User talk:Michaellatulippe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, Michaellatulippe, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing!  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help


Hi, Michael! The colorful boxes/info I added above come from a standardized template, and I wanted to greet and welcome you a little more personally, as well. Thanks for your contributions at the talk/discussion page for medical cannabis. Thanks also for this editing decision to soften your tone a bit. I'm certainly glad you're here, but I should probably tell you, though, that the result of that edit was still problematic. Wikipedia has a core policy that, until there's pretty much overwhelming evidence to indicate otherwise, editors are required to assume others are acting in good faith.

It's certainly possible that the folks on the talk page who want to rename and move the article are acting out of some sense of intellectual superiority, but it's unlikely, in my opinion. They're probably just trying to improve the encyclopedia like the vast majority of people here. In any case, even if you can't bring yourself to buy that, there's another behavioral guideline that says people may comment on another's actions, but not on the person themselves. It's generally a bad plan here to comment negatively on another's character or possible motives. Especially on controversial articles like medical cannabis, doing so can touch off days or weeks of contention that just stymies progress on improving the article. It's up to you, but you might like to consider softening the tone of that particular contribution still further. The strictly correct way to do that would be to strike through anything you want to change and add more text in a separate comment immediately below that, with its own four-tilde signature. But for very small changes of wording, especially before anyone has responded to what you wrote, you can probably just go ahead and make the changes, without the formality of doing that. In such a case most editors would probably put something like "ce" for "corrected error" or just enter something like "revised my previous" in the edit-summary field before hitting "save".

The proposed renaming of the article wouldn't interfere with finding it by searching for "medical cannabis" or "medical marijuana" within Wikipedia, btw. ( I'm unsure how it might affect placement on an external search engine's results pages, though. Unlikely to be a problem, I expect; even Wikipedia's redirected article names seem to always appear on the first page of results that I get myself. ) Anyway, if the proposal were to be approved, a "redirect" would also be created to make sure that didn't happen. But once again, welcome. Even with the annoyance of the drama that sometimes arises here, it's great fun to help improve an article. If you have any questions the people at the help desk (see links in that colorful template above) are really good, and you usually will get a response within a minute or two. Also, if you want to reply to this message, or any subsequent one, you can do so immediately below the message itself. Like most editors, I include a user's talk/discussion page in my "watchlist" so I don't miss any reply that's posted. Best regards, and once again, welcome!  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I am new here so I am going to learn as much as possible. This is one article I think I can help improve. The change I feel would be poor for Web usability reasons. When you design a Website or anything you always want to make sure you give the user what they expect. In this case, the majority of users will expect "Medical Cannabis". This may not be highly scientific, but it makes sense and has been proven in numerous studies by PARC in Palo Alto as well as Jakob Nielsen's Web usability tests. You always give the end user what they expect.
I will lay low, I am tired tonight so I am not going to edit anything in the discussion page, but I reviewed the guidelines and I will try and cooperate from now on. This is not the only article I want to help, I see a variety of areas I can be of help. Wikipedia needs good editors. Great to hear from you and I intend on playing a role in making that article more relevant to someone seeking information about medical cannabis and the modern uses of it. --Michael Latulippe (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to remind you that I do not believe you are a new user, and I would also like to note that you deleted my question asking you to reveal the past accounts you have used here. Your account was created to make an opposing vote in a move discussion, which is the first red flag. The second red flag was when you resurrected old, troublesome discussion points from the archives upon your arrival, discussions that involved several blocked sock puppets, in particular, your insistence that the lead image be moved to the history section. So, this is why I've asked you to reveal the past accounts you've used here. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being so helpful Viriditas, as soon as I find a sock puppet I will let you know. Sounds like the "troublesome" discussion points must of had some merit in the past. If you want to reach me (I am a real person) you can find me at
Is it so unusual that editors join Wikipedia to cast an opposing vote in an article they may have experience in? Also, I am positive my call for a change in the image is also an independent inquiry. I will definitely review the archives and see what has been going on, but perhaps someone made a good suggestion in the past.
One thing is certain, I am here and here to stay. This is but one article I plan to edit. Thanks for all your concern, and certainly over a hot topic like medical cannabis you must certainly keep your wits about you. Would love to talk on the phone sometime, give me a call. --Michael Latulippe (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any significant difference between this single purpose account and all the other ones. If you are trying to convince me otherwise, you are doing a poor job. Any chance this account will be used for something constructive? Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Please could you let me know what other accounts your talking about? I am not going to tolerate this kind of treatment by a member of Wikipedia. I will be contacting people at Wikipedia today. --Michael Latulippe (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Ernest G. Hope for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ernest G. Hope is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest G. Hope until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. King of ♠ 05:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)