User talk:WhatamIdoing

Please add notes to the end of this page. I'll probably reply here unless you suggest another page for a reply. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk)

just to break the monotony

Hi WhatamIdoing I just thought you might find this may be interesting reading, which we have both been doing a lot of just recently dolfrog (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I replied there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for a bit of fun you could have a look at one of my old web pages, one day when i have time i will bring all my web sites together lol dolfrog (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If that did not break the monotony, this lot will send you to sleep. You could have a look at some PMIDs and DOIs I have just added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles just to get the sub articles the kick start they need. In time I will ad some that i have regarding reading, but i have to classify them yet on my computer, just a list of numbers that moment. dolfrog (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force

I have set up a Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, and begun a discussion on the talk page for potential benefits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Help me with the links and works

Are my ip somehow blocked or banned or classified as spammer for this mistake that I did so that I cannot make any contribution at all in the future? Saintbridget (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So I am able now to do editions or additions of content in the future without being called a spammer or without my work being erased some time afterwards? Or is it the link I used that I cannot quote from or show the sources I qouted from. Should I never use this link when being here? I am confused? Thank you very much for your help so far! Saintbridget (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are, and have always been, "physically" able to do these things. However, whether or not other editors will agree with you is something I can't predict.

Why do you want to use this link? Why won't some other source do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is much historical facts about the church in the revelations of St. Bridget and the great schism was at the same time which makes it quite interesting. It also has alot of prayers in many different languages that I wish other people should find. I would have a difficulty locating such things in other languages. I am from Sweden too! Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's a lot that we can say about St Bridget and her writings, but do you think that this single website is the only possible place to find good information about her? Aren't there dozens of high-quality, scholarly books about her? Wouldn't those sources be at least as good as somebody's website? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not mean just about her, they have alot of other info, like with the prayers as I said. It would be very hard for me to find that without having the guide of this page to locate the specific prayers in different languages. But she has specific info since she met with several popes and adviced them in matters, and these councils are recorded in her works. These events formed our world very much, quite interesting. There is not so much about her as I know about made by scholars, but you might know more about her than me? I will be cautious in the future and source my material to relevant things. Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to look for some books. You may be surprised by how much information is available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was much! But I think most of that is qoutes from her works or evaluations of her writings, which sadly are biased many times. That is real opinionated material, in my opinion anyway. I would rather think that the main source with the history about her should be used rather than rewritings of the same thing, am I right? I was going to add some canonization info and the popes and councils that confirmed her but I dont understand how to make a new section in the article? Please help! Saintbridget (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies strongly prefer the use of secondary sources, such as what a scholar or respected journalist wrote, instead of primary sources (such as St Bridget's own writings). You can read about the relevant rules here. The primary concern is that we don't want a Wikipedia editor to misinterpret something or to write about his or her new/personal ideas, which would violate the WP:No original research policy. Like any other educational project, the opinions of scholars are more valuable and worthy of presentation (even if you or I personally disagree with them) than the opinions of "fans" or average people (like us).

To make a heading, you type two equals signs on each side of the headline text, like this: ==Canonization== Make sure that it's the only thing on the line, with no spaces or extra letters before it. (Inside the == parts, you can type anything you want, including spaces. We usually try to keep the headline short.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the coaching. But how shall I reference my source, I do not understand this section, it is completely empty when I wish to enter anything in there even though there is alot of references? Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Write the text that you want to add to Bridget of Sweden right here on this page, and tell me what your reliable source for that information is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint Bridget was canonized by Pope Boniface IX in the year 1391 and confirmed by Pope Martin V in the Council of Constance in the year 1415

The Revelations were accorded an exceptionally high degree of authenticity, authority and importance from an early date. Pope Gregory XI (1371-78) approved and confirmed them and judged them highly favourably, as did Boniface IX (1389-1404) in the papal Bull Ab origine mundi, par. 39 (7 Oct 1391). They were later examined at the Council of Constance (1414-18) and at the Council of Basel (1431-49), both judging them to be in conformity with the Catholic faith; The Revelations were also strongly defended by numerous highly regarded theologians, including Jean Gerson (1363-1429), Chancellor of the University of Paris and Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468). Here is the link to the info I found! http://www.prophecyfilm.com/info.htm Saintbridget (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've figured out how to add this to the article, but we have two problems:

• This is just copied and pasted from the website. That makes it a WP:Copyright violation, which is never permitted under any circumstances.
• Some of this information was already in the article. For example, we don't need to list the year of her canonization five times on the same page.

Try re-writing this information in your own words. It might help if you look at where a fact belongs in the existing article. For example, the information about the confirmation of her canonization might belong at the end of the section about her life, which already provides some information about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Their website has free copyright on all their material, so there is no problem with using their material. They do not copyright their material. The canonization were part of the same discussion in my thought for it was dealing with things connected to it, I didnt see it five times. My mistake. Was it you who removed my work or someone else, or a bot? Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Where on their website do they explicitly say that they disclaim any copyright?

Copyright is the inherent right of an author: unless the author explicitly and formally repudiates it, then the work is copyrighted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Right on the front page. They have it told alot of times on their pages that people should do everything to spread these words in whatever form they can. So who was it that erased my entry? Peace Saintbridget (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement about "all our books and videos are free to download" is not even close to good enough. That statement just means "we don't charge money if you want to read this." Furthermore, the text you copied was neither a book nor a video, so it's not covered by this statement at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This info is from their book. It is part of their book. Was it you bro or sis who removed it? But if you think I am making things up, contact them please. And I have learned about a law called fair use that allows me to use this kind of material, even though I am fully allowed by them to use their material as you will find out when you contact them. Have you read their books yet? Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The text is either not from the book, or you did not cite the correct source. The source you cited is an "about us" webpage that is not part of the website's books. That page does not expressly disclaim their rights under copyright law. Additionally, the text on the front page (which is inadequate for this purpose anyway) does not apply to non-books and non-videos.

To register formal approval for using the text despite the absence of the necessary language on the website, you'll have to go through WP:OTRS. I am unfamiliar with the process, but the basic idea is that the website owners have to send e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to officially approve its use. If the website owner has a Wikipedia account (e.g., if you own the webiste), then you need to tell them that in the first note, because it would save a lot of hassle over future things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is part of the books, made by the authors themselves. It is a sort of a prelude, I think this is the right english word. But fair use law of US would take care of that anyway if this werent so. Maybe you have you not heard about that law? It is good to know this law. And what was it that erased my entry, please tell me so i know. Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

break it up

I removed your text as a copyright violation.

Fair use does not cover this situation. Fair use allows you to quote a line from a poem, so that you can talk about the author's choice of words in that line; it allows you to show a picture of the book you have for sale; it allows you to read a book to a classroom full of students. Fair use does not allow you to copy several paragraphs off of someone else's website and put it on your website just as if you had written it yourself. Furthermore, even if fair use permitted this, Wikipedia never does.

