User talk:Maustrauser/Archives2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 120 days are automatically archived to (User talk:Maustrauser/Archives). Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


placenta recipes?[edit]

I notice on the Talk:Childbirth page that you say "I have known friends to eat their placenta".

I can tell you that it tastes like beef heart. Problem is, the texture tends to be extremely spongy. I also have no idea how best to cook it. I've tried stir-fry and baking so far. It'd be great if you could ask your friends for recipes. I'd have to change the spices of course, because I hate onions and garlic. I'm really most interested in cooking method, time, and temperature. AlbertCahalan 03:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It's here now. If a picture exists, that would be a great addition. Would I be right to guess that "Cook quickly" means to stir-fry at high heat? That's the part I really care about, so that I don't burn the placenta or make it tougher. AlbertCahalan 15:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My 'housekeeping' edits[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. Since I prefer to spend most of my Wikipedia time doing that kind of light editing, I especially appreciate Wikipedians like you that add content. Niteowlneils 8 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis links[edit]

I think it would be better to decide what is useful rather than delete itas a whole which is why I reverted your edit. Falphin 9 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

  • I agree that most of the links should not be there, but I believe some are relevant like their statement of faith. The big issue is that the article doesn't use references and so the external links is where the most relevant links should end up. Our options are to leave the most relevant in the external links, create references or possibly link them in the article like it is done at the CARM. I don't have time to look through them today but hopefully will before I leave on my vacation. I have no intention of going into a edit war either as I never have before. Thanks for your reply. Falphin 9 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)


Yeah thanks. I wouldnt knock the Wiki markup language too much, it's pretty good... couldnt ask for much better than it. Also the imageof the Koala isnt the Australian Skeptics logo... it's their mascot.. slightly different..

Thanks for noticing the Jerilderie image.. haha!

Are you a member of the Australian Skeptics by the way? - UnlimitedAccess 07:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Awesome, which issues... I will pull out my Great Skeptic CD and have a look see.. :) I would love to read your stuff.. :) - UnlimitedAccess 15:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
If you ARE a skeptic, how about hopping over to my User page and looking at the two categories that might be relevant for you - skeptics and anti-quackery. -- Fyslee 11:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Pope's Hitler[edit]

I agree that the article is essentially incomprehensible. Uncle G. is correct that it is fallout from an edit war. I had not seen this article until today, but have had to write up an RfC against its author, Wikipedia: Requests for comment/Famekeeper because of his filibustering on talk pages. He thinks that leaders of the Catholic Church were guilty of complicity in the Holocaust. That is a valid POV supported by some scholars. He also thinks that any deletion of (sometimes unsourced) arguments to that effect is censorship.

Thank you for your patience. Robert McClenon 16:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment![edit]

Thanks for the great compliment, and on my birthday too! Telling you what you already know- but Wikipedia is a great tool for giving fact-based information, that is becoming a first-stop source for people looking for that information in a place they trust. It's probable that a school-child who is sent time after time to the AiG page will eventually stumble on the Wikipedia pages, where he/she is going to discover there's a whole world out there who live and explore in a universe that's a million times older than he/she was taught.

This is the easy part- now I'm waiting for the chipping away of my work by the AiG defenders. I'm going to fight them tooth and nail. Let's keep vigilant over the next few days. Christianjb 04:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis Alert.[edit]

Just to let you know that is mounting an attack on Answers in Genesis and Jonathan Sarfati. Any help in the next day or two will be appreciated. Christianjb 17:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


You've been missing all the fun. We had a massive attack today in which most of the work done in the last couple of weeks was simply deleted. (Have a look through the history page) They also ran all over the discussion page putting in nasty little comments here and there. I'm trying to contact an admin about this to see what can be done. My advice is for everyone to keep calm and do essentially nothing until then. There's little point in reverting edits at this time, because they'll just revert them back. Christianjb 22:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

One tries...[edit]

Thanks for that. One tries (and I don't think it's quite been finished in that article as it currently stands, but I hope others will chime in), but it's an ongoing battle. Unfortunate, but... - Nunh-huh 09:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


New user to watch:

User talk:

-- Fyslee 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Spinal adjustment[edit]

I have added comments on this Talk page: -- Fyslee 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

LoPbN removals[edit]

Hi, Henry, and thanks for your attention to LoPbN. But please don't remove simply for lack of article without research on their notability. Of the two by you i noticed together, one has [this WWP background]. IIRC, LoPbN rdlks become blue at something like a 5 or 10% rate per month. Like rdlks elsewhere, they are a valuable source of new articles. TIA.
--Jerzyt 01:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional deletion options[edit]

Hi there, I notice that you recently proposed a number of articles for deletion using the {{prod}} tag, with reason "nonsense", which was a good thing to do.

