandal purpose. It is very poor human nature. 中村ヒトミ (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how it is well referenced? One reference is being used from Christine Yano, however she never says such a thing, and it is contradictory to her website http://socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/faculty/?dept=anth&faculty=cryano@hawaii.edu where she says she is Japanese. A reference from her book is hardly consider acceptable as well, since she is not a notable person.

Another reference from a book by someone called Sandra Buckley, another non-notable person. However, where is the citation for such a claim? I can not find it, in fact the reference is for a 1 page article on KayouKyoku. Another reference presumably by a newspaper, yet is impossible to check for validity. As for the biographies, they mention no such thing at all. The only relevant part would be the publication of her family tree by her parents, which shows they come from a "blue-collar" family.

The other references are not acceptable, one is poorly written to start, and says she is Japanese/Korean which already contradicts your wikipedia entry that says they where Korean with Korean passports. In addition, you remove an official announcement and replace it with a personal website... so you think all that is well referenced? Stop vandalizing the article with your nonsense! 中村ヒトミ (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Slp1-- I seem to be reverting you instead of the above. I was never a fan of the "Korean ancestry" section, but managed to get it slimmed down, well-cited and moved out of the main article. The above user is just edit-warring out material that bothers her. I hate such things, but I think you've got plenty evidence of 3RR here to report. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're an admin :) Dekkappai (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I would like to bring your attention to: [1] [2][3]... I think you can figure out why... There is even more if you care to look (including an entry on my talk page). Also, I don't know if you looked at that user's talk page history. Anyway, just trying to help; maybe you already know all this. This is not to say the user is purely a vandal, but this is an ongoing problem. I put this in the middle to attempt to be discreet, sorry if it's confusing here, hope I did the right thing. :) Luminifer (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful information. I think it is better here, if you don't mind.--Slp1 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

oh yes, improving other articles relating to Japan music is bad!! oh I had to rewrite so many articles [4] [5] [6] among many others I did months before when I did not know I can log in with my Japanese account.

The Satori page contains misleading nonsense. The Kyu Sakamoto edit, oh how does this stupid sentence "He is ranked at number 18 in a list of Japan's top 100 influential musicians by HMV" belong on wikipedia, when especially the reference is not being used for anything useful and is the personal opinion of a columnist. The information provided by columnist is not being referenced to contribute to the article, and what number someone got in personal ranking list does belong on encyclopedia. Oh VH1 and MTV give say popular 80s band QUEEN ranks number 2 in their top 10 countdown of 80s bands, oh quick add it the wikipedia as a reference!!!

OH THE YELLOW MAGIC ORCHESTRA EDIT!!! Yes I fix vandal edit nonsense thing who change opening sentence and write "Japanese popular music" when it is WORLD popular music. So I replace reference with English reference to stop stupid misleading nonsense!!! Also remove another personal website such as stupid animenewsnetwork.com which is just like that stupid website you slp1 added to Hibari Misora article as REFERENCE!! Oh and adding the OFFICIAL YMO WEBSITE TO THE ARTICLE!! oh how bad an edit person I am!!