The text that you copied from the website is on a page called "Information about us". "Information about us" is not reasonably interpreted as a foreword or other part of the book. The parts of their website that are actually the books are plainly labeled, e.g., "Book 1".

If you have permission to copy the text, you must have that permission formally registered. There is no way around this: it must be done, or the text cannot be used on Wikipedia. Do you understand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I could contact them myself since you seem unwilling. What should I tell them to say on their page to please you? I know that more than several pages can be used in fair use, and you say not this little can be used? Where do wikipedia state that they do not follow US fair use law? Maybe not foreword is the right word, afterword is a more suiting word, I dont think this exist as a word though, but you get the point. This page has no hinder to being in a book, info about us can be a part of a book? PeaceSaintbridget (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include it, it's your job to deal with it. Try reading Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.

Wikipedia complies with all US law. However, US law does not require Wikipedia to accept everything that might be permitted. To give you a hypothetical example: US law allows websites to use any color they want, but Wikipedia has the right to decide that it will only use blue and black text. The policy is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Note that the policy permits only a limited amount of non-free content, under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law.

("Afterword" is a valid English word.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So where do my entry go against this?. What should I ask website owner to change to please you? As I said, it is part of the book, and the announcement is quite enough from my knowledge of things since I know from previous cases with for example youtube and so on that telling it even verbally on a video in such words as are used on the website makes me allowed to use their material. Can I add it now again when we have come over the mile discussion and I am telling you that it is part of their book? Saintbridget (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Even if we agreed that this page were part of a book (which we don't), the level of permission they give is not enough. You're not "downloading it to your computer" (the use they authorize): you're trying to re-publish on an unrelated website AND releasing it under the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses for anyone in the world to use any way they like, even if "the way they like" is to make another Piss Christ-type piece of offensive artwork.

For Wikipedia to allow you to copy this text into the article, the webpage would have to have a note that the text has been released (to anyone) under a CC-BY-SA-compatible license. Alternatively, the OTRS approach will allow them to give permission for its use on Wikipedia.

Please remember that obtaining permission is the first step: Wikipedia is not actually required to include text simply because they have permission to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It says download and share, did you forget. So I know this is enough from old cases. I ask again, what must they state on their webpage in exact words to please you. Is there not enough for them to state that all their material are free copyright? As your own link says, share is enough. Please! Why do you talk so rudely about Christ? I have followed your rules and have not used too much of their content, but only a minimal entry was what I made.Saintbridget (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't give you exact words, because there are apparently some formalities that vary from country to country. I can tell you, for Wikipedia's purpose, either the word "copyright" or "license" should appear somewhere in it so that it's perfectly clear that they're addressing this point.

"Please share" is not good enough, because you can "share" the information by e-mailing the website's URL to your friends, without copying anything. If they want to do this, they can go read the Creative Commons website, look over the options, and figure out which one they like best. All the necessary information is on that website.

They might not want to do that, however: allowing anyone in the world to do whatever they want with your images and text may cause more heartbreak than anything else. Also, they might prefer to have people visiting their own website, instead of a copy of it somewhere else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: More than half a sentence that is directly copied and not marked as a "direct quotation" is not acceptable. This isn't merely an issue of fair use: it's an issue of plagiarism (telling lies about who wrote the sentence). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So making them say that its free copyright on all their material would please you? But I do not think they mean that they allow people to use their material without giving them credit.

You are free:

• to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and

This is what your own page says! Saintbridget (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My own page says nothing of the sort: Wikipedia is not "mine". The summary of the Creative Commons license says this — not me.

There is a Creative Commons license that requires future users/modifiers to say who originally wrote it. This attribution does not require the user to provide a link to the website, but just to make a note of the original author's name somewhere. If they do not choose to release it under a Creative Commons license (and many reasonable people would object to this), then you can invite them to contact Wikipedia to give special permission, as mentioned above.

There is nothing you can achieve by continuing to talk to me about this: I am legally incapable of providing you with permission to copy text from someone else's website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So the word copyright must be there to please you, the word share is enough for wiki but not for you strangely enough. I dont understand this cc stuff. A word of acknowledgement on the website of free copyright is enough. So now, I cannot use their website as source, are you kidding with me? This really feels like you are in it for a joke. Have you read the revelations yet, its good to know before death comes. The authors name is not mentioned on the webpage, just as many works in history has been made anonymously, like some of the works of the gospel. Saintbridget (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind the copyright, from reading your talk page that website is currently on the wikipedia spam list. You can dispute this and request its removal on this page.MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals It is unenclyclopedic to copy and paste directly from sources, no matter how good of a source it is and no matter whether the source allows you to copyright. An enclyclopedia should reword and summarise important points or conclusions from a reliable sources in your own words.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

what does this blacklist mean in practicality? What does it do?Saintbridget (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well for one, when google or other search engines next crawls the blacklist it may knock down that website in its search ranking results, so watch out for that happening. Essentially you may have demoted your website on search engines rather than promoting it. Once google views your website as a possible spam site it is very hard to get google to change its mind. You should be careful not to misuse wikipedia for promotional purposes, it is more likely to backfire. I think also that any further addition of the link triggers a spam alert which results in its auto-removal but could be wrong.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So basically instead of say being on page 1 for certain search terms you may end up on page 2 or 3 or worse which will reduce web traffic to that prophecy site. Whether this happens or not is up to google filters.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand fully how to make this entry, it is so many things you must add and complete before it will be accepted. Can you add it if I write the reasons? Saintbridget (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What is "this entry"? There are several things being discussed now, and I'm not sure what your request is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

well, I am wondering if you cannot agree with that its part of the books, please look at the placing on the website, its placed with the books, not as something else. I dont understand this CC stuff, but them saying their books can be shared seems ok, I am sorry if you was somehow offended. I am not a tip top in english and I cannot see how I can improve the sentence, I would only make it worse in my belief, and I would guess to say that alot of material here is direct copy of uncopyrighted old encyclopedias? Am I right. Maybe you can help me with making it better? Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The webpage that you think is "part of the books" says:

We need your help, make a donation here please.
We also need your prayers! God Bless You All!
Would you like to contact us, please send an email to english@prophecyfilm.com

Does that sound like it's "part of the books" to you? It does not sound like part of a book to me.

Perhaps you'd prefer to read about Creative Commons at their Swedish website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course that could be with a book, the author(s) telling their story and mission is quite normal. Am I stupid for saying that? The holy books I read are full of such things, well maybe not internet adresses and hotmails? I dont know if I can make them agree to this CC, but maybe I can get them to write a statement declaring that all is free copyright on the site, would that do? I think though that they mean that you must attribute their site in any way and that you must not edit their work, should I tell them to write this too? I am learning step by step Saintbridget (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But even though they stated you should not change the texts you are using from them, can one do it since fair use exist. Please answer the questions I asked before so I know. Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If they do not want the text to be changed, then Wikipedia does not want it. Nothing else matters: if it's not okay for a future editor to change it in anyway that he or she wants, then Wikipedia refuses to have it.

