Jump to content

User talk:Delldot/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 24
Hello, Delldot/Archive 18. You have new hugs on User talk:Delldot.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Thanks again for your help with nuthatch. jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


No probs, you certainly earned that star this time! Congrats Jimfbleak. What's your next conquest? :P delldot talk 05:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Iowa county courthouses

hello! do me a favour and look at this list: list of Iowa county courthouses.looks deletable to me, but ,again, i can't decide under what criterion. it doesn't really contain any info other than that each courthouse is located in the county of the same name. seems like one sentence in a list of counties would pretty much cover it. comme toujours, merci et paix. Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I would take it to AfD with WP:NOT#DIR and notability concerns. I would expect the only sources you'd find for this would be primary (or trivial; hence the notability concern). It looks like it may be a work in progress, so you may want to ask the author(s) about their plans and request citations. I can take it to AfD myself if you like, but I'm going to bed now and may not be around much tomorrow. Another good catch Toyokuni, I see you've been keeping that fine Wikipedian instinct sharp! Peace, delldot talk 05:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks


AI-Wikipage again - deletion or Afd, are these the only options

Hello delldot.

I have got some proposals for speedy deletion or Afd from Skomorokh and Triwbe. I feel I am being manipulated a bit, what is your opinion? - I would like you to say a word in the debate on my talk page if you have time, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#The_debate

(Anna Quist (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

Message to Delldot, Maxim and Triwbe about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page

As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone. (Anna Quist (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Sorry to hear it was deleted after all that work you put in. But if you recall, I've told you several times what I thought it needed in order not to be deleted (inline citations to reliable, third party sources), and you went ahead with the move to the mainspace without it. I assume this is because it wasn't possible to provide: the reliable sources don't cover the group substantially enough to back up the claims made in the article. I think you should wait until the organization has been substantially covered in more sources. If it's really notable, it won't be long before newspapers and other reliable sources cover it. Peace, delldot talk 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

i have an interesting and useful tidbit for you. if a print piece was published prior to 1978, without copyright notice, it is considered to be in the public domain. neat, huh? see : Editing Image: Bovet August 1944.jpg] i give up. anyway, that's where it is .Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know that. Where is that? Or is it reevery country? delldot talk 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Jabba here

I've done some copyediting on PTE, and left another laundry list... Should be almost there by now. JFW | T@lk 10:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Hey! The peer review got archived! Is that automatic or something. Fainites barley 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's done by a bot, they just don't want it taking up so much space on the WP:PR page or it would never load for people with slow connections. I would carry on editing the page as normal, or you can maybe add the link to the page back to WP:PR (not transcluded though). At this point you're more likely to get reviews from people you ask anyway, so I don't see why having it on the main PR page would help much anyway. If you want you can un-archive it on the talk page, but I would just carry on. (Note that I don't actually know what I'm talking about, this is just my instinct). Let me know when you're ready for more input! Peace, delldot talk 15:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can unarchive it to the talkpge I think. That seems simplest. By the way - the GA nomination was for Attachment therapy not attachment theory. I'm hoping to get Attachment theory up to FAC. I'll get back to you when I want more pr on the theory, (unless you fancied a quick GA review of Attachment therapy? It keeps failing for being too detailed.)Fainites barley 18:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I'll let someone more familiar with psych do the GA review. Sounds good about un-archiving, let me know when you're ready for more input. Peace, delldot talk 18:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK done!

I am Done with this editing. Since most people know him as Karim Nagi, can you just move it to Karim Nagi(with capital letter, not like before)? Thank you!! Usagi14 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Karim nagi and Karim Nagi Mohammed are now redirects to Karim Nagi. I recommend citing any press coverage of the musician directly (rather than linking to a page of press coverage). Better would be to use the material that's been published on him to back up specific facts in the articles (using inline citations, see WP:FOOT). I'm still not totally convinced about notability (we're pretty strict about it here because a lot of people add articles on non-notable stuff, so you've gotta make your claim of notability pretty iron-clad). I'm logging off for today but I'm glad to help with anything you need. Just leave me a note. Peace, delldot talk 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am actually using the articles to show his notability in The Boston Area cause it was one of the criteria in the notability article you sent me. He is actually very well known among the Arabic music lovers in the states and in the world, but Arab musicians don't get a lot of coverage...for some reason...so that is a little harder to prove.

