Jump to content

User talk:Sticky Parkin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Sticky Parkin/Archive 1, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Yours, Smeelgova 04:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

Citations needed

How to create a User Page

You may wish to create a User Page. You can just click on the red "user page" tab uptop, or invariably also click here to edit. There is some interesting information on User Pages at Wikipedia:User page. Here is the list of Userboxes, and this is some Wikipedia information about Userboxes. Yours, Smeelgova 19:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

FYI

  • You may wish to take note and/or comment:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous Yours, Smeelgova 07:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

If you wish to comment on the proposed deletion you must click on the link above, not comment on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

don't go:)

I understand your feeling that we cannot beat the trolls because they exhaust our capacity to care:) So it's up to you if you can be bothered with it anymore:) But I hope you will stay and do more/different wikipedia stuff, or if not that I will see you on a prominent 'anti-cult' forum:) or elsewhere online. Because I have enjoyed working with you on these issues.Merkinsmum 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated before, with an organization like we are dealing with, that has sued everything in its path with a pulse and a pen over the last 35 years, it's not worth it anymore. Between the administrator who is cooperating with the 10 or so Landmark obsessed individuals, and the individual who issued a blatant legal threat against me, it's just not worth it anymore. We'll see what will be done by others in the future. There is a chance I'll be around, there is a chance I'll come back, but probably in a much more subdued, lighter format, or on other topics as you say. Good Luck to you, and you can email me if you need other help. Yours, Smeelgova 03:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

we won

Oh I am so pleased aren't you, about the 'Gurous' article.:) I had given up and lost the will to live. I honestly expected its demise. Then on another site I heard it had been keptMerkinsmum 23:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However, be very very carefull not to gloat too much, lest you be blocked by a random roving trigger-happy Wikipedia Administrator of an opposing POV. Be in touch. Yours, Smeelgova 23:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Censorship

Hey, I would like to join this group. I'm not very active on Wikipedia, but I am fucking passionately opposed to censorship. XM 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Joy of Satan article

Normally I do, but we were talking about (a) a copyright violation/link spam and (b) apparent nonsense. If the apparent nonsense was real, that's a different story. My bad. - Lucky 6.9 02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Truth is stranger than fiction. I don't remember whether or not I locked down the title, but if I did, I'll unlock it so that you can edit it the way that you did on the article you pointed me toward. It'll be one hell of a hot button issue, no puns intended.  :) - Lucky 6.9 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to say it, go ahead and create it. - Lucky 6.9 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Nice work. I just logged on and saw the article on the new pages page. Naturally, the Roman Catholic in me is screaming bloody murder.

Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

The Joy of Satan AFD is now enshrined in WP:BJAODN - [1] Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Merchants of Deception

Thanks for the link. I have just finished rereading it, and sent it to my friend. You've been a huge help! The suicide forest 01:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

I've just sent you an e-mail... TharkunColl 09:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

McKeith

You're welcome and thank you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Publicity photos before you get all delete photo happy. Thanks ••Briantist•• talk 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, but responding to your note on my talk page on this topic. Basically, thanks for the info, I'm actually a follower of "scient-ism" myself :), so naturally I find this woman a bit crazy to say the least, but the article is extremely negative even for a skeptic like me! --Merzul 03:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I laughed a lot about the blood pressure; but you know, my wikipedia addiction isn't very good for my blood-pressure either... I really need to go to sleep now! :) --Merzul 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A manual message from MerzulBot in geek mode...

Your edit had a small mistake, but the wicked MediaWiki software gets very confused and hides everything until the next closed ref-tag, so when adding named references, one has to be extremely careful in closing the tag, thus <ref name=Gibson /> and not <ref name=Gibson>. Oh, and this is a mistake I have made many times, so don't worry about it. :) --Merzul 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Orlando (The Marmalade Cat)

  • Sorry I did not get back to you sooner, but usually book covers are only fair use in an article about that book in particular, or perhaps, as used only directly referring to the book itself. I think. Good luck! Yours, Smee 12:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Sweat therapy

You're welcome. Gotta love those ip's copying text from websites all the time. Or registered users for that matter. :) Garion96 (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Eliot Tokar mess