No I will not use the talk page for Hibari Misora!! This prove no good with other edit person who did that, and I now understand it is no point try and improve Japanese music article for English speaking people. You have no intention to improve article, and I think you watch this article to make sure it is not changed. I think you are unscrupulous person. Yes yes please add stupid nonsense as "living national treasure" back to article. My mistake. The article is shit and mislead English speaker, make more shit please. So sad English speaker not have good source for Japanese music, as many good musician here who deserve not mislead subjective nonsense. You are poor mind person. Don't worry, I will not edit English wikipedia again. You can have your nonsense about Japanese music. 中村ヒトミ (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes I understand now, Luminifer is bad person who follow my edits because I change their mislead edit in Satori. I like their nonsense edit at Flower Travellin Band, my favorite is most recent edit [7] and making "reference needed" which go back to old version of article (before I change it) where the band members and names were not even correct!! Oh what a good and informed edit person he is! Yes I am sorry, official information by person who make band is wrong! I will change my post and Flower Travellin Band can be shit article again too, like other mislead Japanese music article. It will be my last on wikipedia, and everyone can be happy with nonsense! WITH PERSONAL WEBSITE REFERENCES by this user such as stupid website jrawk.com! it's wonderful 中村ヒトミ (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I specifically stated that you are not a bad user - you simply don't seem to understand wikipedia's policies. I will even say you did a LOT to improve the article, and I would regret if you didn't continue to contribute. However, your reversion here [8] is going to be seen by everyone as an immature reaction to people telling you that you made a mistake - much like when I told you that you made a mistake on FTB, you kept reverting it until someone else agreed with me. I would really like for this to have been handled better, but it's been difficult as you told me never to contact you again. You should also understand that "citation needed" does not mean that I don't believe the information - it means I would like for their to be a citation so that I can read more about it! Everyone here (well, almost everyone!) is trying to improve wikipedia - most people are not looking for 'edit wars' or whatnot (although I have met some who seem to enjoy it). Anyway, I hope you'll reconsider, and try to listen to what people explain to be the policy. Specifically, as I understand it, the simple fact that you know something (which only really means that you THINK you know it) is not sufficient grounds for changing an article - that's because if you have two people who believe they "know" different things, it will never be resolved! Anyway, I hope you'll listen and think about it, and not start accusing people of being "bad", etc. Luminifer (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it will be too bad if 中村ヒトミ isn't able to get over a somewhat rocky start learning English WP behavioural and editing guidelines/policies and stops editing permanently. However, the above personal attacks are indicative that a bit of a break is probably not such a bad thing: it might give a chance to study the policies and perhaps to observe other editors using different, more effective approaches.--Slp1 (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, you may disagree with what pages say.. and you can bring them up on the talk pages, and in a lot of cases you will find difficult people. If you want to see some discussions where I was clearly on the losing end of things, you can check: [9] [10] .. I agree it is very frustrating, and at times, given the attitudes I have encountered, I have also considered just giving up on wikipedia. I guess enough of my edits stick around (like my contributions to Dave Van Ronk) that it's still worth it to me. You should realize that every time you undo someone's changes, or remove something they disagree with, someone will get just as angry as you do when you undo someone else's changes - this makes sense if you think about it. It doesn't help if you complain about "nonsense" without being specific - and if you don't treat other users like human beings by at least trying to discuss it on the TALK page. Luminifer (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to have to bring this up, but a page I watch had an edit with a very familiar editing style from an anon IP. I thought it best that I mention it here: [11] .. The editor even apparently alludes to the previous pages where they have tried to remove sourced material like this... What is generally in done cases like this? Luminifer (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Well spotted, I'm sure. Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done in the short-term. I see the edit was reverted by another editor, with a clear reasoning, which is good. If the problematic edits continue, then in the long-term something might be possible. Keep me in the loop if you notice things.--Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I think it's happening again, though it could be someone else (the style is very similar, at least). In this case, however, it's much more hostile. [12]. Particularly bad in terms of content removal is this one: [13] ... but all of the content removal/"good"-faith vandalism seems pretty bad to me. Luminifer (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Very obnoxious. Some edits look reasoable but the incivility in the edit summaries isn't, nor some of the deletions of sourced info. I'll try and take a closer look soon.--Slp1 (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to restore the removed material - I'm going to do that... Luminifer (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

....aaand they undo me anyway. Luminifer (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was too busy to follow up on this, but I see you got help elsewhere for the obvious personal attacks. I have some of the relevant pages watchlisted and will keep an eye on the situation. My personal recommendation is that you seek out some really solidly reliable sources for those pages. Many of sources cited currently seem, at first blush, to be of rather poor quality; and large chunks of text are not cited at all. Here are some useful sources, for example [14]. It's much easier to determine who is right and wrong in a content dispute when things are properly sourced.--Slp1 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis Notability

I've added a discussion on the Robert Sungenis page regarding notability. I see you put up the "Notability" note. Would like your further comments/clarifications on the issue. Delrayva (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

pronunciations

Hi,

I notice you've been linking to the Help:IPA for English key. We have a couple templates that are preferred for this. For English, there's {{IPA-en}}, and for other languages there's {{IPA-all}}. (Common languages such as -es Spanish, -de German, -fr French etc. also have their own IPA-xx templates, but IPA-all works fine if you forget. The template pages have the details.) If you wouldn't mind using them in the future, that would make it easier for us to manage the tens of thousands of transcriptions we now have, so we can better keep them in shape and make sure they're using the symbols the same way.