I don't know if I should include them all though. I included already his Discography which includes two international released CD's (on top of many national released CD's) by a major label. That was another of the criteria. He is also a pioneer in his field. I understand you have to be strict though, but let me know if you still doubt his notability. I would not be writing this article if I was not sure of his relevance :)

I will keep editing. I am about half way. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!Usagi14 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good going, thanks for all the work you've put in and for being conscientious about the notability concerns. A couple comments (I hope you don't think I'm being too picky with these): I'd put the assertion of notability (his "claim to fame", whatever info you have about how he meets notability) right in the lead, the first part of the article above the section header. Not only will this make the notability less likely to be challenged, it's good practice for writing an encyclopedia article to explain why the subject is important. Second, I would provide inline citations to the claims of notability in the body of the article (the rest of the article other than the lead) to reliable, independent sources. I would provide inline citations to the references you have (ideally using the <ref></ref> tags with a {{Reflist}} tag under ==References==). Especially since you can't tell from the titles of some of them how much they cover the subject (e.g. The Dancing Cymbalist looks like a good source, but I don't know whether it mentions his name in a sentence or devotes a chapter to him). Last, can you link directly to an online version of the Boston Globe articles from its own site? I think there might be a copyright problem with linking to the copies of them on the karimnagi site (obviously, the Boston Globe isn't going to sue karimnagi.com, but we need to be very strict about respecting copyright on Wikipedia because it's such a big project dedicated to providing free content. I think WP:EL has a better explanation for why we can't link to copyright violations). If you can't find an online version of the articles from the globe to link to, you'll probably have to remove the links altogether (which would be too bad). In that case, it would be an especially good idea to provide the inline citations. Anyway, looks good so far, thanks for the hard work in producing this quality piece! delldot talk 14:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you again! I'll try to get that done. The Boston globe has the articles online but you have to pay to access them!:( That is why i linked to the other page, so yes probably there would be copyright problems. I'll fix. I'll try to do the citations. You have told me that before, but, as you can tell, this is my first article so it is taking me a while to get used to the code, so I avoided it for a while. I will work on it though.

Thank you for your help! I keep working... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usagi14 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


Ok done for today...almost finished. I Just plan to re-read and fix minor mistakes now. is it better with the inline citations? I tried to justify as much as I could. I hope I did it the right way! Thanks!Usagi14 (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the inline citations are great! The more the merrier, of course. The only other advice I have (if you're not already sick of it from me :P) would be to be careful to stay neutral, avoiding words like 'revive' which may be too glowing. Good work! delldot talk 01:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

mental status examination

I again placed a neuropsych. exam in this section. If no one ereases it, I'll add additional data as time allows. Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.199.141 (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad it went well! You never heard back from the person who removed it? Let me know if it does end up getting removed again and we'll talk it over with them. Peace, delldot talk 13:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you see the notes left by the two professionals that have been working on the article at Neuropsychiatric evaluation? They're good folks, I'm sure it won't be a problem, but I recommend talking it over with them so everyone can agree. Let me know if you need any help or anything! delldot talk 13:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

PTE

Fittingly promoted. Well done on the hard work. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the hard work you put into reviewing it! delldot talk 01:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

More please! (I've left a message for JeanMercer about the criticism bit but she's away for a few days). I've put the peer review at the bottom of the ordinary talkpage. Fainites barley 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Neurodevelopmental disorders

Hello, Delldot. —CycloneNimrod told me you might be interested in contributing to this article. I found it in a pretty neglected state a few days ago and spent a few hours adding to it. I haven't got all the references tied together yet but will take a break for a few days until —CycloneNimrod finishes some of his/her typographical and style edits. (I hate the way most of the good references I'd wanted to use are protected by the big library services. I'm having to sort through more generally available references. I'm using some medline news articles but that service is available for free registration, unlike springerlink, et cetera.)