You don't seriously think that "stig" and "Desidoc" are different than "Bklynbrn," do you? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right about the general notability. IMAO it's almost certainly a vanity page by the author, intended as free advertising. The fact that all of the editors involved (including the ludicrously faux-English "stig") have never edited any pages before this one make that seem even more likely. I was willing to leave the page in a drastically abbreviated form (such as the one you put together, or the edit of that that Desidoc did) just out of a general disdain for administrative process, but if the sockpuppets are going to insist upon a huge vanity page, I will take it to AFD. Anyway, just bitching and moaning. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm certain he's a sock puppet, and I don't really have much interest in proving it. In this way, I am much like most pseudoscientists. The fact that every single one of his entries includes several non-sequiturs intended to point out Englishness remains innately hilarious. "Taking the lift down to the loo, guv'nor." Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I am almost too annoyed by the festival of new editors to WP:AGF. Despite what "Desi" said, I would have been okay with leaving the page up if we'd been able to properly fact-check it and so on; although Tokar is probably a fairly minor figure, we would have at least had a nicely formatted, properly footnoted, wikified and spamless page. But this latest round of thrashing about makes me think that I should have just taken the entire thing to AFD from the beginning. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a whole cast of characters now: clowns, scientists, quick response teams, friendly strangers. It would make a terrific film if they didn't all speak with the same voice. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The plot thickens; there are two new ones there. Funny how none of these people have edited Wikipedia except for the Tokar article. Whoever this guy is, he's nuts. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I, humble, poor, and lowly born

The meanest in the port division

The butt of epauletted scorn

The mark of quarter-deck derision

Have dared to raise my wormy eyes

Above the dust to which you'd mould me

In manhood's glorious pride to rise

I am an Englishman, behold me!

He is an Englishman!

He is an Englishman!

For he himself has said it,

And it's greatly to his credit,

That he is an Englishman!

For he might have been a Roosian,

A French, or Turk, or Proosian,

Or perhaps Itali-an!

Or perhaps Itali-an!

But in spite of all temptations

To belong to other nations,

He remains an Englishman!

He remains an Englishman!

Cherio! Stig --65.188.192.230 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But of course Mum! That's why I cherish the times when I get to go home. Can't get a decent spot of Darjeeling or Earl Grey this side of the pond. And even if it looks promising, the blasted cup always tastes from coffee. - Stig--65.188.192.230 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for participating

I really appreciate you taking the time to give your input on the RfC re:Justanother. Thanks again :) Anynobody 02:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards

  • It is best when giving awards to post them as a new subsection heading on the user's talk page, then the user can copy that and add it to their own User page as they see fit. I usually put a note stating this below the award itself. Sometimes, depending on the user but usually, it is considering bad etiquette to edit that User's page directly... Smee 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Yay!

Thanks for the awards! TharkunColl 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You RAOK!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your civil demeanor on Wikipedia, and your kind devotion to spreading the Wikilove. Thank you. Yours, Smee 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Feel free to post to your user page, and/or leave here on the talk page as you see fit (not including this message itself). Yours, Smee 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Aspartame edit conflit

I think the only conflict was the PMIDs I had cleaned up; no big deal, easy to re-do, don't worry about all my edits. I'll do another as a sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't :-) I'm leaving tomorrow for two weeks; I just wanted to leave some samples done. It's more important to clean up the text first; refs can be fixed last. Once the text is cleaned up, it's really easy to use the converter on my userpage; just click on the drop-down menu for PubMed, plug in the PMID number (already in most of the refs), it gives you everything you need, already formatted, stick that between the ref tags. Have fun, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Demonology merge

Hello. Your merge isn't as bad as you make it sound :) I'll take a more detailed look when I get the chance but the only obvious thing that jumps out is you haven't mentioned the word "demonolatry" prominently in the merged-in section. ◄Zahakiel► 23:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting

Hi! I saw the question you posted about voting.

I know it is confusing, I'm deeply sorry about that... there are about a half dozen people trying to make it easier, but there is more work than can be done in short time. Next time around it will hopefully be a lot better.

In any case, you can vote by going to Special:Boardvote. If that doesn't work for you, I'd really like to know about it, since you might have discovered a new and interesting way that things are broken.