Thanks! kwami (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.--Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Avogadro's Number

Hi - I am having problems dealing with a user with reference to Avogadro constant. There is a word at the beginning of the article ("anachronistically") which I believe to be incorrect. I originally put a tag there (either OR or FACT) to show that I didn't think it was right, and see if anyone disagreed. Someone DID agree that it was wrong, and started a discussion, and so I removed it. Then, a user came along and put it back. I tried adding the CN tag again, but they keep removing it - saying they did it "as per talk page", while the only person on the talk page that agrees with them is themself - and there is some very light interaction from other people, who I think agree that the word doesn't make sense there but don't care very much. I am not sure what to do about it, as the user does not seem willing to look at the definition in the dictionary, to discuss why they think the word is appropriate, or even allow me to add a CN tag for a word that I think should not be used. Any advice would be appreciated, and I hope I'm not being a bother! Luminifer (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Luminifer (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the author

I'm the original author of the Ghostwridah bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fara1316 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that's correct, but unfortunately as with most things on the internet we can't really be sure of this unless you follow the instructions about releasing the information formally as described on your talkpage. The other thing I would suggest would be to take a look at WP:BAND. It's not clear to me that Ghostwridah meets the criteria for notability; if he does, great, but you would need to include some specific information about how he meets them, and preferably some independent reliable sources making those points. That's why it got deleted this time, as GhostWridah. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my AiV report on 96.233.125.251

With all due respect, this is not a content dispute, this is vandalism. He has used the same edit summary repeatedly, which offers no rationale for deletion. Previously, he used no edit summary at all. If he were serious, he would engage in discussion, as has been requested. And, "lots of other useful edits"? Where, pray tell? As I said, if he has a problem with the content, or the source, he can engage in constructive dialogue on the talk page. But, simply coming back every couple days to remove the same information, with the same lame edit summary, is vandalism. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming by, but with all due respect to you too, I don't agree! :-) "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Annoying as 96.233.125.251's editing has been (and edit-warring it certainly is), s/he has been removing a sentence of unverifiable content and possible original research. That's an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, not vandalism, no? Though the suggestion of talkpages was made maybe s/he doesn't know where they are or how to use them. Checking his/her contributions will show you that there have been what I regard as a helpful edit about Charlotte Ronson as well as an attempt to contribute on Sarah Jessica Parker; no sources, true and thus removed appropriately, but actually for the most part verifiable from reliable sources. I've tried to engage the IP address more personally on his/her talkpage and will monitor the situation. In the meantime, sourcing the disputed content would be very helpful and make the case for its inclusion much stronger. --Slp1 (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not convinced that the information in question belongs in the article at all, and I said so on the article talk page. I simply cannot abide the removal of information without discussion. If the user would engage in said discussion, I would be satisfied.

Furthermore, I did not think that the Sarah Jessica Parker additions were all that helpful, but that is a different matter. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Salt therapy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Salt therapy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Possible neologisms, no reliable sources, fails to meet notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. LexCorp (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

APD and related issues

Hi

I am beginning to look at the Auditory Processing Disorder I have been doing a it of tiding up. I need to know a bit more about some of the related issues some of which are new to me.

• Specific language impairment
• Pure word deafness

In the UK APD is viewed as a cause of dyslexia, most dyslexia research discusses both Visual and Auditory causes; and phonology is all about auditory and visual processing issues, so I am not too sure why you see this as dubious, as from my point of view it is strikingly obvious. dolfrog (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

By all means do look up about SLI and Pure Word Deafness. There is an extensive literature on both. I'd be happy to help try and explain if there is something in particular you don't understand.

The sentence that I tagged as dubious is "APD is recognized as a major cause of dyslexia." I don't know of any evidence that this statement is true, and the references you provided didn't do the job. In fact, they suggested quite the opposite. While the link may be obvious to you, WP doesn't include things that seem obvious to editors. We need to find the highest quality sources and summarize those sources.