Figure out this single point as soon as possible. If it's not okay to change the text, then we don't need to worry about anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can use the text anyway I like is what they said, as long as I source their site. So can I add the text now or is there anything more to discuss. I dont understand, is the site on the blacklist yet? Or is it me who is unable to add the site or newcomers? Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 83.233.49.54 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but their consent would have to be registered through the OTRS system, to prove that you are not lying. The problem is not that I personally think you would tell lies, but that someone might, and therefore Wikipedia has very strict rules about these things. That would deal with the copyright issue.

However, it would not deal with Wikipedia's own rules about writing a good article. Wikipedia doesn't want you to copy and paste a long direct quotation off of any website, even if you properly attribute it (which requires putting the entire thing inside "quotation marks" and naming the source) to avoid plagiarism.

Again: you must write in your own words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What is OTRS? Their consent is shown since they make it on their website! I see alot of people quoting passages from books on the saint Bridget article wikipedia without having any consent from the book owners, not are they uncopyrighted as my source is. Did you refuse their additions too? So where does it say that i must change something which is already ok? If I change the words, then I can add it? Indeed you see it is allowed by their site. Where can I see where the other qouted sources that have been allowed on the saint Bridget wiki have the right and same allowance as you insist I must have! I act fully according to wiki rules. Where does it say, fair use is just a sentence of a poem? Saintbridget (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Saintbridget (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Saintbridget (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to WP:OTRS for information about that process. The "please share St Bridget's own writings and books with other people" note on that website is not adequate for sharing the parts of the website that are not written by St Bridget. If the website's owner really wants to authorize this use of text that is not written by St Bridget, then they will have to contact the folks at OTRS and specifically, directly, and unambiguously tell them this. It will have to come from an e-mail address that is clearly associated with the website. It is not good enough for the website's owner to tell you: the website's owner must tell Wikipedia's OTRS group directly.

The text that other people have included are direct quotation written by St Bridget herself. St Bridget's writing are not subject to copyright laws (because they are so old), and as a practical matter, it is not possible to simultaneously (1) re-write this text in your own words and (2) use text that was written by St Bridget.

The text that you want to include is not written by St Bridget. It was written by the owner of the website. It is subject to copyright laws. Additionally, there is no possible reason for not re-writing it in your own words (except laziness): you could communicate the same facts without using exactly the same words. Since it is possible to write this in your own words, then Wikipedia says you must write this information in your own words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading comprehension in the United States

I am not going to get into an editing war with you. So I have referred your irresponsible move to the Administrator whose move you have just reverted. You continue to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the issue involved, may be you are more like a teacher who like to tell others what to do in the hope that non one questions the validity of what you of what you are saying. You did not discuss yo objections to the move when the option was there for a week. But only reverted the move, days after it had been made, and you did not bother going through any discussion with those who made the original move. You acted only on your own opinion which from what you tell me is not the WIKI way of doing things. So don't the WIKI rules apply to you like other editors. dolfrog (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Like 99.9% of Wikipedia's editors, I was unaware that your ongoing efforts to improperly fork the reading-related articles had affected this article. I voiced my objections immediately upon discovering the move. I was not the only editor objecting, either.

There is no deadline. You never had consensus for the move in the first place, but even if you did, you lost that consensus as soon as I presented reasonable arguments against your plan.

If you're unhappy with that article presenting primarily US-specific information, then you need to add information to balance it, not keep trying to push it off into a US-only ghetto. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I will start from the beginning to explain things my my perspective. For the lat 10 years I have been lobbying first for APD research to be carried out in the UK to help all in the UK who have APD, (as a result of my son being diagnosed as having CAPD as it was then in 1998). I have had to research all the information from the USA and else where to pursuaded the UK authorities to research APD, this happened in 2004. The major barrier to having an increased awareness of APD is the UK dyslexia industry, which prefers remain with the science of the 1980s and 1990s to define dyslexia to promote and sell their support program and related products, including so called health guides, and reference books, and the educationalists are even worse due to the lack of financial provision to provide the support required, and the political pressures that go with that. Until I started to do serious research into dyslexia to try to bring the WIKI article up top date, I was probably of the same opinion as you about all the issues we appear to have difference about. I am not trying to create any Ghettos but just to create greater overall clarity. Dyslexia is about having problems with precessing or reading the written word, So to understand why I and other dyslexics have these problems we need to understand the the skills required to learn to read, and why we have a some type of neurological deficit which acts as a barrier to having the optimum reading skills of non-dyslexics. What has been a major problem in precious research has been the lack of research into the different sub types or different cognitive causes of dyslexia. Most of the research has been just all dyslexics compared to non dyslexic controls. Where thee should have been different sub groups of dyslexics and a non dyslexic control group. Currently the German and Chinese researchers are leading this advance in dyslexia research. And they are now all discussing the different types of cognitive deficits which cause dyslexia vary according to the writing system being used. So it make sense that the sample would apply to the teach of reading in different countries using different writing systems. Especially as many people from these different countries try to learn English which does not mach their existing language or reading skill sets. So before i got involved with the actual editing of the dyslexia article it was decided to make it a summary article, with many sub article to provide the greater detail of the more weighty topics, and for dyslexia support by country due to the national variations in statues and support systems, again this appears tpo mirrored by methods of teaching instruction. Currently in the UK we depend on Peer Review process, for all research, and now the international peer review that exists especially in the APD research. These neurological deficits which can cause dyslexia are the key to help understand the as yet undefined nature of how we learn to read scientifically, neuroimaging will help sort that out may be. All i want to do is to finish editing the dyslexia article and realted issues as soon as possible so I can concentrate on APD and any other new topic that may take my interest, dyslexia is too political. and with my APD I do not do political very well dolfrog (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Read this three or four times if necessary, but please figure out what I'm saying:

I do not care what you want to happen in these articles. I care what the Wikipedia community wants to happen in these articles.

You, a single editor among thousands, do not get to dictate the structure of these articles. You must get consensus for the changes you want to make. You do not currently have consensus for the changes you want to make. You should stop editing and listen to what the other editors are telling you. You should keep listening until you really, truly, entirely understand what you're being told. You should not edit unless and until you have consensus.

You will know that you have consensus when editors stop opposing practically everything you do and start helping you make the changes themselves.