A better idea for nonsense articles is the tag {{nonsense}} which will avoid the five-day delay that {{prod}} entails. See also WP:CSD for more ways to speedily delete articles. Stifle 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have only recently got brave enough to suggest some things for deletion! I've thought I might give fifteen minutes or so each night to monitoring the new pages and getting rid of the crap which seems to be filling up Wiki. Cheers, Henry! Maustrauser 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, one of the main things Wikipedia needs is recent changes patrollers. You can add {{User wikipedia:RC Patrol}} to your user page. Stifle 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Deanda Mistaken Deletion for Married Name and Maiden Name - Gender based Edit Problem ?[edit]

Archived: "While you are probably right about the page. Only Google hits are for this page on wikipedia." the rest is incorrect: anon. added to archive "correction" with IP address: this person is an established music producer with BMI/ASCAP credits back to 1985 under the maiden name. This could create suit since tag sat up for over a year, was listed in the Christian Contemporary Album genre under the maiden name, but you tagged the article commenting you are personally atheist. She could prove loss of commercial affiliation except she comes up under maiden name on various search engines. Has been relisted under maiden name to correct the problem. Continuation of archive: Also please read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#What this process is NOT for, the "prod" should not have been put back. I see now that you have added the db template. Do you not think that a AfD would be better. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow up. The anon removed all the tags. I have listed it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanda. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I was not aware of the rules at: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#What this process is NOT for. I shall behave myself next time!  : ) Maustrauser 23:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the invite. I have provided further comments on the AfD. Cheers, Henry. Maustrauser 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Systems' Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes[edit]

May I suggest an NPOV tag? Tawker 08:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have now put one on. Maustrauser 12:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my mild chiding re civility on the AfD page so well! I just feel that this Ramayan guy (gal? who knows?) has probably had enough of a kicking from people like the editor who nominated the artiscle as "crap" that he's unlikely to listen to anyone if he feels they're taking the mick. I also want for him to see that an article, the subject of the article, and the creator of the article are three separate things. For what it's worth I too think that this "Approach for interpreting horoscopes" looks deeply suspect (and I'm a Wiccan

Ewell Grove Infant and Nursery School[edit]

I don't like speedy deletions outside process- and certainly the school debate in Wikipedia is so controversial and divisive it would create a mass protest to delete a school outside process. I actually have deleted a school article once, but it was a speedy candidate. Personally I never vote on schools when they go to AfD but if I had to I think they could be merged, unless some notability is proven. Conversely preschools have been deleted at AfD and I'm fine with that, too, but they can't be speedied. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry also if the edit summary came across as a little abrupt. That wasn't meant to convey a lack of understanding, it just reflects the controversy. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. I shall consider taking it to AfD. And I won't speedy any more schools! Cheers, Henry Maustrauser 04:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank Feather[edit]

I share your concerns about Frank.Feather (talk · contribs) and his edits to his autobiography, plus adding himself to other articles. I'll watch him as well. Please let me know if you see him engaging in edit wars over vanity edits, if necessary I will block him. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have found alternative claimants for "Thinking Globally, Acting Locally" such as [1], plus some academic papers claiming it was coined at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1971 and also the WHO. I'm not sure Frank Feather's claims are quite accurate. Given that you are more experienced in these things than I am, would you be so kind as to look at: Azamat Abdoullaev and some of his related writings. He keeps removing my NPOV tag. He appears to be another vanity writer. I would appreciate your views. Maustrauser 13:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Good work. I also updated Thinking Globally, Acting Locally. That could now be a redirect to [{Friends of the Earth]], I guess. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Maustrauser, Since your vote for delete on this AfD, I have since cleaned up to adhere to NPOV and provided evidence of Notability. Could you please change your vote to keep?