S/he said you like to work on content editing so I should mention it to you in case you're interested. The article has a lot of good stuff left to do so I'll be coming back in a few days or weeks and doing some more. From the looks of your to-do list I wouldn't want to try to ask you for any huge amount of editing, but who knows you might be inspired? Maybe that's why you eat peanut butter, to keep up the energy for marathon edits?

I may tackle Hospitalism next. Its in pretty sad shape. Ooops...I shouldn't have said that, now you'll want to do it!

Anyway, thanks, whether or not you're interested. Reading your bio was fun.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure to make your acquaintance Trilobite. Aak, you found out about the peanut butter! Shhh, don't tell anyone! About Neurodevelopmental disorders, sure, sounds fun! I don't know anything about the topic, but I can probably get access to some journals if you find any abstracts that look good. Have you looked in biomedcentral? They have a lot of open access articles, and a lot with free images we can use. I'll put the article on my massive to do list (it's actually the shortest it's been in a long time, you should have seen it before I cut some of my losses!) What do you think of moving it to Neurodevelopmental disorder to be more in line with the naming conventions? delldot talk 02:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about throwing that at you, Delldot, I just vaguely remembered you having an interest in neurological stuff? —CycloneNimrodT@lk? 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with naming conventions for medical articles, so do whatever is best. I'm not an administrator so I don't usually move articles.Trilobitealive (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC) (BTW, my expansion of —CycloneNimrod's few remarks is a graphic example of my tendency to WP:SYN, which is the main reason I'm asking for editing help...so I don't go to far in that direction.)Trilobitealive (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary Cyclone, thanks for introducing us, I like meeting and working with new folks. I do like neurology, but the only area I know anything about is trauma.
Don't hesitate to ask any questions if you have any Trilobite. Don't be shy about moving pages, you don't need to be an admin. If you'd like the practice, try moving it to the singular (it's not a medical article specific thing, but i believe titles are generally singular unless the word is usually used in the plural (e.g. scissors). Peace, delldot talk 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

SAH typo

Ah, thanks for that :) When I start adding content to an article, it seems the grammatical side of me goes to sleep! —CycloneNimrodT@lk? 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem. In other news, what do you think about working traumatic brain injury up to GA and possibly FA at some point in the distant future? It would involve adding tons of references and paring out tons of crap. delldot talk 17:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure I'd love too :) I'll get working on it next week, perhaps, I'm a little busy socially at the moment (a rare break from work!) as well as awaiting my exam results (decides whether I do medicine or not!) —CycloneNimrodT@lk? 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Rad! I think this will be an interesting one, but tough. Luckily there's a lot of google books on the subject you can get your hands on, I can supply the journal stuff. Good luck with the exam results! Peace, delldot talk 02:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, I like a challenge :) I suspect I can find a lot of information in books that I own here anyway, but yeah, I'm sure Google has a lot on the subject too. I'll speak to you soon! —CycloneNimrodT@lk? 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletionist tendency

i think i may be a latent deletionist. see this: The Damned United, and give me your take on movies yet to be made. pax vobiscum.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I may not be the best person to ask, because I have an odd take on notability. To me, notability isn't that important, it's all about the verifiability. So if the article's about some dude's cat or some kid making YouTube videos in his basement, but it's been significantly covered in multiple reliable sources, it's verifiable so it stays (Who are we to say what's important?). Similarly (and this is what gets me into trouble) if it's on a well-known subject but the article cites crap for references, we have a problem. I don't know whether I'd be classed a deletionist, but I guess I'm kind of a radical in that I think that just because a topic deserves an article, doesn't mean we should keep the one we have on it (although ideally we'd try to fix it up). From that perspective, I'd say this article is ok; it's got solid refs from sources like BBC News. The ones I checked, checked out (supported the claims in the article). It may be boredering on crystal ballery with statements like "Sony will release the film in 2009", but something like "the producer has predicted that Sony will release the film in 2009" are perfectly ok (assuming a source is provided to back that up). So that's my take. Peace, delldot talk 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

I'm away for a week from tomorrow - internet access unlikely. I'll get stuck in when I get back. Fainites barley 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, you've been doing great! Let me know when you want me to continue. Peace, delldot talk 02:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hi Delldot, thanks for doing my editor review, and especially thankyou for the helpful constructive criticism. I agree with most of your conclusions but there's a couple I'd like to discuss a bit further if that's okay - if you're available to do so, would you prefer to do this here on your talk page or on the actual review page? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC).