Thanks for your patience. --Gmaxwell 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks. Voted.Merkinsmum 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re : Help learning about deletion

Hi, got your message so here's some advice. :) On notability guidelines, you're right that they vary pretty widely, and not only that they are not fixed yardsticks. They're more of less formed by precedence and rough consensus, so you'll understand them more of through experience.

However, there are actually some criteria that are fixed to help you. The most common reason (and much stronger argument) used alongside with notability for deletion is verifiability. It helps to do some bit of homework, such as Googling the subject, before concluding that the subject cannot be attributed properly to any reliable sources. Also check if the page violates what Wikipedia is not.

If you haven't done so, consider using proposed deletion, it saves times and cases where it is probably uncontroversial (but don't go too happy with it either). Let me know if you have any questions in future, I'll be more than happy to answer them for you. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Doreen Virtue

The gist of it was that there are not enough non-trivial secondary sources. Verifiability is even more important than notability, and usually is used to assess notability. There just wasn't enough sources that met WP:ATT to make an article. Maybe when a few more come around she can be put up again, hence why I stored it. Tmtoulouse 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

11:11 (numerology)

can you help at the article 11:11 (numerology) again. someone keeps deleting the references and info to ensure the article gets deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re : A speedy deletion question

Ah, this one doesn't cross the borderline, so it's best left at prod. It doesn't have keywords that make it sound like an ad, so we can't use G11. Neither it's a biography or group, so we can't use A7 either. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons edit

Merkinsmum

Your edits are not NPOV or accurate. Please stop immediatelyWard20 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

A few answers to your questions on my talk page, and a few questions for you.

The Mayo Clinic material carries a lot of weight because it is second sourced material and because of this e-mail about the article, (which I published in Morgellons talk for reference).

Dear Ward:

Thank you for your patience. In general, it is our editorial policy to cite organizations within articles when information is attributable to a specific organization. Non-attributable statements of fact generally have been synthesized from a variety of sources. All statements are reviewed by our experts for medical accuracy. Before producing this health topic, the product development team collected and reacted to ideas over a period of multiple months using a number of sources.

Sincerely, Dana Mayo Clinic Online Services

I believe no one owns any article on WP. I also see how a few editors have taken liberties with this article. I would like this article to accurately state the past and present of this illness. Whatever Morgellons is, will be decided by science not by Wikipedia. But Wikipedia will shape public opinion affecting research and treatment of living people with Morgellons. Wikipedia must be right concerning living persons. This article affects tens of thousands of living persons.

The questions:

1) You wrote, "Most scientists and medical professionals do not see Morgellons as a separate new condition, but a psychiatric one which is usually referred to as Delusions of Parasitosis(DP)." Why did you believe this and do you still have that position?

2) You wrote, "other areas have thoroughly investigated Morgellons and found it to be identical to DP." Same question as above.

3) Why do you write as if you don't like the MRF?

Thanks, Ward20 22:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the honesty. You write quickly and well.

I don't have Morgellons. I have a chronic illness that the CDC and NIH has taken their time to investigate. My mental and physical abilities have declined measurably because of the illness (I have the tests to prove it). My illness went through the same problems with the infectious vs mental controversy Morgellons is going through. It is finally starting to be taken seriously as a viral illness after 20 years even though serious immune system abnormalities could be seen in patients from the start. I did see all types of doctors in the beginning and I would have loved to take a psychotropic drug and get better. I did try them but they didn't work.

I believe there is a problem if the CDC has dragged it's feet if they think Morgellons is delusional. A proper investigation should be conducted to find out one way or another. In the mean time people are suffering needlessly in either case.

Look at the discussion page way before I stated to edit this article if you want to see bullying.Ward20 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Just to say Hi...

Gosh, I've been so busy, I never have time to edit these days... Well, I'm busy editing a book that soon to be published, making comics for this comic site, and school is hurting my butt... Sorry that I dont' really have time to edit... Once stress is removed, I'll come back. Not a guarrantee, but I'll do my best. I promise.