Thanks, --Dave 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dave, I have changed my vote. On the AfD I wrote: *Delete NN Maustrauser 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have changed my vote. Dave has made a good faith attempt to change the article dramatically and has demonstrated notability. If everyone when criticized behaved like Dave in putting up constructive arguments whilst remaining cool and polite, Wikipedia would be a better place. Well argued Dave. Maustrauser 11:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

NFL notability[edit]

I didn't say it was policy; I said it was consensus, and it's clearly established by scores of AfD discussions. Look through the AfDs, or put the article up for deletion yourself and watch what happens. But don't take cheap shots at the messenger for accurately reporting the obvious. Monicasdude 06:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt it was a cheap shot. I don't find it at all obvious that American footballers are notable for the fact that they are American footballers. I shall put it up for AfD as you suggest and watch myself get shot down in flames Maustrauser 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work[edit]

Nice work correcting the atheist article vandalism --Couttsie 12:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I like to keep an eye on it! Maustrauser 12:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nachman Chazan[edit]

Thank you for your kind words, and for improving the quality of Wikipedia articles! Yoninah 00:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Angle of incidence[edit]

You reverted an edit I made to the above just now calling it vandalism. I suggest you check again, I have never vandalised any thing in my life and don't plan to start now. Please be more careful. Graham 11:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Graham, please assume good faith! I was reverting the stupid vandalism by who inserted some claim about the angle of incidence being 16 Degrees. I was following through all his vandalism on multiple changes over multiple articles.. I can only guess that we were editing at the same time (even though the time log) shows a difference of a few minutes. I'm a regular RC patroller so I certainly don't make a habit of reverting non-vandalism! It's hard enough keeping the real vandals at bay, without hitting legitimate articles. Maustrauser 11:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I see what must have happened - I must have committed my changes (which included reverting the 16 degree change) while you were also editing. My apologies. Graham 11:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding "USA" to USA place name[edit]

It seems reasonable to make "USA" explicit, but perhaps you should talk with the author of SmackBot, which is currently making automated edits to various US geographical articles. Deh 14:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea, but may not be trivial, I'm looking to make another run through improving various solecisms. The MoS abbreviation is U.S. rather than USA though. Rich Farmbrough 10:00 16 March 2006 (UTC).
Thanks very much. Will you let me know if it can be done (or if you have the time to do it) and that way I can stop adding them manually. It gets a little tiresome! Thank you, Henry Maustrauser 11:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Some are already happening! Also quite a lot have been done manually by various individuals. My current run will take about another 2 days, then I will re-build the replacement strings to take care of some of the 00.00 % and the redundant word "total" in "has a total population", together with the U.S. part. Anything else you spot about the census articles, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 11:16 16 March 2006 (UTC).
You are wonderful! Thank you very much. I'll go off and edit something more edifying now. Cheers, Henry Maustrauser 11:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Henry - thanks for your update to Elliot Park, Minneapolis. This is my home, so it's not always foremost in my mind to mention that it's in the USA. ¡Salud! Jim, Mn kruzr 21:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello Maustrauser, I noticed that you have told me on many of my articles that I need to cite the context and introduction. However, my source where I attain my articles do not provide me with any more information than what it seen. Could you please guide me to what I could possibly add to my biographies that wouldn't make them lack introduction and context? Thank you very much.

-Darin Fidika

G'day Darin. Thanks for the inquiry. Have a look at what I did to Arima Toyouji. In the first line I put that he was a Japanese samurai. Whilst arguably 'Japan' is not required as all samuarai were Japanese, it immediately places Toyouji in a historical and geographical context. The reader immediately knows something about his importance without having to follow all the other wiki-links. I am certain you can do this with your Chinese articles too. If you want any more suggestions don't hesitate to ask. Thanks for working on making Wikipedia a marvellous resource. Cheers, Henry. Maustrauser 04:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I tried to fix the context problem you flagged on the European Drawer Rack article. Would greatly appreciate any feedback you might have. Thanks! Sdsds 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I rearranged it slightly to put the EDR definition right at the beginning along with mention of the ISS. Thanks! Maustrauser 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tags[edit]

Hello, Maustrauser. I saw that you placed a {{wikify}} tag on SJK(C) Taman Connaught. However, I think a {{notenglish}} tag would have been more appropriate. I'll put one on now. You can check out the various cleanup tags at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. Thanks, Kjkolb 10:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

fourteener article and list[edit]

Hi, I'm proposing to move the List of United States fourteeners list to be part of the fourteener article and address the inconsistency between them at the same time (see Talk:fourteener and Talk:List of United States fourteeners). Any comments? Spireguy 15:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible to me Maustrauser 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

About Adverting and speculation[edit]

Hello, Maustrauser. Still a Newbee to Wikipedia => need to learn ^_^ Just wanted to know why you put that message on the article I was enriching. Thks!