Do you understand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

From what i have seen so far on WIKI consensus means the lowest common denominator, or understanding of a topic. I do not have the time nor the ability to advocate for anything other than my own area of specialisation, which is Auditory Processing Disorder . For all other related issues I can only let the scientific research do the talking for me. I try to make the initials moves in the hope that others will have enough interest and research ability follow up what i have started. So this not a personal crusade more trying to get WIKI to match the research, which should be well ahead of opinion and consensus, and in the case of dyslexia in many countries like the UK the research has been cleverly concealed from both the public and the most of the support professionals. It seems to be part of my role as an APD pioneer in the UK and may be else where to be well ahead of my time, which is so frustrating, the research professionals will explain things in great detail privately but will not say a word in public due the uproar causes when a researcher expressed their views during a telephone conversation with a parent and campaigner in the field of Autism. So currently in the UK research papers tend to be well behind actual research because peer review has become so intensive. The time limit issues are based on my health needs to avoid too much stress, I also suffer from Post Traumatic Stress which was caused by 6 years of Disability Discrimination in the workplace, due to my employers denial of the existence of APD and even the implications of a clinical diagnosis of APD. Eventually in most discussion there will always be some one who refuses to understand how APD affects me communication abilities, not you by the way, and my stress levels explode. dolfrog (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you asked GTBacchus what original research is. This is an example.

Whatever you may feel about it, a core policy of Wikipedia is that it's based on previously published material and opinions. "Original research" is when editors introduce into articles their own ideas, or their own organisation of primary material.

No-one cares how much you know about what's being "cleverly concealed" (and frankly that phrase rings alarm bells about your objectivity toward the topic). Unpublished "insider knowledge" is not usable here. Unpublished synthesis - that is, an editor's own survey of a field, not based on secondary sources - is also not usable.

I know it's frustrating, but we just have to wait until material is published to the required standard of reliability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog's efforts are also a crystal-ball problem. Wikipedia attempts to describe the current mainstream consensus -- not what the mainstream consensus should be, or what it probably will be, in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To Both Gordon and WhatamIdoing

Thank you both for your contributions to the recent Arbitration.

With regard to dyslexia in the UK and may be elsewhere the dyslexia industry (those who have a finicial interest in selling dyslexia related products, and proving support) have not been explaining the real meaning and implications of the documented Research of the last decade or so but only making scant reference to the new research by heading only, For example each time there is a new gene recognised as potentially a cause of dyslexia the news is reported as Scientist have identified the dyslexia gene or something similar. The implication from this being that there is only one gene responsible for dyslexia. But if you dig deeper there has been research since about 1989 confirming a genetic link to dyslexia, and research scientists have two or more chromosomes and about 3 or 4 Genes which can each be a factor in causing dyslexia. So why is the motive for concealing this information. To maintain their financial status quo, be it their income, funding, or sales, depends on dyslexia being a single condition in its one right, so that they can claim that all they do is for all dyslexics. What the research over the last decade of so has been demonstrating is that Dyslexia has at least visual and auditory cognitive neurological causes, and more recent research has been highlighting Attention issues as well. This why the research from Germany and China is so important because these countries are almost dyslexia industry free. The Arbitration issue which we have all been apart of highlights the tip of the iceberg of the range of the products that the dyslexia industry has to offer. But if research becomes common knowledge, as it should be, then all of these products should have to be classified as to which groups of dyslexics each product may help, and even which groups of dyslexics it could do harm. The people who suffer are the dyslexics and their families who pay out good money for these products in the hope that they will provide some benefit, most buy blind, and take a very good chance of wasting their hard earned cash.

My insider information can only related to Auditory Processing Disorder, especially in the UK, as I am founder of APDUK and was Chairman from 2002 - 2005 and Vice Chairman 2005- onward. So I have heen in regular contact with the leading APD researchers in the UK and around the world. But I am an outsider when it comes to dyslexia and my research of the last six months (2 months in relation to the WIKI article) has been very revalationary as to the scale of the miss information which has be allowed to exist. dolfrog (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing

you wrote this above

"You will know that you have consensus when editors stop opposing practically everything you do and start helping you make the changes themselves. Do you understand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)"

When that happens I know it is time for me to leave and move on to pastures new, as i have done what I set out to do and leave it to others who better able to fill in the step by step gaps. dolfrog (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles

have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles dolfrog (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

arbitration

thanks for the reassurance dolfrog (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WT:LAYOUT

Got an issue about external links,[1] thought you might be interested. :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Agradman made an edit.[2] I reverted under WP:CON. It doesn't seem to be helping the situation. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

re Just so you know

Hi

you might like to have a look at one of my sandboxes where i could add your "Just so you Know". I have created it to help me understand WIKI more easily, like a sort of history or library of information. dolfrog (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Village School (Great Neck, New York)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

FYI. I'd like to break this neverending cycle, as you've suggested, but this sort of behavior makes it difficult to do so. Dekimasuよ! 00:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... I suppose we could just ask her whether she's ready for round three of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao. I could probably find time to file the case in the next day or two... I've been kind of busy, but keeping an eye on the contributions. The string of AfDs is disruptive and shouldn't be tolerated. Preparing the SPI report is just such a hassle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merges for Food and Drink

Based on your recent participation in several Food and Drink related merge discussion, I would like to point out several open discussions that might interest you:

• Proposed merge of Jumbals to Jumble (cookie). Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Kerala porotta and Malabari paratha. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Maple spice cake to Spice cake. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Patty melt to Cheeseburger. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Butterfly cake to Cupcake. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Majboos and Kabsa. Discuss here.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Psst-- Wanna be an administrader?

Impressive work in last couple of years. I did a whole lot of medical content work here from 2004 to 2007, and have returned from a long break with a vow to restrict activity to a narrower list of topics and avoid arguing with idiots. Your contributions are good, your writing impeccable and you sort of seem like natural administrator material (if not natural elementary school principal material-- it's not your IQ that can be annoying, it's your acerbity). Nevertheless, some of what you do would be easier with admin privileges, and as a once-upon-a time fellow Iowan who respects expertise and literacy, I would be happy to nominate you if you wish. (I'll argue with you too, if necessary.) alteripse (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded! JFW | T@lk 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

FDA links

Hey, if you're still interested in fixing some of the broken links to the FDA website, I've collated a list of them. They're at User:MastCell/FDA links - this should be all of the broken FDA links from Wikipedia articlespace. There are a lot, so it will probably take a team effort to fix them all. Anyhow, in case you were still interested, at least we have a list to work from now... MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've split up that nightmarishly long section; I hope that is okay with you.

I don't understand why these links are even in the list. Should that short section just be removed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Really appreciate your efforts! Yes, this section doesn't make sense, but since it's already finished… Actually we should remove these links from the articles. Just a hint to find warning letters: navigate to the main page and start searching. In most articles the date when the warning letter was issued is given. In my experience more WLs are sent to 'pharma/devices', so 'Browse Warning Letters By Company' isn't that helpful - navigate through the years instead. For 'food' the company's name is more efficient. Thanks again! -- Alfie^±Talk 00:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nitrogen narcosis

Thanks for your good-faith edit to Nitrogen narcosis. I agree that "Sources" is not an optimal title for a section (even though it contains the principal sources for the article) - as WP:LAYOUT#"Notes" and "References" says. However, the very next section, WP:FURTHER defines "Further reading" as: A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article.. As you can see, the contents of that section all appear in the article - as cites via {{Harvnb}}) - so cannot be placed in a section titled "Further reading". It is also worth noting that LAYOUT states: Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic ..., in which the use of "may be used" implies to me that it is not deprecated. I'd be grateful if you would therefore either self-revert your edit, or (better) suggest another name for the section more appropriate than "Sources". Thanks in anticipation. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's the inevitable result of merely having glanced over the article, instead of carefully reading the refs.