Sure, glad to, I think it's useful for ER to be a dialogue. Let's do it over there to keep the discussion together with the review. That'll make it more cohesive if you decide to look back at it in the future. delldot talk 17:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have responded to a few points on the review page. Thanks again for your assistance! Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 9 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article scapular fracture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Huntington's

Someone nominated Huntington's disease for GAC without asking Leevanjackson or yourself. I started a review but then discovered that you might want to take the lead given that you've reviewed this earlier. Let me know. I'm not sure Leevanjackson is actually ready, because Goodone121 jumped the gun. JFW | T@lk 14:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can take another look. I know Leevanjackson's been working really hard on it, I think a lot of my concerns from the original review did get taken care of (from seeing the changes in my watchlist). When I get time I'll look over my old list and see if my old concerns are taken care of, then hand it over to you. Peace, delldot talk 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Give me a Dell yell when you're done. I will then do my bit. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Primate good article review

Hi delldot, I think the Primate article is ready for the next part of its review. Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Trauma edit

Delldot, No hostility here but I think it is unfortunate that you undid the edit I provided. The goal of Wikipedia should be to provide accurate information. The tourniquet page is not. There is alot of information to support the material I submitted. In addition this was not about chest trauma it was about tourniquets in relationship to extremity hemorrhage. The tourniquet is no longer a last resort in the face of uncotrolled hemorrahge especially in a tactical setting which is what I wrote. This is supported by Prehospital Trauma Life Support manual Mosby 5th and 6th edition. The CAT tourniquet is mentioned over and over because in an independent study by the US Army Institute of Surgical Research and The Committe of Tactical Combat Casualty Care it is the recommended prehospital tourniquet. I would recommend that in the future prior to changing edits you should first contact the contributor and or find out if the info is supported. What you have on the tourniquet page now is not only incorrect but it is negligent as well. This information can be the difference between the way a person is treated in an emergency setting. The info you have is outdated. Please feel free to contact me and if you still have the content I put in, I would encourage you to put it back. It is CORRECT. (INDNAM (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi again INDNAM, thanks much for the note, I'm always glad to discuss. I acutally undid your edit to Tension pneumothorax; I never saw the edit you're talking about to tourniquet. But I can take a look and help you with it if you like. My recommendation would be to state precisely what the problem is on the talk page. It sounds like you're saying the article's overstating the current use of tourniquets? That would definitely be a problem if it's the case (as I said, I haven't yet looked at the article). I feel like the only reason your edit was reverted was because another editor thought you were adding promotional material; that probably wouldn't be a problem if you would refrain from mentioning specific products or adding external links to commercial sites. The info is definitely welcome, especially if there's an accuracy problem. The source you mention is a good one; textbooks are considered highly WP:reliable sources. So here's what I recommend: propose the change you'd like to make on the article's talk page, explain what the current problem is, and cite your source. If no one objects (they probably won't), you can go ahead and make the change to the article in a couple days. be sure to include a reference to your source in the article. Otherwise you can discuss and work something out. I'm glad to help however you need. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Delldot,

Thank you for the message. I think it is important that if we are speaking on topics that are potentially useful for life saving interventions, then the information needs to be current and accurate. My intentions are not advertising, just education and editing incorrect info about material I know, and is supported documentation. I welcome updates but, we can not put out bad info on things that have to do with survival especially within the tactical enviornment. That is what is happening on the tourniquet and emergency tourniquet pages.

I have not undone recent edits because I don't want to be blocked from contributing. However,if what I contribute is going to be replaced with absolutely incorrect info then I am wasting my time in contributing. The mention of CAT tourniquets is appropriate because it is the RECOMMENDED prehospital tourniquet.There are different tourniquets out there however many of them are ineffective. I chose not to mention others because we need to post what studies and science tells us works. We are not talking about changing the oil on a car. This is about saving lives so if we are going to post something on Wikipedia on this topic it NEEDS to be accurate.