G'day icepod, I put an AfD on your article as the material was not verifiable. Further it appears to be advertising as it is speculating what the upcoming Playboy magazine will contain. How do you know what you do about Alison Waite? I suggest you make yourself familiar with Wikipedia policies before continuing with your Waite article. Please argue the point at the AfD discussion. If your views are better than mine then your article will remain. That's the strength of WP. Thanks for editing. Maustrauser 10:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pregnancy Image[edit]

(Copied from my user talk page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am pretty annoyed that the stages of labour diagram was removed without any discussion. I spent some time on making it appropriate for publication. It was a US Government image and therefore not a copy-vio. Could you please explain why it was deleted. Maustrauser 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See the section User talk:Ilmari Karonen#NIH Pregnancy on my talk page. The image was a derivative work based on [2]. The Terms of Use for that site state that "anatomic graphics on the website are copyrighted by the National Physicians Center for Family Resources, Inc." I contacted the NPC to confirm this and to request permission to use the images under a free license; they have confirmed that the copyright indeed belongs to them, and stated that they do not wish to allow commercial redistribution of the images. This makes the images, and any derivative works based on them, unsuitable for Wikipedia.
If it makes you feel any better, I too spend quite a lot of time on Image:Pregnancy.gif, which was even nominated for featured picture status. I'm kind of sad to see all that work go to waste, too, but sometimes one just has to accept it and move on. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Ilmari. I very much commiserate with you over the pregnancy gif. I thought it was bloody excellent! OK, move on I shall. With best wishes to you Maustrauser 00:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could connect the Admins of the site and get some limited release for the image for wikipedia's use?--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 23:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
We tried that and they refused. Scabby sods! Thanks for thinking of it though. Maustrauser 23:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Why?! Surely education should be of the utmost importence!--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Henry. Can't actually verify mention of a seance exactly. Can you point to a verifiable source for this particular snippet that Steth suggests removing? Gleng 12:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This article from the Waco Tribune Herald ( refers to a seance. But now I come to think of it, it might be just a rehash of the Chiropractic Article we are working on! Fiction becomes fact. I'll look further. What do you think? Cheers, Henry. Maustrauser 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is what I suspected. this is becoming a real problem with the web, and I get very suspicious when the same phrasing keeps cropping up - just had this frustration in trying to verify the Archie Kalokerinos biography. I know it's a minor point, but I think the principle is important for settling disputes - find the original source or a V RS. [3]

I have been searching for information on this (Steth actually did remove it), and it is quoted as being from a book by DD Palmer, but I don't have the book.... Please email me and I'll send you what I have. It's all very interesting. The spiritualist, occultist, Freemason, roots of chiropractic. -- Fyslee 19:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


This Archie chap. I've just looked him up in the definitive book of famous Australians - Who's Who of Australia 1997 and he doesn't appear. As for the Australian Medal of Merit, I can find no mention of it. It is not part of the Australian Honours System and the postnominal AMM does not exist as an officially recognized honour. Is it all a fraud? Maustrauser 13:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input, wish I had more time myself; I tell myself that I'm doing this to prepare for a possible new teaching module on evaluating claims in medicine, but I fear that it's too much like fun. Is it all a fraud? I don't know, I suspect that it might be just book publicity hype that has spun out of control. However it seems to be a problem with many contemporary biographies on WP. But the web has a way of reproducing facts with random mutation, like some process of evolution by natural selection but where fitness has nothing much to do with accuracy - if you can access it, see [PMID 14962067] Gleng 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Please contact me by email. -- Fyslee 09:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fyslee, I don't use email on Wiki. I get abuse from alternative medicine fanatics... I don't know why! What can I do for you? Cheers, Henry Maustrauser 09:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I have the same problem, but mostly because of my skeptical websites.... I have some information for you, and I won't abuse your trust. -- Fyslee 10:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Normal Childbirth.jpg[edit]

Hi. This is a great photo, and I absolutely believe that you got permission from the photographer to use it, but the copyright tag on the article is incorrect - Chris surely didn't release the photo into the public domain, and you are not the creator of the work. I've listed this image on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, but that should give you ample time to get the image licensed correctly. Please visit that page to garner suggestions on how to get the photo correctly licensed. Sorry to be a martinet about this, but Wikipedia has a lot of issues with copyright problems, especially in images, and being lax about this can jeopardize the entire project. Nandesuka 11:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nandesuka for alerting me to this. It has all got terribly complex! I think I have now got it right. I've put an 'unreserved' tag on it. I am not the creator of the work. Chris Schuring is and I have the permission of the photographer and 'model' to put it on Wikipedia for the purposes of showing a decent childbirth. They are both aware that the photo could up anywhere and used for anything and that's why I thought it was a PD image. Obviously I was wrong. Maustrauser 12:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'."