Chimchar monferno (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re

sry, I spent about 20 minutes looking for the appropriate steps to take but could only find this. I misunderstood the last part "Asking for someone to close the discussion is unnecessary.", So much WP:CREEP on wiki that sometimes its hard to find the proper info. :(
Not sure what to do now? Should I ask an admin to re-open or take a look at it? -- $user log (Talk) @ 02:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GateKeeperX (talk • contribs)

Your email

Not really my adoptee - we did have a few exchanges a while back where I gave them a few pointers, but it never went further than that, really. Thanks for reminding me that I should ask them to remove the user box! GbT/c 09:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Merlinthecat.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Merlinthecat.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Retinoblastoma Article

Hi Sticky Parkin.

I finally got round to rewriting the Rb article. I've updated the wiki page, and would apreciate your comments if you have time. Thanks again for all your input on this article.

J Morley-Smith (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I also postd this comment on my Talk page, but wasn't sure if you would notice it there!

reply to your RFArf Comments

Hi SP,

You said:

The evidence is private, hence Alec and the rest of us might not have a clue what we're talking about.

One of the reasons I didn't just lump this into the SV-LAR case page (aside from the fact that the pages were protected), is that my concerns involved only behavior that occurred during the past month, in public. I am not concerned, one way or the other, with the SV-LAR dispute-- because you're right, on that issue, I don't have any of the facts.

You said:

That said, why didn't Alec just email arbcom with his concerns instead? But that would have no visible acknowledgement or proof of the question/proposal having been made, so perhaps less chance of leading to a response, and also not feel as fulfilling, perhaps. As such, he is in the perfect position to empathize with SV.:) Oh hang on, that would be if his comments were blanked.:)

Definitely! I completely understand why SV is about her comments being blanked. I'm actually a bit of a free-speech lunatic and while I admit that there is, regrettably, a time and place for private cases, I do completely loathe them.

Even though SV is the "Party" in my little RFAr, I want you to know, I am not one of the anti-SV brigade I bump into from time to time. I have nothing whatsoever against her, I'm not "out to get her", I think she does wonderful work, I don't even think I've ever found myself opposite her on a content dispute.

The Arbcom has a habit of ignoring behavior issues from established users until the problems become absolutely huge, until the whole project is polarized, everyone's mad at everyone, and it's a huge mess. When dealing with animal training or child rearing or legal systems or international diplomacy, you need to make credible threats. If you warn "Do not do X" and X happens, there needs to be a consequence, and that way the behavior can be brought in check.

Unfortunately, our current system is much better at giving warnings than at providing consequences. In this case for example, Arbcom has given SV multiple, very very clear warnings, and she chose to violate them. I'm not mad at SV--- I totally understand how she feels, I don't think she's a bad person, I don't think she's doing anything that any normal person wouldn't do. But, she was given very direct warnings not to do X, and she did X anyway.

Now, arbcom can help her learn not to do stuff like this in the future, by providing some sanctions. Or, arbcom can make it more difficult for her to learn, by providing mixed messages that sometimes their warnings need to be heeded and sometimes they don't.

My concern is that, all too often, we as a project pick the latter option, and we miss opportunities to nip these sorts of behaviors in the bud, and only deal when them when they are of global catastrophic proportions.

Anyway, I guess my main point in say all this was I wanted you to understand that I do empathize a lot, and the crux of my argument is not "SV is EVIL!!!"-- not one bit. The crux of my argument is "Arbcom needs to move to start providing a firmer hand, earlier, rather than waiting for problems to worsen." --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