Thanks.(INDNAM (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Hope you don't mind me moving this and removing the spaces so it reads normal. I certainly don't disagree with anything you've said, accuracy is of utmost importance. As you say, especially with medical topics. So I definitely appreciate your looking out for accuracy here. Did you not like my suggestion of bringing it up on the talk page? In that case my recommendation would be to go ahead and make the changes to the article and be sure to cite the reliable sources you mention. Just know that they are more likely to be reverted if you don't discuss first. I definitely understand how frustrating it is to have your edits undone. Don't worry, if you cite reliable sources, avoid certain pitfalls (e.g. external links to commercial sites), and be sure to explain your edits well with edit summaries, they shouldn't be. Let me know if it happens again and I can help by discussing it with the person. I think you're wise not to simply revert, edit warring is bad practice and pointless. Discussion is always the best route. Let me know if I can help. Peace, delldot talk 16:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Burundi

Almost done with the Burundi article. I just have to research on the politics. I will have another GA reviewer review the article. Thanks for your help! miranda 01:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Any time, best of luck! Let me know if you need anything. CycloneNimrodT@lk? 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

tourniquets

I took your advice and posted my commentary on the editors talk page. I hope this will stop the incorrect editing that has been taking place. I am not frustrated because of a personal position, it is frustrating because it is very important and easily verified information. Thanks for the help (INDNAM (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

I completely understand. Actually I was suggesting that you explain your position on the talk page of the article: Talk:Tourniquet. But if it's just one other user who disagrees with your edits that will work to get dialogue going too. Good for you for backing up your work with sources--that's pretty much the most important thing to do. Let me know if I can be of any help. Peace, delldot talk 01:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottowa Panhandlers' union

Hi, I gather there was the beginnings if an article and that you could make it availeble in an editor's userspace. I am looking for a challenge so, if it's possible, could you do that for me? Abtract (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, how about User:Abtract/Ottowa Panhandlers' Union? Before you put in work, I take it you're familiar with the requirements for reliable sources for all facts? Pardon my skepticism, I just wasn't sure enough had been written about the group to base an article on. You're going to need some pretty iron-clad sources since the thing's already been deleted through AFD. Once you have it to your liking in your userspace, I'd recommend talking to folks who participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa Panhandlers Union to make sure it looks ok to them before moving it to the mainspace. Especially those who objected to the article based on its lack of references, like Nishkid64 and Cbrown1023. I'm also glad to have a look at it and offer advice before you mainspace-ify. Peace, delldot talk 03:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Durr, I left the typo in the title when I moved it: it's at User:Abtract/Ottawa Panhandlers' Union. >.< You can move it if you want but I don't really see the point. Enjoy! Definitely give me a heads up if you want me to take a look at your improvements. Peace, delldot talk 04:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do all as you suggest ... thanks. :) Abtract (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Hi! Back (and finally dried out). I think I've dealt with everything you've raised so far.I've also tried to refine the criticism section a little. More PR welcome. Fainites barley 21:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

British people

Hi, could you consider a semiprotection on this article which I sense is about to undergo a more than normal ip attack of a racial kind. Keep an eye on it anyway if you will. :) Abtract (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's ok it has been done thanks. Abtract (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a poke when you're done with the next round of additions!