PS: Clever remarks have no place in an enclopedia. We are the mules, the slow pack animals of literature. Please save your witticisms for other (perhaps more profitable) projects. Your dull, encyclopedic contributions are most welcome, of course. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It was not a witticism. It was a fact. The astrologer did not predict the demise of his television station. I apologise for marking it 'minor'. It was my default setting. Yours in pack animal hood Maustrauser 10:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You don't actually know that Mercado and the stars didn't predict the station's demise. He may have kept it to himself. Prophecy does not always allow for an altered outcome. (cf Oedipus Rex, Cassandra, Jesus Christ, et al.) Fate cannot be altered. It's under the planets' control. -Will Beback 10:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If fate cannot be altered then prophecy is useless. QED. Maustrauser 11:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


You seem to be the person who deleted me. Can you tell me where I am in the AfD archived delete database? Are these based on the date debates started or the date of deletion? Also, I have seen pages and/or articles deleted before. Rarely, does someone go through and delete every reference to a deleted page. I see you not only deleted Antonio Vernon, but you also deleted me from the Vernon pages.

I am a bit curious about the AfD decisionmaking. Mainly a bunch of people who don't know martial arts questioned who I am. Wikipedia is not suppose to be a popularity contest. Maybe I should have logged on anonymously from different computers to make myself look undeletable.TonyTheTiger

Tony, I am not an administrator and thus I did not delete 'you'. I proposed the deletion of the entry entitled "Antonio Vernon" as it did not meet the notability requirements of WP. The proposal to delete the 'Antonio Vernon' entry went through the AfD process which is an open and transparent process, with the ultimate decision being made by an administrator. When an article is deleted through AfD all relevant links to the article are also deleted and thus the administrator deleting your article should have deleted reference from the Vernon pages. As the admin did not do so, I did. I know nothing about martial arts, but I am capable of reading who makes a person notable on WP. Perhaps you should make yourself familiar with these policies. Once you are notable then I am certain that someone will write about you. Maustrauser 09:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the policy for listing links?[edit]

I am curious about recent edits that were done on the Doula page. Several links to were removed. However, similar organizations providing exactly the same training programs remained - e.g. DONA, CAPPA and ALACE. I am confused as to why it is ok for some organizations to be listed in external links and others are banned. Can you help me understand.

In addition, a link to was removed. This is a free community service enabling women to find practitioners. I am unable to see how it is considered spam and not of value to those searching for information on doulas through Wikipedia.

Can you please help me clarify this?

Nikki Macfarlane Childbirth International

G'day Nikki, sometimes it can be difficult to know if your links are acceptable or not. The WP policy is listed here:
Childbirthinternational may have been removed as it was considered advertising, or added nothing substantive to the article. It is galling when other organizations continue to be listed. Maybe they were first and thus considered a representative sample of the services available, maybe they have fewer advertisements on the front page, maybe their were added by WP editors who were not part of the organization. If you have added your site to multiple parts of WP at once, that would be considered 'Linkspam' and removed.
I imagine Findadoula was removed owing to its excessive commercial content. If people want to find doulas they can do it via Google or similar. WP is not a link directory. Anyway, I am sure that the WP policy on external links will clarify the issues for you.
Best wishes, Henry Maustrauser 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Serious attitude problems with two editors[edit]

There have been some serious edit warrings over at Orthomolecular medicine, Megavitamin therapy, and Pseudoscience.

Primarily two editors have been very aggressive:

This user is also involved as their sympathizer and ally:

Myself and User:Cri du canard are the ones being attacked:

You are more than welcome to examine our contributions

Here is one of my messages about the problem:

  • I have just left a warning on MichaelCPrice's talk page. He, Linas, and others are violating quite a few rules here, including conspiring against other editors, incivility, failing to assume good faith, accusing others of bad faith edits, personal attacks, etc.. Their personal edit histories are very telling. They are also coordinating their efforts to attempt to trap others in 3rr violations, and are simply taking total control over the orthomolecular medicine and megavitamin therapy articles, with MichaelCPrice apparently functioning as the ringleader of the gang. He has been warned by others. I suggest that several administrators make a serious investigation, possibly leading to long blocks. I have never seen such organized aggressiveness before here at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 23:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) [4]

These good messages of warning from a fellow editor illustrate the problem. (The intervening belligerant responses by them say even more!):