I think that the arrangement of the refs needs to change, because short citations shouldn't be mixed with some full citations, but not others. Generally, I'd just put them all together under "References" (i.e., "ref" 1 includes all the information from "source" 1), but some people prefer to split them, so that the short citations and (all of) the full citations are in separate sections. In this approach, they typically put the short cites in a section called "Notes" and full cites in "References". Which do you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, using the template {{Harvnb}} creates an entry in the section containing {{reflist}}, just as the usual in-line <ref>{{cite xxx ...}}</ref> does. So I could separate them out by using <ref group="xyz"> syntax, but that makes the text ugly like this^[1][xyz1] - for just the gain of having a Notes section for "short" (Harvnb) cites and a References section for "full" cites. I prefer to leave them mixed. I've presently got an article at FAC (WP:Featured article candidates/Oxygen toxicity/archive1), where I had criticism for not quite getting the distinction between harvnb and full cites right, but not for mixing them in the same References section.

However, to explain the real problem, let me give you an example: a Harvnb cite like <ref>{{harvnb |Brubakk|Neuman|2003 |page=301}}</ref>) generates not only its "short" entry (created by {{reflist}} as "Brubakk & Neuman 2003, p. 301") but also a link from that short entry to an anchor which looks like this: #CITEREFBrubakkNeuman2003. This anchor is picked up by a full cite to the work (but not the page) which includes the "|ref=" parameter like this: {{cite book |title=Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving |editor=Brubakk, Alf O; Neuman, Tom S |year=2003 ... |ref=CITEREFBrubakkNeuman2003}}. This allows a single work to be cited "in full" once, but allows individual "short" references to cite different pages. So there is the problem: Where do you put the full cites? You need another section. I usually call it "Sources", for lack of a better title. If that doesn't make sense, you can see a fully-worked example at User:RexxS/Cite multiple pages - where I've incorrectly called the section "Bibliography". Any other suggestions for the name of this section would be most welcome. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So why not move all the other full citations into the same section with the Harvnb full cites? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

::::Because all the other full citations are automatically generated by {{reflist}} (along with the harvnb short entries) - or am I not getting what you mean? --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok - You mean just put them after {{reflist}} in the References section. I've tried that now. It looks a bit odd to me - what do you think? --RexxS (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's one solution (usually done in combination with {{refbegin}} to make all of them the same font size), but below is what I had in mind:

Here is the relative narcotic potentials for some components of breathing gases. Xenon has historically been too expensive to be used very much in practice, but it has been successfully used for surgical operations, and xenon anesthesia systems are still being proposed and designed. Due to its perception-altering effects, the onset of narcosis may be hard to recognize. This measures the relative concentration of different gases required to prevent motor response in 50% of subjects in response to stimulus, and shows similar results for anesthetic potency as the measurements of lipid solubility.

This produces one list that contains everything. The Harvnb short cites are still clickable to the full cites, but everything is in the same list. All it requires is replacing the first Harvnb template for one ref (usually the first) with the entire "Sources" template, plus the page number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice - almost perfect! The only tiny loss is the chapter pages (|pages=300–22), but I can live without that. I'll give that a try. All of this would be much easier to manage if we ever get Bug 18890 implemented. Thanks for the help. --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that this is just as useful to the reader? It avoids the problem with the three 'different' items. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that looks great! The pedants might gripe that the page number is "wrong" when you follow through the harvnb to the full cite, but who cares when the page number is clear in the "short" entry. I have to say I've never seen another article referenced like this, but I am surprised that all articles are not done this way. Apologies, by the way, that I hadn't made the changes to the page already, I've been preoccupied with work and the Oxygen toxicity FAC. If you find time before I do, please make these changes to Nitrogen narcosis, it definitely improves the article, imho. Thanks again --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Perhaps we should write up a description of how to do this (at Template:Harvnb?) as a suggestion to other editors.

It's true that the page number in the ref only applies to the first use, but I don't think that will actually confuse anyone.

You said that we're losing the chapter pages, and I paid insufficient attention to that earlier. I can't think of any reason why we can't make it work somehow, if it's not. Where is that (supposed to be)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

When I couldn't find a good explanation of how to use the CITEREF part of {{harvnb}}, I worked out the scheme you saw before by myself, then wrote a little essay at User:RexxS/Cite multiple pages. I eventually added a link to that in the documentation for harvnb. However, what I wrote really only applies to articles that have bibliographies, so you could either modify that and actually add it the documentation (I didn't feel confident enough when I wrote the essay), or write up a worked example (using a part of the Nitrogen narcosis, I would suggest) and replace/add to the link which I put in the documentation. What do you think?

The page numbers for a chapter really only apply when I cite a compendium like Bennett and Elliott's Physiology, which is edited by Brubakk & Neuman, but has different authors contributing individual chapters. Naturally they use parameters like |pages=300–322 , but when you also add a single |page=301 at the end of the {{cite book}}, it overrides the earlier one quoting the pages of the chapter. It really is a very small loss as it merely saves the reader from having to look in the contents of the book to find the relevant chapter. --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

re new and dyalexia project

Hi WhatamIdoing

made some replies to your comments in the title on those talk pages dolfrog (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

a further reply dolfrog (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

another further reply dolfrog (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Final_decision

Discuss

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

For the Committee MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The study

Made a proposal.[3] Based it off the two studies we did. Did my best to steer the discussion towards an objective direction: asked for an objective response. I think it's subjectivism that's preventing consensus, progress. Those were my thoughts, what do you think? I'm interested to hear. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

question

You seem knowledgeable so I hope you can help here -- I am the one who worked on the Feingold Diet page a lot, but I am not an expert on Wiki stuff.

(1) How can I get the note removed that there is original work and that there are citations - referring to the chart in that page. I removed the graph which I had made to compare studies (the original work) and cited everything I could find to cite. But how do I get that note off there? Am I allowed to just take it off? Is there somebody in charge I am supposed to go to?

(2) At the top of the page is the note that an expert such as a doctor is needed. Nobody has come forward in a couple of years and it has been suggested that I can put a note out on the email newsletter I write. Somebody in the 30,000 people who get it - all presumably interested in the subject - might just be the expert needed. But who should they go to once they have replied to me that they are interested?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.134.65 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Oops -- I forgot to sign this Shulae (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing much about the current state of the article, I can give you some general background, and perhaps some of it will help.

Original research doesn't necessarily mean that you can't make a graph. It means that a graph, or a sentence, or anything else in the article, needs to be obviously/directly (but not "copyright-violation-ally", if you'll let me make up a word) from a reliable source. The most common problem in a medicine-related article is relying on primary sources (e.g., a journal article about a hands-on experimental study) instead of secondary sources (e.g., a systematic review or literature review that considers the results of several trials.)