One thing that is important to understand is that APD is posited as being an auditory disorder- a problem with the auditory mechanism; phonology/phonological awareness (also SLI) etc are part of the language system. These are very different concepts, taking place in very different parts of the brain. There is lots and lots of evidence from scholarly sources that dyslexia may be a written language problem, associated as it sometimes is with deficits/delays in spoken language, phonology, phonological knowledge etc. I'd be glad to review any evidence about APD and dyslexia, but I doubt very far that any of them go as far as saying that it is "a major cause of dyslexia". --Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi I do know what you mean, it has been very frustrating for the last 5 or 6 years, the leading UK APD / Dyslexia researchers have been telling me privately that APD is A cause of dyslexia, and i have had to find alternative sources to try to prove waht they have been telling me. One of these researchers comes from a Speech and Language Pathology background, have a look at a flavour of some of the information from the UK. Management of Auditory Processing Disorder obviously I can not use it on wiki as I am the web master of the APDUK web site. you could also have a look at Auditory Processing Disorder is a major cause of Dyslexia some interesting research links. There are some new APD research papers being added on the UK Medical Research Council web site Institute of Hearing Research especially by Dave Moore. best wishes dolfrog (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the problem is, as you no doubt know, that APD is a controversial area, with only partial acceptance in the scholarly community. It is also a magnet for fringe research, theories, therapists and therapies. As a result, I would personally treat any grandiose claims with a certain amount of caution. However, when it comes to editing WP, we have to focus on the mainstream, published view. Here, we (and this means you too) cannot go about trying to find "alternative sources to try to prove what they have been telling me". It's the job of the professional community of researchers and academics to get acceptance for new ideas. When they get this, we can report what they say. And as you know I think, in these subjects, review articles etc are the preferred sources, rather than individual scientific papers.

Thanks for the links to the websites. They are interesting. BTW a number of the links on your website are dead. --Slp1 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It may also be helpful to refer Dolfrog to WP:MEDRS for the kinds of sources used in medical articles on Wiki. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, indeed. I think dolfrog has been directed towards the guideline before, but another direct reminder is very helpful.--Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi I have just come across the review could be of interest "Use of auditory learning to manage listening problems in children" 2009 PMID 18986969 dolfrog (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New APD Dumping Ground

Hi just created a Dumping Ground for all of those unused references, I have also added a few PMID Review papers as well. You may like to have a look at Talk:Auditory processing disorder/Dumping ground dolfrog (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just told Dolfrog that these semi-private sandboxes are unacceptable. Anything related to development of that article should be said in open discussion at Talk:Auditory processing disorder. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon does not know what he is talking about, Dumping grounds are a part of the Wikipedia development process to store information to be developed into be added to the article. The Dumping Grounds have a link with the main article Talk page, so tha all edicatos can access the information dolfrog (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "dumping ground" before, or that these are part of WP development of articles. Do you have some information about this that I can read? In the meantime, I tend to agree with Gordon that it would be better to keep all the information related to improving the article on the talkpage so that all can clearly see it and use it. I'll also note that while there is a link to the reference list, but it is titled "sandbox" which is not an informative or helpful to others who might like to consult it. --Slp1 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Workpages and I have change to menu title from Sandbox to Research papers dolfrog (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I notice that this is a fairly recent essay, (ie the opinion of 1 or 2 editors) rather than "part of the Wikipedia development process". It is also couched as a proposal. I am not wholeheartedly opposed to this page if it is maintained as a reference page only, but I thoroughly concur with Gordon that nothing more in the way of "article development" should take place in sandboxes without the explicit consensus of editors on the relevant talkpage. If you want to have a private sandbox to work on an article, do it in your own userspace. --Slp1 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The next problem to overcome is that fact that I can find the research papers, I can understand the content of the research papers but I can not paraphrase the content of the research papers in away to explain the content on wiki, that will have to be done by other editors, as part of an article development team. Find the solution to that an all will be happy dolfrog (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's excellent that you are able to perceive your strengths and weaknesses so well, and can articulate the need to leave the writing to others. I would say that, having done what you do best, the best approach might be to move on to other articles and repeat and post your reference searches there. --Slp1 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the problem there is that both dyslexia and auditory processing disorder are such a large part of my family life. All five members of my immediate family have both issues, that I have a need to know that these two topics are explained in WIKI and anywhere else in line with the best research available. And not left to old ideas and possible miss understandings, because trying to having others understand the reality of these disabilities is a real problem, as being able to cope with these disabilities depends on the support from all others who come into contact with us.

Not too sure if any other articles need any research done, most other editors do their own research and their own writing. Thank you for the suggestion though. dolfrog (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all! There are thousands of articles that need references and research and many fewer editors who have the interest and ability to find them. In this cases the information is usually already written down and in the article, but needs some confirmation from reliable sources. See CAT:UNREF for many more articles needing this kind of help than you could ever research in a lifetime.