Hello, I've doubled the size of Neurodevelopmental disorder again and it probably needs another critique. Also found a couple of interesting references you might want to use for your other projects.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Delldot, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! —CycloneNimrodT@lk? 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourniquet

Delldot, Can you please look at the tourniquet page and check out the history. I am still having problems with editing. The contribution I have submitted is constantly reverted to a page that is incorrect. You offered to help on this topic before. Thank you. {INDNAM} —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help however I can. I had a look, and I actually have some advice for you. I still don't see any discussion of this on the article's talk page, why don't you restate the points you made to me earlier there? From the edit summaries of the people that reverted you, it looks like they had concerns about WP:NPOV (a very fundamental policy that is of utmost importance) as well as formatting concerns.
You explain on the talk page exactly what the inaccuracy is and cite reliable sources backing up your facts.
Note that a space at the beginning of the line causes text to show up funny.
I must urge you not to revert others' edits without discussion, especially without providing a detailed edit summary. This will not work and could result in you getting blocked. Of course, it would have been better if the others had discussed the issues with you or fixed the problems rather than reverting wholesale, but note their use of edit summaries. They pointed out problems. If you address these, I'm sure you can agree on something that works for everyone. These people are reasonable and dedicated to the project and not at all wanting to keep inaccuracy in articles.
Good job citing your source. You should put the reference right after the facts that they endorse rather than at the bottom of the page. Use <ref name="what you want to name your ref"> </ref> if you want to use a reference multiple times; then you can use <ref name="what you want to name your ref"/> subsequent times you cite it. Let me know if you need help with this. You should leave out any info that you do not have a reference for.
I'm gonna see if I can get the other editors to discuss it with you by pointing them here. Hopefully all of you can take it to the article's talk page and come to an agreement. Hope this helps, let me know what else I can do. Peace, delldot talk 02:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've explained in detail my issue with the user's edits on his talk page. Basically, we have introduction of material that is completely contrary to what is in the reliable sources, (without citing any sources, saying what they say is a 'common misconception') use of suspect images and apparent spamming, though I entered the furore once the spamming had ended. Assume good faith and all that, but with the reversions without comment, this is coming dangerously close to vandalism. J Milburn (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delldot thanks for the help I cant understand why you are able to figure out the sources stated are reliable and others dont see it.?? If there is a formatting problem then we should fix the formatting but not eliminate all the content to be replaced with something that is WRONG.I pointed out some of the inaccuracies in the previous tourniquet contribution and why they were wrong. So why do we keep reverting back to this? I hope this can be resolved to show accurate information as I have contributed, along with studies to support it. Check Milburns reply to me . Confusing? I don't see how contributing evidence based,research supported, potentially life saving information can be confused with vandalism. INDNAM

INDNAM, I read J Milburn's reply and thought it was very reasonable. What part of it did you find confusing? S/he seemed to think that the source you used to cite the info did not back up what you had written--it is of utmost importance that we accurately represent what our sources say, so I think that it was reasonable for him/her to revert. But I certainly agree that formatting errors should be fixed rather than reverted. From J Milburn's reply above, it looks like they're saying your material is contrary to common scientific knowledge as published in reliable sources. There is a detailed explanation of what constitutes a reliable source at WP:MEDRS. The best sources are textbooks from respected academic publishers and peer reviewed journals indexed by Pubmed. If your point of view is very far from the mainstream scientific understanding, the Wikipedia article is mainly going to reflect the mainstream view (although it can include a mention of the fringe view). See WP:UNDUE. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can only include info from reliable published sources, so if the consensus among those sources is wrong, the Wikipedia article is going to reflect that inaccuracy. However, it sounds like you do have reliable sources; Critical Care Medicine is certainly a reliable source. If you include the reference after each fact that it endorses, there shouldn't be a problem with including the info, as long as it's clear that it's just one viewpoint (i.e. is given the weight in the article that it has in the medical community). I have access to Crit Care Med and can check the source to verify that it backs up your claims if necessary. I disagree with J Milburn that you're at all close to vandalism, you're clearly trying to improve the content; however, disruptive editing such as edit warring is still a blockable offense, so I appreciate that you have discussed here rather than reverting. Once again, I suggest proposing the change you want to make on the talk page and implementing it if no one objects within a couple days. Let me know if you need help with that. I really think that as long as you're adding info that is backed up by reliable sources and citing those sources after those facts, you'll be fine. Peace, delldot talk 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Up for more if you have the time. Thanks. Fainites barley 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Fainites barley 22:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers to you, you're doing an awesome job on a difficult topic. delldot talk 22:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Optometry article