The thing is, she hasn't done anything like that in a week, so any sanction would be punitive rather than preventative. Everyone knows that if she says anything like that she'll probably be blocked, and it doesn't need an Arbcom to make a block.:) It seems like another going after SV, someone who's already had the stress of 2 arbcoms one after the other, and a 'telling tales' for no reason other than officiousness and ingratiating yourself with those who are after Slim (whether that was your intention or not, that is how it appears.) And to be honest, Mongo has a point about your lack of recent mainspace contribs, and I say that as someone who's trying to increase my own. Take a look at your own last couple of hundred contribs for motivation, then hit Recent changes or random page 5X :) It seems the arbs don't see the virtue in adding extra words and sanctions about someone for whom they're currently deciding or have just decided on measures, anyway, and are not taking up your request.:) If someone feels the arbs aren't listening, what are they supposed to do to prevent what they see as a whitewash? Just as a hypothetical question to you. Reply to that one via email, to prevent us using the site excessively for anything other than improving articles.:) Sticky Parkin 13:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, you came a couple of point, I think, that I see a lot. One is the whole "it's been a week and she hasn't done X, so talking about her behavior is trying to be punitive". It sometimes may seem that way, but it just doesn't fly. We address past behavior problems to try to prevent future ones, and we operate on the scales of months and years, not hours and weeks. She guessed the edict by arbcom to change her behavior was a joke-- just words without teeth, and she decided to test it. Thus far, she's been proven right.
She and everyone else, myself included, get a first hand look at what happens when the whole of arbcom makes explicit requests and you violate them. The answer can be "as long as you have friends and contributions, nothing happens". But if we want to have a project where the answer is "no, you really do need to obey the rules", then this is as good a time as any. Better than most, in fact, given that she was warned four times in the last month, so there can't be any doubt whatsoever that she knew she was under scrutiny.
Besides, for a less wordy proof, consider-- we deal with week-old (or older) behavior problems all the time. "Preventative not punitive" doesn't mean that there's a 24-hr statute of limitations, after which everyone shouts Olly olly oxen free.
As regards your statement that "And to be honest, Mongo has a point"-- MONGO has more than a point-- I daresay he has an entire axe against, actually. :). I just let it roll off my back. He is as constant as the north star, and whenever I say anything he disagrees with, you can count on him to pop up with an ad hominem attack. It's one of the nice things about the internet-- in this medium, for whatever reason, I can be very philosophical about it, and getting mad at MONGO for questioning my character yet again would be like getting mad at the wind for making me cold. It is just it's nature. Truth be told, MONGO is actually gotten a lot better about this-- I think that once upon a time I was a sockpuppet of a felon if I'm not mistaken-- now I've been upgraded to "doesn't have enough recent article-space contributions". :) So we ARE making progress.
"If someone feels the arbs aren't listening, what are they supposed to do to prevent what they see as a whitewash? Just as a hypothetical question to you. Reply to that one via email, to prevent us using the site excessively for anything other than improving articles."
I'll reply here, because email is has its place, but on-wiki is always better if possible.
Maybe Arbcom was running a kangaroo court-- it was a private case, so there's no way to know. And if so, maybe SV was doing the right thing, in her eyes. Entirely possible. But unless Arbcom has come to the conclusion they they would running a kangaroo court after all, and their request not to keep the case private was unjust, they should take action against her. You break the law after four warnings, you should expect to pay a price. If the arbs have decided that THEY were wrong to ever warn her in the first place, they should apologize and retract. If the arbs have decided that they were RIGHT warn her, they should take some sanction that might dissuade people from breaking the rules in the future. But to do neither is to invite anarchy and double-standards. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
None of this is worth whittering about User:Abd style IMHO, but you'd be wise to consider mongo's comments about your contributions, as they are accurate at this point in time, and consider the fate of User:Moulton. The arbs are working on proposed remedies and no doubt will bear your concerns in mind. I doubt SV will get away with much in future, in fact probably quite the opposite. All else is extraneous words. Sticky Parkin 14:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't know Abd-- so I don't catch that reference.
Regarding "you'd be wise to consider mongo's comments about your contributions, as they are accurate at this point in time"-- no, they're really not. There are many ways to contribute to the project, and you cannot assess the measure of a man just by checking the edit count or glancing through his history.
A vandal patroller can knock out hundreds of edits in an hour; Meanwhile, take just one of the many images I made this year: Image:Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png. That required me checking out two books from my university library, reading the bulk of them, requesting a special book through inter-library loan, reading it, finding the article in that had the data, buying Visio, spending a few hours tinkering with visio, and it gets counted it as exactly ONE edit.
So, before you go applauding MONGO's excellent stone throws, it might be best to take a moment to remember that commenting on the contributor, accurate or not, is a bad thing. I had genuine concerns about specific behaviors that I asked arbcom to look into-- but I was immaculately careful not to attack slim as a person or as a wikipedian. That MONGO's only defense is to say I have a flawed character doesn't reflect badly on me, it reflects badly on him and anyone who feels that's the proper way to respond to genuine criticism. end of speech. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

request

Please take a look at the latest developments in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reply. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