I'm sure you can easily imagine that someone could publish a small clinical trial, or (worse) a non-human lab study, and that it would be easy for another person to misrepresent it as absolute "scientific proof." This happens all the time in newspapers: someone puts some cancer cells in a petri dish, drowns the dish in some new fruit juice, and the cancer cells die -- and the media report says "fruit juice cures cancer!" when they could just as easily say "drowning prevents cancer!"

It's also easy to take two or three of these and add them up to make a statement that none of them individually say -- and this is the heart of "original research". If you've carefully looked at each statement, and each reference, and you're sure that every single statement directly reflects whatever the source says, with no adding up to reach a new conclusion (no matter how logical), then you can simply remove the tag.

We of course want to avoid that kind of problem (especially in articles about even slightly controversial things), so we try to stick very closely to high-quality secondary sources (especially to the most "mainstream" sources you can find, because you don't want someone to say, "Well, but all their sources are this crackpot..."). So you might search (e.g. here) for government websites, for official position papers by dieticians, or things like that. They are "less scientific(-looking)", but they are often very good indicators of what the overall scientific consensus is.

As for other tags: if you personally don't think that the article needs attention from an expert, then please remove the tag. (If someone else seriously disagrees with you, then he or she will put the tag back.) {{POV}} tags in particular are notorious for hanging about well after disputes are resolved. If you think that an article (or section) unfairly promotes or denigrates the subject, then please try to fix it. If you think that it's appropriately balanced (showing both the good and bad, just the way a respected, mainstream "world expert" might see the topic) then you can take the tag away. Tags on Wikipedia are just notes to other editors; they are not badges of shame. If the note seems wrong, or out of date, then you can change it or remove it. As with anything, if you make a mistake (in someone else's opinion), then someone else will likely correct it after a while.

If you decide to suggest to your newsletter mailing list that they improve Wikipedia's articles (on this or any other subject), please remind them about our neutrality and verifiability policies. Wikipedia doesn't want to advertise or promote this diet (or anything else).

I hope this helps. Good luck to you, and feel free to ask any further questions here. I'm happy to share what I've learned, and to help you find other people to ask if I don't know the answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Linksearch

I'm afraid I don't believe I was able to find a satisfactory solution. Let me know if you come across something, though. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've inflicted the problem on User:MZMcBride (whom I've found to be both very responsive and extremely helpful with questions like this). Perhaps he'll know more than either of us, or will have an idea about who else to ask. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the MediaWiki API, it's actually remarkably easy to search for external links limited to a particular namespace - you just pass an extra parameter along with your query. It's a built-in feature of MediaWiki (here is the API specification). I'm not sure why this feature hasn't made its way into the Special:Linksearch interface. With the FDA links, I basically wrote about 6 lines of Python code which will perform any linksearch you want, limited to whichever namespaces you want. It spits out the results in a tab-delimited text file, for easy importation into Excel, but you could easily have it spit out wikicode instead. Anyhow, short answer, if you have a Python runtime (I think most Macs come pre-shipped with them) I can just give you the script I use, or if you have a specific query you want to give me, I can run it for you (namespace-restricted) very easily. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Python seems to be present on this computer, but MZMcBride has filed our complaint as bug 19789, so perhaps it will be fixed properly. In the meantime, I put his example list for www.Twitter.com in User:WhatamIdoing/Spambox, and that's more than enough to keep me busy for a long time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, getting it incorporated into Special:Linksearch is definitely the best long-term solution, and it should be pretty straightforward since the capability already exists in the software. Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Orthographies and dyslexia/Sandbox

could you check content to see if is WIKI acceptable Orthographies and dyslexia/Sandbox dolfrog (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "wiki acceptable"?

The contents of the sandbox are primarily copy-and-paste copyright violations of primary sources. The current contents of this sandbox absolutely can not be placed in an article.

The first section, about a single individual, probably cannot be made to meet the standards (WP:DUE and WP:MEDRS) -- at least, not for an entire section dedicated to that one individual.

The sources for "Research text requiring copy-editing or copywriting" are okay on the surface -- depending on how you use them (an unknown issue, as you've only copied them). Good literature reviews, or any secondary source would be much better than these reports of experiments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Charming

Isn't Milo a charmer? MastCell ^Talk 07:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen the comments. He's been busy at WT:EL as well. I would not be surprised that he's using that article's talk page to propose changes to WP:EL because he's afraid that putting it on the EL page itself would generate (1) higher traffic and (2) result in editors responding after they'd already read the repeated rejection of his very flimsy arguments in favor of fansites.

I wish he'd actually file a formal complaint against me, as threatened. The response might actually be enlightening to him, which would ideally result in him becoming a non- (or less-) tendentious editor. (Or it might be the next step in another endlessly Guido den Broeder-style mess; I don't want to speculate on probabilities.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold your breath for the user-conduct RfC. In my experience, he's quick to threaten, in a tone that suggests he be a little too into The Sopranos, but the threats are notably empty. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup work on references

Hi, there. Thank you for cleaning up the references I added to the dyslexia and orthography article so that they use reference naming. I hadn't had time to go figure out how to do that. An added benefit is that now I have a model I can copy for other articles! Thanks again. Rosmoran (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm indebted to User:Arcadian for cleaning up my ref formatting across many articles when I was a new editor, so I'm happy to be able to help someone else with that. I think of it as a small effort to "pay back" that favor.

I'm also just thrilled to have you back on Wikipedia again. I missed you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I call that "paying it forward". :-)

I certainly didn't expect to be missed -- what a nice surprise. We've had a very rough year, and I just didn't have the bandwidth or motivation to spare. Hope all is well with you and yours. Rosmoran (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi both you might be interested in looking at the Wikipeadia support Reference generator dolfrog (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

The purpose, I assume, since this is part of AWB genereal fixes, is to ensure that all pages are sorted the same way. I have run AWB aggainst the new page location, and the same result occurs. The probelm is that without this sort of defaultsort strategy things such as "TUC Senate" would be sorted before "TUC elections". The name of the article in the category is not affected by the sort key as you probably know. Rich Farmbrough 17:19 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Some review papers that may interest you

Hi WhatamIdoing

I have been listing some review papers one one of the Dyslexia project pages Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia in the section called "Interesting research reviews listed as i find them" Many of them have only been published this year. best wishes dolfrog (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Parental Alienation Syndrome

WhatamIdoing, I request that you please provide comments on the parental alienation syndrome talk page. Thank you, Michael H 34 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Question about referencing

Hi WhatamIdoing,

I've been following the referencing model you demonstrated in your cleanup of my references, but I don't know how to do something, and I'm having trouble finding the specifics in the Wikipedia citation articles.

I see how to create a reference that is "named" so that you can cite the same reference later without having to insert all of the specific citation information again.