To be honest, combining a strong family and personal interest with WP editing can lead to difficulties here. This is because when we have strong ideas about what an article "should" say, we end up having problems with really editing from a neutral point of view etc or dealing with editors who introduce information that we don't think is true etc. For example, what happens if editors decide that "the best research available" says something different from what you believe to be true? That's why I suggest that you branch out a bit and get some experience in other areas, using the skills that you have to offer. It will help you in the longterm to build up more diversity in the articles you edit and researching and editing articles whose topic you don't really care about is a great way of learning about how the best, most encyclopedic articles are written and sourced. --Slp1 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to sure how this fits in (Allowed uses) Wikipedia:Subpages could you explain especially with regard to copyright problems dolfrog (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

FRM

MH34's latest round of horrors [15] pretty much convinces me yet again that this is a waste of time, and our time is best spent on an AN posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've currently listed a report at WP:EWN, but must get back to working on the report. I've been very slow, in part because I just keep hoping that he will get the point, without a topic ban etc being necessary. --Slp1 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was optimistic too, but I think it's going to take a topic ban. Probably followed by sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, a site-ban, spam blacklists and probably some sort of entry into either wikipedia review or citizendium. Delightful, he said sarcastically. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Level-headed advice

Hi - sorry to bother you again, but you seem to be one of the more level-headed experienced admins I have encountered. There's a user I've had interactions with on several occasions. This user has a very forceful, arrogant, and somewhat rude personality. I see a pattern regarding edits they make : they frequently undo changes to pages and have no text in their reversion. Many of these changes are valid changes made by anon IPs, who are not likely to come back and check on their useful changes. When someone actually contests the reversion, this user is very rude. I have noticed this user "controls" quite a few pages - it feels to me like the user is rude in the right ways to discourage people with differing viewpoints from even caring about those pages anymore, and encourages people with the same viewpoints to join in on the pages. This obviously limits the kinds of viewpoints on these pages. Did that make any sense? Is this something that should be thought about? Luminifer (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem, though sometimes difficult to do much about, unfortunately, unless the problem is egregious. If you let me know which the editor whose edits concern you, I will take a look and can give a more informed opinion.--Slp1 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The user is User talk:Wiki libs... Funny, I wasn't sure I'd really get around to mentioning it, but I just noticed someone else had a similar problem with them (see their talk page). Also - a concern of mine is that it seems this user discourages people with differing viewpoints from really contributing to their 'controlled' pages - and encourages like-minded people - the end result being that on the TALK pages, you have a lot of people ganging up on one person... but this is, of course, my POV. Luminifer (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(Also noteworthy is the personal attacks they had on their user page until recently) Luminifer (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. I can see from your userpage that you are feeling quite frustrated about a variety of things here. This is too bad, but I totally understand, having been there plenty of times myself. Looking at the editor concerned, I really can't see anything very outrageous; s/he seems a bit brusque at times, but I've encountered much worse, I fear. Not that it makes it right; as you say it is very discouraging to be on the receiving end of what seems a bit rude and uncollegial. Keeping to the high road is always best, and I promise that there are helpful collaborative editors out there; it's just a question of finding the right topic to work on, and the right people to work with.

I have a couple of suggestions for you: one of which is to take a break from these music articles, which seem to have plenty of editors with plenty of strong opinions. When I'm feeling discouraged, I find hitting "random article" and doing some copy editing or researching for an article that tickles my fancy is a very good way to boost my morale; WP:RESCUE is probably another good place to help out with editors who want to save articles and make them better. I also like to patrol WP:CSD and find articles that have been tagged too quickly and just need some TLC and some research/refs to survive.

My other suggestion is to arm yourself with reliable sources before making edits or engaging with editors on the talkpage. For example, here [16], I think you would find the going much smoother if you could find a reliable source commenting that the two of them collaborated frequently; you would immediately have WP:V and WP:RS and WP:UNDUE on your side, and I suspect the other editors would agree to inclusion. Without a reliable source, it is pretty close to original research, thus possibly better left out of an article, especially one about a living person.

Plenty of good research, asking for help if you need it, recognizing one might be wrong and/or that now is not the time for me to work on this particular article, and even taking a wikibreak are helpful strategies, when I am feeling frustrated by things around here. I hope that helps. --Slp1 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I want to point out that I never put in the original edit - it was some anon user who did that. It was my feeling that the editors were (and generally are) overzealous in their removal of good faith edits. Am I wrong in this interpretation? As for the frequent collaborations, at the very least it is mentioned on the individual album pages - which I checked before mentioning it. I actually know very little about Trujillo and just happened to be watching the page. My concern is not for this individual edit, but the over-ethusiastic removal of often-relevant but badly-entered good faith edits by various people who are not going to even come back and check on them. I believe this removal does the encyclopedia more harm than good - as I stated in that particular talk page, they are needy edits, not bad ones. I personally don't care at all what happens to that page - I have no vested interest in it - and I'm honestly not going to push for it (and will remove the page from my watchlist pretty soon) - but I wanted to bring it to the attention of any admins who might feel that it's not in wikipedia's interests to have overzealous editors removing material entered imperfectly by new people on good faith. The edit could have been given some CNs and/or reworded - there was no need to remove it entirely. If no one agrees with me, then in my opinion wikipedia (and its userbase) is going to hit a state of stagnancy, etc (as many people discussed at the recent meetup in NYC). Just my thoughts - really, I'm not as angry as you might think I am, just concerned for wikipedia. Luminifer (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Unblock request