POV and similar tags

Hi, I noticed your post on ScienceApologist's talk page about cleaning up AltMed articles. Have you considered simply tagging articles one at a time, and then spending time on that article to alleviate the problems before tagging other articles? These tags are generally not that helpful -- they don't spur action. It's generally obvious when an article is crap, or when it doesn't have citations. I particularly like the "Why tags are evil" essay. If you're interested in cleaning up AltMed articles, then you're going to want to familiarize yourself with PubMed. If you don't have access to journal articles electronically, some people can help you out. Check out WP:LIBRARY. Plus, I have access through a couple undergrad libraries, and TimVickers has great accss. II | (t - c) 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

NY 5 GAN

Yay, thanks. Just remember to add to the correct pages the article and update the counts.Mitch32(UP) 01:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFB

For the record, I have no interest in applying to become a bureaucrat. --Rodhullandemu 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Charcoal biscuit merge

Charcoal biscuits are NOT activated carbon (AC). Yes, they contain AC, but that does not mean that it's not an item on its own. It's like saying Chocolate chip cookies, should be merged with Chocolate chips. Besides, isn't it good thing to gain consensus on a talk page prior to a merge? I'm going to revert the deletion from the merge and ref the biscuits as the main article. Sjschen (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with how you worded it in activated charcoal, thank you. You said all that was necessary. The other bit (biscuits) was someone else's bit. I just think the biscuits aren't independently notable and don't need their own page. Also the biscuit and some of the other pages said this is a historical remedy when it's not just that. Rightly or wrongly, it's still in use, and I wouldn't say it was "alternative medicine" either, I think it's only notable enough for the charcoal page, if you see what I mean. We agree with each other- I just think the biccie info is only worth a redirect/merge in the manner that you have rewritten it in the activated charcoal page. I think we can mention it was once sold in the form of a biscuit (because that's a fact) but we don't need to witter on at length about it in thhe article- that was just someone else's info I kept out of respect because it was well-referenced, but didn't think was all that significant (that's why I redirected it.) Sticky Parkin 22:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If your reason for removing the article is for notability or significance then I have to contest. First of all, this item rightly or wrongly was used as a historical remedy, in fact it is well cited on this matter and should not be so quickly blanked and redirected as you have done. Second, charcoal biscuits are not just activated charcoal. It's a biscuit with charcoal as an ingredient and even today is still produce, though mainly for pets. Finally, it is the general idea if wikipedia to expand on articles when possible and not revert so quickly to deletions. Just because one person feels it's not notable does not mean that someone else does not find it to be the case. In fact, this stub article can be a point where an full fledge article grows.

I am going to revert the article again and I will set up a merge request so that more than just us two can decide on this. For you to have done such a merge is not really justified. Let's wait this out and not make this a reverting war. Sjschen (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not obliged to do anything other than WP:BOLD and WP:MERGE on an infrequently edited article, ask anyone. Nothing is required for a merge I considered uncontroversial per WP:MERGE, of an article that is hardly ever edited.

"Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument."

I don't think there will be much response to a merge discussion. Most discussions should be given a week, then acted upon. Are the biscuits so important to you?:) :) :) They aren't to me or anyone else I don't think :) I really don't care what the outcome is but don't think this is worth an article. But feel free to attempt to have a discussion. Sticky Parkin 01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're not that important to me either but the thing is they might very well be an important thing to someone else :) What is important to me is that I do see potential to this article and they merging removes this possibility, though not permanently. Given enough time people will continue to add to the article, and who knows, it may become something quite noteworthy. Besides it has more than enough citations to booster its existence as its own article. To me this indicates some unrevealed importance. Personal experience in editing food/ingredient articles have shown that people often undermined the importance of things and not significant.

Note I'm not arguing just on procedural grounds, I have given (imo) good reasons why you should not merge this so quickly :) Sjschen (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW activated charcoal itself redirects to activated carbon. Hence the merge request should not be at the redirect page. No? Sjschen (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...If MS and CP can be retained as food stubs I really do think CB has a chance at it. Since the biscuit is a mix of biscuit dough and charcoal powder (not activated charcoal), it really does fit in the other article. Activated carbon is in fact charcoal that have been heat and chemically treated and is quite different. I think CB straddles the boundaries of food and "medicinal" suppliments as many food items do. Digestive biscuits, which contains wheat bran, used to be eaten by victorians to prevent flatulence for example.