My question is: how do I handle having a second citation of the same reference but using a different page number? So, if I create "ref 1 = blah blah blah p. 1" and need to cite "blah blah blah" again later but p. 100, do I have to create and entirely new reference name, or is there a way to substitute the page number with the abbreviated reference? (I hope that makes sense.)

Example in: Citation of "Wolf" in the References section of Orthographies and dyslexia.

Thanks for your help!

Rosmoran (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that you can't do this.

The usual workarounds are:

• Use {{Rp}} to add the page number immediately after the ref number (looks like ^[1]:35).
• Make a new (short) citation that refers to the previous one ("Smith 2009, p. 35").
• If the page range is small (e.g., in one chapter), use the entire page range for all sources (so instead of p. 24 in one, and p. 26 in the next, you make them both refer to pages 24-26)

Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks!

Rosmoran (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

External links (MOS)

Thanks for your input. I agree, the link adds little value to the article. Your name is very familiar, but I cannot for the life of me remember where we have met before... <scratches head> -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC). Of course, on the naming conventions for Medicine articles! -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability article

Hi WAID - thanks for adding the tag to the page. I have tried to read the guidelines you cite but they are too long, diffuse and unclear (to me). Could you state briefly exactly what it is needs doing to the Further reading section to make it acceptable? Or, better still, could you make it acceptable yourself? Granitethighs (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that after 213 regular references, there can't be that many more books that we really need to recommend to the readers. But here are some suggestions:

• Re-check them all for duplications of the ref list (e.g., Bookchin, which I removed for you). Double-listing is not accepted.
• See whether any of more of the books in the list could be used as references in the article.
• Review the remaining list to identify the most important (to a general reader) items -- a famous book, for example, or one that's particularly complete, or one that someone entirely new to the subject might benefit from reading. Try to pare down the list to this "must-have" reading material.

Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

page move of Jacob Sheskin

I actually totally agree with your apparent reasoning for this move, but just FYI, the page you cited as the reason, WP:CREDENTIALS is a redlink. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I should have checked. WP:CREDENTIAL was the page I was aiming for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop playing school maam

I am tired of you patronising self important approach. you should really do your research before making a fool of yourself. I started the article you have been commenting about on my user page, so I should know what the intended content should be and what the title should be. So if another editor moves the article with no discussion of the move, I can the either revert the move or compromise and move the article to a compromise title which is what I have done. From what i can see you have never created or stated an article on Wikipedia, so far I have started 10 articles in the last 3 months, mostly with very little help but now other editors are beginning to contribute. If you can help all well and good if not stay away. dolfrog (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I disagree with dolfrog. I don't get the impression that you're being patronising. Rather, I think your comments and work are very helpful.

Rosmoran (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with dolfrog on this one. She can be patronizing, which is someone who looks down on other people in an offensive manner. There is a difference between mean and nice teachers. Mean teachers can be very helpful but would you rather have a mean teacher to help you? Probably not, you would want the nice teacher who is very helpful. Esthertaffet (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New conversation about issue with the dyslexia articles

Hi, there. I just started a new conversation on the Wikiproject dyslexia talk page about our attempt to provide a worldwide view in these articles. We could use as many people providing feedback as possible. Please read and respond, if you can.

Thanks!

Rosmoran (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Lung cancer staging

Hi, WhatamIdoing. Please read my reply here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

unsigned template

Hi, in this edit you helpfully added unsigned templates to many talk comments. Is there a fast and easy way to do this, or did you have to dig through the talk archive to figure out how to sing them all? Thanks! PDBailey (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did it manually; I'm not aware of a faster way to do it.

The advantage to {{Unsigned2}} is that it takes the date as the first parameter, and the username as the second (compared to just plain {{Unsigned}}, which is the opposite order). Why this matters is that Unsigned2 lets you copy the date stamp and username off the relevant line of the page's history, and stick the vertical bars in, and you're done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot for the help! PDBailey (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jianpi Wan

Hi WhatamIdoing, Thank you for putting up the note in the talk page of Jianpi Wan that the article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine. However, the article has been put up for deletion, and your views on this matter will be much appreciated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jianpi_Wan 弟 (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Style

Completed your request on Template talk:Style.[4] Probably should of spent more time on it. Sections are now collapsible, shoplifted the styles right off of another series I'm working on, WP:PROCESS. I'll probably be gone for a while, if you have any more questions please ask at the template's talk page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You have a really long talk page, here's the code for an automated archiver completed with archives and search; if you're interested, of course. The parameters are set so all threads older than seven days (which is the time it usually takes before it becomes inactive) are automatically archived. It'll stop if there are only four threads left. Copy and paste it here replacing the current archives.[5] Here's the link to the documentation.[6]

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:WhatamIdoing /Archive %(counter)d
}}{{archives|search=yes}}

Query

I was curious about this: to my knowledge, a FAC has never and never would be failed for this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's in the style guideline; I've heard other editors assert that they had to comply with it. As you know, I have no particular interest in FA work, so I haven't seen anything directly myself. If I'm wrong, then that's what I get for believing everything I read.  ;-)

Must run, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering; these notions get spread and people believe them. A FAC would not fail only because of that (or MOS issues). At least I'm not aware of any that has. Don't believe everything you read ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. So WP:FACR's "2(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations" does not actually require consistently formatted citations? Perhaps the documentation should be updated to reflect reality, then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are required as is compliance with MOS. But FACs and FARs don't fail over this alone, as someone is always willing to make those fixes, even if nominators don't. If no one else does it, I do ... I've never known an article to fail over something this silly. But some people promote inaccurate memes about FAC and FAR ... that was my concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing/Med redirects

Sorry that took so long to get resolved. You should be all set. If not, throw a note on my talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Special education

Next time you revert my edit, please see the talk page. I have explained there. I don't understand how you couldn't see it as you posted a comment to the other editor. Esthertaffet (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw your message, but your message did not explain why you added unsourced information, changed existing statements to contradict the sources named to support them, and changed the tone of the section to advocate for the style of education that you personally prefer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please reply on Talk:Special education? This is where we are supposed to discuss. Esthertaffet (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kheiffets and Nutriveg

On his never ending commentary he denies that your support for the use of this source is valid; since it was made before he "made his reasoning". If you still agree with the use of this source or otherwise it would be great if you gave your opinion. Thanks a lot.--Garrondo (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I see at RSN, it looks like it will be over before long. Nutriveg may be feeling like s/he's at the bottom of a dog pile right now. I'm glad to see MastCell's comments: he's smart, levelheaded, and not likely to put up with ongoing obstruction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Two points related to Reference sections

Two points: First, while looking into the MZMcBride RfA, I stumbled across some work he did for you related to usage of various forms of reference headers. I see he did an extract for you. Did you summarize the results anywhere? I'd be interested to see the results.