Three Warnings to User:Linas:

Warning to User:MichaelCPrice:

Another related comment from editor Jefffire:

Now I'm making a request for investigation and help from editors and administrators because it is beyond our control. These editors are extremely aggressive. -- Fyslee 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Evans[edit]

What did you mean when you wrote "meaningless statement"? It does seem to have a meaning to me, but that may be because I wrote it. Algae 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope I didn't offend you. "Scooped" is a colloquial word and therefore isn't a particularly accurate term. What did you mean by scooped? Do you mean someone else beat him in finding a supernova? If so, then that's what should perhaps be said, with an explanation about who beat him and why that's important. That sentence needs to be expanded to explain its meaning or it raises more questions than it answers. I simply took it back to a factual statement. Thanks for asking. Maustrauser 00:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Finding a supernova counts only as a "discovery" if you are the first to report it, but it is still a feat. It needs explanation, then, thanks for pointing that out. Algae 09:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply re: UK/US word spellings:[edit]

Thanks for the note. Somehow, I had acquired the (apparently mistaken?) understanding that US word spellings are preferred over UK spellings. Personally, I'm fine with either -- I read British papers regularly -- and besides, those charming UK spellings do lend a nice touch of colour. :) I may have changed one or two words in the water birth article as well -- feel free to revert them, too. Cgingold 10:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply regarding English/American spelling:[edit]

G'day. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your changes you have made to the Arborist article. Most of the changes you have made are good. But please be aware of the WP spelling standard which states that you DO NOT change English spelling to American spelling or vice versa.

Hi Maustrauser, I added the section on nuisance in this article using the California spelling of neighbor. I didn't change it, just added it. So what then? Are you going to revert that one back to its native spelling, or do I have to? Or what? --pechaney 02:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The rule is that if you come to an article and it is written in one particular form of English, that's how the rest of the article should be written. Maustrauser 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, I was editing under my user name bobsmith319. Please don't get into my privacy. That extremly rude, and frowned uppon as well! Thanks again, and please don't bother me, bobsmith319.

I was simply suggesting that editing under your IP address could be considered being a sockpuppet, when you have you own registered address. As you are a new user of WP, I thought you may not be aware of that. I don't think informing you of the WP policies could be considered rude. Maustrauser 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Country reference in U.S. articles[edit]

Regarding your question ("Why don't US articles include the country reference?") on the Growden Memorial Park article, while I didn't create that particular article I tend to leave out references to the United States for relatively recondite articles (of which, I think Growden might qualify). For someone to have found the article in the first place, they would have had to come from either the Fairbanks or Alaska Baseball League articles and seemingly would already had to have known that Fairbanks was in Alaska and Alaska was in the United States. In short, I look at it as a kind of "know your audience" type thing, but that's just me. Jarfingle 08:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough comment. I just think that if we think globally when we write articles, we will better write for our audience. I hazard to suggest that some readers of that article aren't particularlu aufait with geography and it simply makes it more precise to anchor location articles with their full location. Thanks for the response! Maustrauser 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey Participation?[edit]

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Answered! Maustrauser 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the survey and your very useful comments on my talk page.Corey 16:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I have moved the following comment from User:mjerik58 to my talk page.

Why is your opinion more important than mine? Who gave you the authority to change my changes?

My opinion is not more important than yours. Rather, I use evidence and references to back up my comments. You did not. Maustrauser 00:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Unterseeboot 95 on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. dcandeto 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take note that removing properly placed warning templates from your talk page, along with incorrect labeling of others' edits as vandalism, is not proper conduct on Wikipedia. dcandeto 03:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I have left the articles that you are so possessive about alone, even though I disagree with your reasoning on both counts. I have made no changes for two days and do not intend to do so. Requiring Swiss Cantons to be geographically specified and yet not requiring the same of North American locations is North American arrogance of the worst kind. As for your claims regarding the naming of ships - tradition does not make a policy not does it make a consensus. Why you imagine bits of machinery have a gender is beyond me. You have reverted changes I have made to many, many articles. Clearly some of the reverts you have made are out of spite and not out of an attempt to improve Wikipedia. You have now taken to putting pathetic user warnings on my page. I have thousands of edits to my credit and yet you decide to put a newbie tag on my page. I removed it several times as it just made you look infantile and spiteful. However, I shall now leave it there for all to see. If you continue to harrass me I shall call it wikistalking (See: and take it from there. Maustrauser 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