Hi Slp1. I looked through User:Michael H 34's contributions and found evidence of edit warring dating back to the July 21. But anyways, thanks for letting me know - I have no doubt you have not been violating any policies in your interactions with this user, let alone abusing any administrative tools! Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Accidental Sockpuppet Account By Divod3 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally created a sockpuppet account and now I'd like help retiring it. Thanks! Divod3 (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you can accidentally create a SP account, nor what you expect me to do about it. Can you elaborate?--Slp1 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is banned user Multiplyperfect. It appears he's shopping for help.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

PAS RFC

My god, yet more electrons sacrificed on the altar. I'm not bothering to comment further, hopefully whoever gives the RFC will read Warshak and Bernet, and ask questions. Every comment MH34 makes is yet more original research. I think we can give up trying to convince him, we're not going to succeed. I'm just going to wait for the RFC to come in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're quite right that further comment, from us at least, is pointless. Pointing out the problems is easy; however, getting them heard, understood and actually responded to, is, as always, the real issue. I can't believe that he is still claiming that his edit is supported by Bernet, when I produced quotes from the article that directly contradict the claimed point. Hopefully, new eyes and new voices can be more effective than we have been.--Slp1 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work...

... on Brother Stair. I came to the article this morning, Nexis password in hand, ready to expand it and make it neutral, only to find you all ready had done the job. Thanks so much for your work, and getting involved with the interested parties. I'm keeping this on my watchlist. If you are planning to as well I'll drop the semi-protection on the article to see how it does. As we know, at least one interested editor can edit through semi-protection, so I'm not sure how much difference it makes. Take care, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It's nice to get positive feedback! I was a bit disappointed that I couldn't convince the other editors to do the job, but I wasn't that surprised. I certainly will be keeping an eye on the article, so I agree protection is probably not required. Would you be able to add the info you mention here from a UK paper? [17] I also wonder if it wouldn't be worth running your Lexis search; I have found in the past that different configurations tend to search different sets of newspaper archives and you might come up with something I haven't. I would also love to find confirmation of this court finding, which I don't really doubt is true, but obviously quite inappropriately sourced currently.--Slp1 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Slp1, Xymmax has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re this diff, if the worst thing that his son has to say is "he wasn't ordained Methodist" we may be pretty close to NPOV eh? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, though I must say I wonder how close a man like B. Stair would be to his kids!!! --Slp1 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Court Rulings

I've thought about it for a long time now and I still strongly feel that the background data for the court decisions in the USANA vs. Minkow should be included if we're going to include the details about the settlement that USANA and Minkow came to outside of court to end the lawsuit. I hope you can understand that I find it just as important that all claims be handled equally. Jean314 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got a few questions and will get back to you on the talkpage soon. --Slp1 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis: Jews as "slave masters", etc.

SLP-1 - I'm posting this here because I don't know if you'll see it at the Sungenis discussion page. Fyi: it appears that Robert Sungenis slightly changed the URL for the current article where he calls Jews "slave masters" and says that his bishop is perhaps paying "homage" to Jews because they own the mortgages on diocesan property. The link I gave you was broken. This is the new link at Sungenis' own website: http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Answer%20to%20Shea%20on%20Jones%20book.pdf Again, this stuff is up on his web site right now along with the other things I just mentioned on the Robert Sungenis discussion page. They're relatively recent. They're not outdated or just on "attack blogs". They're plainly out in public and in his own articles and q-a's. Liam Patrick (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The thing is that I'm just not sure what the point of all this is; I'm not the person that needs convincing. I don't have the power to publicize his statements, though I do have a responsibility to make sure that his bio here at WP doesn't get overwhelmed by quote mined comments selected by his critics. You obviously have huge concerns about this chap, his views and his influence, and I don't blame you really. Maybe your energy and research would be better spent contacting Catholic or other newspapers/other media, and interesting a reporter in the topic? Perhaps a religious affairs reporter? Once Sungenis' opinions make the mainstream news more, WP will be sure to follow. --Slp1 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for R.D. Smith