Second, I thought I recognized your name,and yes, we interacted on a discussion of, surprise, surprise, reference section structure. I revisited that page, and see you responded to a comment I made. I don't see my original comment, but apparently I had a concern about the Nitrogen style because of repeats. You responded that it didn't have repeats. I now realize my error. I looked at footnotes 28,29 and 30, and saw identical ISBNs, something I was specifically trying to eliminate. However, after your comment, I looked closer, and see that the reference is some sort of collection of articles, so while they have the same ISBN, they properly have different references. My bad, I thought you were just referencing different pages. Sorry, should have looked more closely. I also see how you handle a reference to a different page of the same book.--SPhilbrickT 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick,

I thought I'd responded earlier, but I see no sign of it, so my apologies if this is a duplicate:

We never really wrote up the ref headers formally. You'll find some of it in this archived discussion and this one, with the working conversation archived here. We stopped working on this sample set with a vague notion of developing a more formal set of statistical questions, which we then failed to do, probably because what we really needed to know was that the overwhelming majority of articles use ==References== for the title of the section where citations are listed, and that a lot of articles do follow the recommended order for appendices, although a lot of them only have a single appendix anyway, so it's impossible to be "out of order".

Another problem (in determining conformance to the recommended order of appendices) was accounting for very rare headings and ambiguous headings (e.g., "Bibliography", which should either be the first or middle section, depending on whether it's "Books written by this person" or "Books cited by Wikipedia editors"), which have to be identified and processed by hand. User talk:WhatamIdoing/Header frequency shows some of the articles (mostly zero-section stubs) that have unusual headers.

If you're interested in this issue, please feel free to take over! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I looked quickly and see you did quite a bit, so I bookmarked it and will return to it. --SPhilbrickT 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kheifets Review

Hi there, sorry about the very slow delay in responding - work and personal life have pulled me strongly away from Wikipedia in the last few months! I seem to have missed the chance to respond, what was the query out of interest, and which of Leeka's reviews was it (There was a recent one with John Swanson and IIRC David Renew that you might be referring to?) topazg (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and welcome back! I'm not sure where things stand with that discussion, but I believe it was resolved. After a while, most of the discussion seemed to be a frustrating instance of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You can find links to the sources and read the discussion in this archive. Presumably other aspects of the dispute are addressed at Talk:Alzheimer's disease (I'm pretty sure it was the main AD article, not one of the sub-articles).

Thanks again for your interest, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, what a lively discussion :) FWIW, I know Leeka and John quite well and while they undeniably have strong ties with the industry (John's deputy director or equivalent of National Grid in the UK, the primary HVOTL supplier), I have found them both to be very scientific in their approaches. I know they are both concerned at the moment of a possible association not so much with Alzheimer's (though they are aware that the data for that is mounting, particularly after Garcia et al 2008), but with ALS, where the potential societal cost could be very significant. Besides, the COI issue is often cyclic and thrown equally in both directions and is unavoidable. Find a single author in a single field that doesn't have a COI of some kind by simply being interested and learned in the topic enough to do research in that area - expectations and internal convictions included. There was an interesting article in PLoS this year about how financial COIs are only the tip of an iceberg that covers everyone to some degree or another. As with everything in life, one hopes that scientists have the personal integrity to be aware of such things and attempt to control for them as much as possible themselves I think. topazg (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bed management

Re: "I wonder whether File:Bed_Management_cycle_outline.svg could be re-formatted as a vertical illustration? It's hard to make it wide enough to be legible without being so wide that it will cover nearly the entire screen for people using small monitors. (No rush, no obligation, but if you think it's a good idea, then please feel free to do it sometime.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)"

I can do it, but I don't think it will help much, because any vertical format will be thumbnailed down to nothing anyway! - Pointillist (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead illustration (and this is the only one in the article) is commonly set to 300px wide. I figure a vertical arrangement might improve the legibility by about a quarter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the default setting for thumbnails is 180px and there is a drive to eliminate explicit pixel widths anyway because it messes up the experience for iPhone etc users. It is easy for us desktop users (in my case 1600*1200 on a large screen) to underestimate the need for smaller versions and I am happy to try making a vertical layout just for the learning experience. More news when I have it. Pointillist (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead images are specifically exempted at MOS:IMAGES#Images (bullet point most of the way down). It looks like they're pushing for an alternate way of doing that, however ("upright=1.7" instead of "300px"). I'll have to go learn the new system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point about "upright" ratios, but I'll have to try it on my iPhone family and friends before I'm fully convinced.... - Pointillist (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

time

I thought that your contribution to the NC discussion was valuable, thank you for taking the time to do that. I find it frustrating that it will buried by less productive comments, exhuming contentious positions long buried by sensible solutions and waving hatchets that had been ... er, buried. Oh! I seem to have buried the salient points in a mish-mash of simile and metaphor. Anyway ...

If you come to realise that your assessment of another contributor was incorrect, which, given the excellence of their contributions and the communities acknowledgement of that, I think is very likely, I hope that you will not be discouraged from joining the discussion of content. Regards, cygnis insignis 08:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Actually, I dislike dealing with heavily-trafficked policy pages: I'd rather read one comment on ten unrelated pages than ten comments on one.

The only conclusions I'm drawing about contributors is that two of them would rather argue on the talk page than fix the problem in the policy. This dispute should have been resolved by now -- and doubtless would be, if the supporters were willing to put their oft-repeated talk-page assertions in the policy instead of telling Xandar that he should assume that the policy means what it doesn't say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Hello

Thanks :) I've been hectic as hell over the past few months and I suspect the coming two are going to be equally hectic, but after that I should find a bit more time to contribute. I managed to do quite a bit yesterday, so not all is lost. Hope you're well, see you around :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict

A little while ago I had an edit conflict on WT:NC, but the conflict page didn't show me any cause of the conflict. It was very odd. So I saved over the top. I have just now discovered that I conflicted with one of your edits, and my subsequent save deleted your post. My apologies for that; I'm going to restore it now. As I said, I think it was a diff error rather than human error, maybe associated with the software update (see the note at the top of the page). Hesperian 01:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[7] Hesperian 01:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it -- and for being curious enough about the error to look into it. I probably wouldn't have noticed its disappearance, but someone else might have, and I'm sure that neither you nor I want to see any other "focused on the contributor" accusations on that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

You are mentioned in an arbcom request for modification. Fortunately such requests should not be as prolonged or as indepth as the main arbcom as it is just a request for an ammendment. Unfortunately scuro's latest comment on wiki med collaboration project has made me feel that it is time to bring this to the attention of the arbcom.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_ADHD Other issues can be mediated but this one I feel is one that needs arbcom intervention.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of a NEW request to amend ArbCom case

A new request for amendment of the ADHD remedies has just been filed. This one asks for additions to Remedy 3) Scuro placed under mentorship. This notification is being added to the talk pages of scuro, Literaturegeek, Jmh649, Unionhawk and WhatamIdoing. - Hordaland (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)