You're welcome, keep up the good work yourself. :-) By the way, I must recommend that you create a new section at the bottom of users talk pages when inserting a new comment. I say this because if I wasn't online at the time you posted your message, I would never notice it if some other editor had posted me a message at the bottom afterwards... I also checked your contributions and it seems like you're doing a good job fighting vandals. I should also recommend that when you place warnings on their talk pages, use "subst" in the template, that'll replace it with its actual content when you save. (Example: use {{subst:blatantvandal}} instead of just {{blatantvandal}}). You may find out more about why substing on Wikipedia:Template substitution or WP:WARN. Best regards.--Húsönd 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice. I shall take it. Maustrauser 03:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Why did you warn to block me? Its considered poor style to not specify. I'm Qrc2006 by the way, i must hve not been signed in or somthing. 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Qrc2006 01:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to WP, although as Qrc2006 you seem to have been here a while. You were not signed in and you left advertising on infant. I therefore took you for a vandal. As the advertising was inappropriate and obvious you seemed to be a blatant vandal. If you aren't a vandal, why did you place advertsing on the site?Maustrauser 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


I'll keep an eye on Sciatica. Can you help here -- List of articles related to quackery? -- Fyslee 13:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

reality check[edit]

Thank you for calling my attention to some of the glucosamine article's deficiencies. I wish I had more time to work on it. A patent holder's tests of course are frequently made with self interest and limited testing to demonstrate rather than "prove" a la the FDA requirements, but should not be just dismissed either. The govt GAIT test[5] that the WP article refers to is actually considered a success for moderate to severe oestoarthritis pain sufferers, despite some contrary media noises. Another problem is that there is controversy caused by limited test design that indicates that the GAIT designers (or funders) (1) might have little clue about how consumers actually use glucosamine in conjunction with other materials[6]; (2) perhaps that they were filling the first, lower use levels of a matrix based factorial approach; or (3) perhaps it was just another spiked test, designed to confuse or fail.

To frankly give you some idea how consumers *actually* utilize these things: they might use 1.5-6 grams/day of a glucosamine salt *combined* with 3 - 9 grams/day of MSM (LD50 estimated over 20 grams/kg/day!), or more, possibly with some (1+ g) chondroitin sulfate (expensive, variable MW sources, and considered "weaker") vs GAIT's lower 1.5g/d Glucosamine HCl & / or 1.2g/d chondroitin (of some variable MW). When knowledgeable natural-nutritional medicine persons talk of results, some mean "titrating" enough of these materials to get an inital effect in days, not weeks or months probabilistically, as at lower levels (i.e. the start of noticeable flexure in 24-48 hours from near 0% flexure). Then if they don't rapidly improve, a judicious upward march in combinations to find results, often more MSM. They may require other adjuvants (fish oil, other EFAs, sAME, some B vitamins, etc) to achieve 95%+ pain free (or reduced)-flexure. Without these nutrient levels, their joints may revert & painfully, completely restiffen in as little as 24 hours. Many will agree more, honest, insightful testing needs to be presented (including what already exists), but also don't think that the "quackery" epithets are helping or merited.

By the implicit standards your edit seems to imply, we need to add "pharmaceuticals", "psychiatry" and perhaps 20% of the pharmacopeia to the quackery related list[7]. One other thing, I'll point out, 4000 mg of acetaminophen, as GAIT allowed, combined with alcohol can be a real killer, "Severe hepatotoxicity may occur after ingestion of as little as 4 g (8 extra-strength caplets) in 24 hours when combined with alcohol."[8] I'm not seeing the basis of glucosamine as "quackery".--I'clast 14:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may add a few comments here.... I have no special interest in the glucosamine issue, and take the same position as Barrett - wait and see. The only quackery issue I can see is when it's marketed too aggressively without good evidence. The evidence is not convincing. Here in Denmark a totally unheard of situation occurred. The glucosamine manufacturers lobbied and advertised so aggressively that they convinced the state health department to actually allow it's sale by prescription, even though it was not conclusively proven effetive, which is an unheard of situation. It was so radical that the newspapers all discussed this new event. Further research showed it was only the manufacturer's test that showed an effect. But because no research had shown any significant dangers, it was released for sale on that basis alone, which is the same reasoning with homeopathy (it can't hurt anyone - or help either!). Later some results indicated a possible risk for heart patients and the health department issued a European wide warning for possible unconfirmed risks for heart patients. I don't know if any further research has confirmed the degree of risk. The main problem with the whole thing was the release of a medicinal agent without the same degree of testing all other medicines are forced to undergo.
BTW, the JAMA article has nothing to do with quackery. It has to do with a whole different subject. Yet, what some medicinal companies do in their advertising gets pretty close to quackery, or more correctly, false advertising, which isn't necessarily quackery, yet wrong nonetheless. -- Fyslee 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