On August 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article R.D. Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

SoWhy 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick Burbridge

I don't have a problem with you declining my CSD on Nick Burbridge, but I don't like how you removed it with the edit summary "clear claims on notability", yet you add a {{notability}} tag to the article. No need to respond, I just kindly wanted you to know that this is contradictory. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In my view, there's a clear difference between making a claim of notability (which is all that is required to decline a speedy) and actually proving that the person meets notability guidelines (using verifiable sources, as specified in the notability tag). In this case Burbridge was not a speedy candidate because there were clear claims that he might meet the criteria. Whether they pan out or not is another matter, of course. I hope that makes things a bit clearer about why I did what I did? --Slp1 (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Little Gidding (poem)/GA1

I've responded to/fixed most of the points. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything left that needs to be addressed? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had very little time available for WP in the last day or so, but will try to take a look asap. I'm not sure if you are thinking that I was going to do the good article assessment? I wasn't planning to, since another editor had said s/he was going to it, and I was just making a few comments and suggestions of my own since I was interested in the article (parts of the poem were read at a school church service years ago!). But User:hamiltonstone did say they were going to do the review a while ago. Maybe you want to ping User:hamiltonstone and see what the status is? If s/he is willing, I could probably do the deed. --Slp1 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of who actually passes it or not, all comments made by others during a review should be addressed. :) I want to make sure that I met everything you've said. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

An OR debate you closed

Concerning this you might be interested in this: "*There has been no "consensus at the original research noticeboard". You wish."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm really not sure what else I can add to the closing summary I gave. Either the conclusion will sink in or it won't; based on past experience it doesn't appear that repetition helps. It's too bad, since s/he seems to have lots of knowledge, and the behavioural issues are certainly getting in the way of collaborative editing. This needs to change soon, clearly. But if I may give a word of advice, try to remain cool. Take the high road and avoid responding with personal remarks of your own. --Slp1 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but of course if something happens you have a choice of saying nothing and just working along quietly, or giving advice about why you think something was wrong, and some people take both these options as evidence of personal conflict. So it is good to have third parties around in case they see a way of explaining something. I am requesting nothing in particular though, just noting an event.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you say nothing or that you stop making important points. In fact, you've been doing a great job at this, in my view. I'm just suggesting that every so often your evident (and understandable) frustration also shows in some of the phraseology and comments you make. Since I've been there, I completely understand how and why this happens!! As an outside observer of this dispute, however, it's not that difficult to figure out what is going on, and of course, it is easier to intervene when one party's edits, tone and interventions are irreproachable. I will keep an eye on things and good luck. --Slp1 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your claims are inaccurate as far as I am concerned, at the very least.

Coming from someone who hasn't even read the discussion in question, that means absolutely nothing.

We are done here, I believe.

Indeed. No one was able to demonstrate that citing a clearly explained chart is original research. Because it obviously isn't.

If "What I'm citing is the entire study, which clearly interprets the chart as showing continental ancestry and admixture proportions," then SmallV won't have any problems finding and citing the text that makes this interpretation "clear". From the abstract, introduction, or the conclusion perhaps?

Since you missed them the first time around, here are the citations you're requesting (and then some):

STRUCTURE charts show continental ancestry and admixture proportions

--- Small Victory (talk)

So, let's see. I read a long discussion and related materials on the WP:NORN and make a post you disagree with.[18] You respond by making the claim that I have not actually read discussion.[19] I respond by assuring you that I did indeed plough my way through it all, but don't find your argument convincing.[20] Your response is to come to my talkpage to repeat the inaccurate, uncivil (and somewhat miraculous) claim to somehow know what I, sitting here at my computer, have read or not read. You go on to repeat, essentially, that everybody else is wrong, because you are right.

I ask you to sit back and consider. Do you think this is effective communication? Do you really think it likely to advance your cause?