i need you to/ you need to/ wikipedia needs you to look at the optometry article. the optometry vs. ophthalmology controversy is getting badly out of hand. people are including malpractice stats! comments to the effect that most american optometrists are guys who didn't get into med school. (probably true, but --- .) comparisons of which group spends more money lobbying. whew! i have a feeling that this is an old issue here, but it's escalating.Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I wasn't even aware there was a difference, let alone a controversy. I agree the malpractice stats should go--in fact, I think the whole controversy section should be removed unless it can be cited (note the lack of refs). It's not really clear what the controversy is, that whole section doesn't make much sense. Have you brought it up at WT:MED? Maybe you'll get lucky and find someone who knows something about eyes. Also, I recommend bringing up the concerns on the talk page and proposing your changes. If no one objects, go ahead in a couple days. Otherwise, try to come to an agreement there. Looks from the history like others feel the same way about the controversy section. If you get resistance on the talk page, there's always WP:RFC. Lemme know if you need me to help out. delldot talk 04:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
For clarification, optometry is what your optician does, ophthalmology is the medical specialty you'll find in your hospital. The two are closely related; however, optometry focuses on improving vision, whereas ophthalmology is more of a disease-identifcation and treatment specialty. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 13:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
sorry, but you are mistaken. optometrists and opticians are markedly different, and they're both different from ophthalmologists. opticians fabricate eyeglasses and contact lenses, and some do prosthetics.. it is a field requiring at most an associate degree. don't get me wrong, they are valued members of the team.optometrists are doctoral level health care professionals, with 4 years of post-baccalaureate education.however, their training is largely limited to what the greek roots of the word indicate:'measurement of the eye'.they will disagree, but their training in pathology, pharmacology and therapeutics, and surgery is VERY limited.

ophthalmologists, on the other hand, are m.d.'s (or d.o.'s - doctors of osteopathy - who are licenced in all (most?) states exactly as m.d.'s.). 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, 1 year of medical (vs. surgical) internship or junior residency, and 3 years of ophthalmology residency. there has been SOME friction between optometry and ophthalmology for a long time. this arises in part because many optometrists in private practice both prescribe and dispense (i.e. sell) eyeglasses and contacts. ophthalmologists have held that this represents a conflict of interest, with the patient's economic interests suffering. there are rare ophthalmologists who maintain a dispensing optical shop, mostly in very rural areas. more recently, the tension has derived from the optometrists seeking to have the legal scope of their practice expanded.in particular, they want to be allowed to do laser keratoplasty, and it is , i think, oklahoma that permits this at present. i have an opinion, but i'm going to keep it to myself for the moment. it is apparent, i think that it has gone from a pure turf fight to one with significant economic overtones.

if you look at my original comment, and the history of the article, i think you will agree that the discussion is getting unacceptably acrimonious. couched in civil terms, but inherently confrontational statements. personally, i don't think that any discussion of the controversy is appropriate for the article, beyond mention that it exists.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the acrimony you mentioned, but I didn't look that hard either. Seems to me like your options are to get involved and discuss it on the talk page or to get someone else involved to do it. I'm afraid I can't help much because as you see I know nothing about the subject. There's WT:MED, and you can look in the histories of related articles for people that seem to know what they're talking about. If you try discussing it and the other party won't discuss and keeps reverting, that's disruptive editing--it can be dealt with administratively. delldot talk 15:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Exhausted...striking while the iron is hot

OK, I wasn't planning on working up this one but there was a real synergy and we've had a whole bunch of folks really pushing hard on this one - Major depressive disorder. Given its size (luckily the prose is only 46 kb believe it or not), I feel we really need to do as much as possibly before FAC to avoid the FAC page becoming a quagmire of text. Let me know what you think, (do yer meanest hehehe) - almost all sourced and content is just about right (I think..), but I am musing on the prose (as always) and the flow...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

*hugs*

Gurch (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Primate Article

Primate is now a Good Article

File:Mammal barnstar.png The Mammal Barnstar
To thank you for your effort in the finally successful Primate GA review, I hereby award you the Mammal barnstar. Rlendog (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 24
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delldot/Archive_18&oldid=1121313061"