For the record I changed my vote to move to project namespace to save the 'list'. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks. --QuackGuru 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanity Etiquette[edit]

I thank you for bringing the issue of conflict of interest to my attention. Though I did edit an article about myself, I have taken care to only clarify issues bearing no point of view relevance. I had not known about WP:Vanity until your message and will certainly take it to heart (thought I believe the article name is misleading and needs be addressed). MichaelNetzer 20:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Change[edit]

Greetings. The article of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 02:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3 15 January 2007 About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks so much for the barnstar! That was a pleasant surprise. I spent a few minutes on the hotel PC on Tenerife and discovered that Wikipedia was still functioning and not much had changed, so your barnstar was appreciated.

BTW, my response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Vandals spelling errors[edit]

G'day. It seems you do a great job fixing spelling errors but could you please not fix vandals spelling. Just revert their stupidity instead. See for example: [9]. Thanks! Maustrauser 09:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I will keep my eyes out on these inputs form vandals. Regards :) Wiki Raja

Ted Kopulos[edit]

Hi Maustrauser. Sorry for the accident with your tagging on this article - see my reply to your msg on my talk page. Phaedrus86 12:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the creator of this page has blanked it and asked for deletion. I say surprisingly, because they first removed the PROD tag and made a few edits, but then they seem to have had a change of heart, and blanked it. I whipped in a request for speedy delete before they change their mind! Phaedrus86 11:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work sir! It's a struggle to keep WP quality high. Cheers. Maustrauser 11:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of your userpage[edit]

Ok, so it was pretty minor and boring but I reverted the changes by You might want to update your vandalcounter (and archive this talk page, it's getting pretty huge :) )--inksT 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I'll go and find out how to archive this page. Maustrauser 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4 22 January 2007 About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


It appears that only pro-homebirth comments and references are allowed on the homebirth page. That doesn't seem right. There is a considerable body of scientific literature that shows that homebirth has an excess neonatal mortality rate compared to hospital birth in the range of 1-2/1000. The new guidelines on Intrapartum Care from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ( quotes this exact figure.

Perhaps we need a third party to help address this problem.

Amy Tuteur, MD

No, not at all - your evidence-based comments are most welcome. Please insert references into the article that do not support home birth. The references need to be verifiable. The purpose of the article is to give an evidence-based accurate summary of our state of knowledge. I removed your external link because it did not meet the policy guidelines of WP, including not linking to your own sites. Maustrauser 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have posted references to:

The Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set for the year 2000 that shows a hospital neonatal death rate of 0.9/1000 for white women at term, substantially lower than the homebirth neonatal death rate in 2000 of 2/1000 quoted by Johnson and Daviss. You may notice that they never mentioned the hospital neonatal death rate for 2000 in their own study.

The Intrapartum Care Guidelines produced by the National Center for Health and Clinical Excellence, an independent medical watchdog agency in Great Britain. They conducted an extensive review of the homebirth literature, and concluded that most of it was very poorly done. In addition, they quoted a excess neonatal death rate of homebirth in the range of 1-2/1000 above the hospital death rate.

Patricia Janssen's acknowledgement in the CMAJ that her study did NOT show that homebirth is as safe as hospital birth.

The Bastian study which is regarded as a well done study by everyone except homebirth advocates. It is listed as a reference in many homebirth papers on both sides of the debate.

Amy Tuteur, MD 00:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5 29 January 2007 About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Meanings of asteroid names (94001-95000)[edit]

Why did you tag this page with {{context}} and {{Unreferenced}}? Every single meaning quotes its reference! Please provide a reworded {{MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer}} that would provide the allegedly "missing context". Urhixidur 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a context request on the talk page. I made an error regarding the references. I was used to looking for the reference list at the bottom of the page. I have deleted the ref tag. Please accept my apologies. Maustrauser 23:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted. The references are not grouped at the bottom because that gets very unwieldy very quickly with the bigger lists. I've reworded the disclaimer (see {{MinorPlanetNameMeaningsDisclaimer}}); any further suggestions should be on its talk page. Urhixidur 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6 5 February 2007 About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Please do AfD Vibraimage. I'll second it. Besides the lack of notability, the article suffers from COI issues. -- Shunpiker 07:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)