No. The strategy of insulting other editors and effectively calling them liars and imbeciles is a very poor one. As is repeating the same arguments over and over again. As is failing to realize when one approach is not working and another approach is required. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that values collaborative, civil editing and consensus building. You are certainly welcome to maintain your conviction about what does or does not constitute original research, but at this point you do not appear to have support from any experienced editor or administrator. You can either continue to argue with people (which is unlikely to get you anywhere except a reputation as a disruptive editor); or you could try other steps in dispute resolution such as a WP:RFC or WP:Mediation, (though it's possible that people might complain about WP:FORUMSHOPPING); or you can accept that for the moment this information is not going to be included and move on to other things on WP and/or in the real world. Maybe write and publish a peer-reviewed article about the topic. Or wait till others write articles containing the information you wish to include. Either could then be quoted here.

Personally, I would recommend these last suggestions. I'll be very blunt and totally honest: I'm afraid that unless you radically change your strategy, approach and tone, you will be eventually get banned from these articles and perhaps WP as a whole. It's in your hands. Please step back and consider what is the most effective strategy. --Slp1 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You claim to have read the discussion, but you accused me of failing to provide citations that I had already provided in the discussion. What am I supposed to conclude from that? Either you didn't read it, or you didn't read it carefully enough. Now I've provided you (again) with the citations you say are necessary to keep it from being original research. But instead of acknowledging them and admitting that you were wrong, your response is to completely ignore them and lecture me on my communication skills. Maybe I'm not the one who needs to work on communicating better.

Also, your claim that I have no support from other editors or administrators, implying consensus against me, is equally false. First of all, as far as I can tell, you're the only Admin who participated in that discussion. Secondly, TheFeds didn't think it was OR and neither did Shreevatsa. Blueboar actually took the time to understand everything and objected mainly to my particular wording (which can always be revised). The other contributors didn't really take sides. It's only Elen of the Roads, The Hand That Feeds You, and you at the last minute who stated categorically that it was OR. And you can see in the discussion (and now here) the issues I have with how those opinions were arrived at. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Everyone is free to conclude whatever they like. That doesn't mean that it is either politic or civil to openly express those conclusions. And you are missing another option, which is that I actually read the discussion and the references and I honestly do not find your argument convincing. You cannot cite "the whole study" for your proposed sentence, and none of the sections you have mentioned directly support nor are they appropriate citations for "there are negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans" given WP's policies and guidelines. The detailed reasons for this have been explained over and over again at the noticeboard. You don't agree obviously, but there we are.
• Let me clear one thing up. As far as giving opinions about these sorts of issues is concerned, administrators and editors have equal voices. Administrators certainly have a certain amount of knowledge, experience and community trust, but there are many other experienced editors who are not administrators who have equal or more skill in these areas. As a result, there is no particular point in trying to convince me specifically about this matter. I closed the discussion at NORN because I was the one of several editors who saw that the conversation was unproductive and needed to be brought to a close.[21][22][23] While I am not the judge or the jury here, I have reviewed the discussion again, and can't agree with your analysis of the debate. These discussions are not votes, of course, but neither TheFeds nor Shreevatsa agreed that you were not doing original research. The Feds specifically said s/he wasn't going "to provide an opinion on this particular case" (also see the edit summary) and Shreevatsa stated they "haven't been following this discussion"[24] and simply disagreed with one argument of Elen's. Blueboar, who is a tireless and highly respected contributor to the noticeboard, told you over and over and over and over again that the content you proposed was Original Research since nobody else had made the observation that you had; the two other editors you mention (The Hand That Feeds You and Elen of the Roads, also highly experienced editors) came to similar conclusions, as did Andrew Lancaster and Wapondaponda, of course.
• So there we are. The question is what are you going to do next. As I said above, you can pursue the cause in various ways, or you can move on to other things. Andrew's question on the talkpage seems reasonable. Perhaps you could try and find a reasonable compromise there? I personally think it unlikely that there is anything much to be said on this page, but I leave that up to you. --Slp1 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I stated at the beginning of random break 2 that I had abandoned the phrasing "negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture" and switched to more neutral, plainly descriptive language. I guess your miss...er...read that part too.

TheFeds clearly stated in his example that a graph accompanied by an explanation of how the graph works is perfectly acceptable. Shreevatsa exposed Elen of the Roads' central "argument" that if she has to read an explanation of a diagram, then it's OR, which is patently absurd. Blueboar, as I said, objected mainly to the phrasing, and so I revised it. Finally, he told both myself and Wapondaponda that the noticeboard couldn't settle the issue, and Camelbinky agreed, even telling Wapondaponda that it may not be as clear-cut as he thinks. And for "highly experienced editors", Blueboar and Elen seem to have no understanding of what constitutes primary and secondary source material. Even Andrew Lancaster recognized this. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)