How about this, since as you said it does not matter to you what happens, how about you don't merge this article, I remove the merge request, and I work on it to push the article forward to something better? :) Sjschen (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging Wong and McKeen into Haven Institute

You suggested merging these two articles. This is an interesting idea that I have contemplated in the past. When I first created both of these pages, I considered having only one entry, but I had difficulty in keeping what seemed like two topics clear of each other ... it seemed to be an excessively large sweep to try to include the Wong/McKeen development into the Haven Institute current state. As the the Wikipedia pages have developed, I can see how they could indeed be part of one entry now. However, I strongly recommend that this not be done for the following reasons:
1. Wong and McKeen have now retired from the Haven Institute, and have passed the ownership into a nonprofit charity (The Haven Foundation). So, as such, Wong and McKeen are now at "arms' length" from the Foundation and the Institute. There could be some possible confusion created by merging the two entries, implying that the Wong/McKeen collaboration is entirely within the scope of the Haven Institute. Wong & McKeen are "Emeritus Faculty" but are not part of the day-to-day operation or decision making of the Haven Institute or Foundation. The Haven Foundation/Institute functions on its own with its own Board of Directors. So, in many ways it makes sense to keep them separate. Wong and McKeen continue to be active on other fronts, with occasional input into the Haven Institute/Foundation.
2. The Haven Institute is only one of the contributions of the long association of Wong and McKeen, albeit a significant one. For example, their current work with Hua Wei University in China and Hua Wei Global Corporation worldwide is outside of the operation of the Haven Institute, and this chapter of their collaborative career is still unfolding.
3. Their books are being translated into other languages separate from the Haven Foundation, and they have been travelling and working in many other countries, but not on behalf of the Haven Institute.
So, in summary, I recommend against merging Wong/McKeen into the Haven Institute page on the grounds that they are now quite separate endeavours. They relate to each other, but one does not fall inside the other. I am interested in your responses to this.


William Meyer (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Wong and McKeen both have their own articles so there's no need for an article on 'wong and mckeen'. You'll find nothing like that on wikipedia IMHO, unless it's a law firm or something. It's not encyclopedic in tone or nature. All of it can be covered in their own articles, or the haven one, and probably most of it already is. Sticky Parkin 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually,there is a similar situation with Simon and Garfunkel. There are separate articles for Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel and then a separate article for the duo. Indeed, I followed this prototype when I created these separate pages. In the Simon and Garfunkel situation, this works well to keep a clear distinction of their activities separately and together. Then, the parallel continues when Wikipedia deals with the creative contribution of the duo of Simon & Garfunkel. There is a separate page for the Simon & Garfunkel discography, which points to a "Main Article" on a separate Wikipedia page Simon & Garfunkel discography.IMHO, this works very well indeed.
Wong and McKeen is a unique duo, in much the same way Simon and Garfunkel is unique. The Wong/McKeen teamwork crosses the borders between art, science, and philosophy. If their work were simply subsumed into the container of one of their contributions, this wider significance could easily be missed.
If the main reason for considering merging is "duplication" or "overlap" I believe this can be handled with some clear and sharp editing, which I would propose to undertake. As an initial action, I would propose to remove almost all of the section from the Wong and McKeen article entitled "The Haven Institute" .... this is adequately covered in the Haven Institute article and should not be duplicated.
I want to deal with this respectfully and cooperatively. Will you give me the chance to clear up the duplication and edit it as I propose, and continue this dialogue? Sincerely, William Meyer (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Simon and Garfunkel were a well known band or duo, these aren't. If you see how often this phrase is mentioned, you'll see they are not notable independently of their own articles, which already exist.[2] compare to simon and garfunkel [3] They're mentioned 10,000 times more, and about 5000 times more in newspapers [4] [5] so you can see it's not at all comparable. Let's turn the question around. I'll see what is not already mentioned in the other articles. That way we can see how much this article is needed.:) Oh and the pic, I would love it to be changed, it's just cheesy, but that's my personal preference and I have no other reason for it.:) Sticky Parkin 17:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course Wong & McKeen are not comparable in terms of sheer numbers. But the structure of the articles is surely what is at issue. They are well known (although not superstars) and the references that are cited in the Wong and McKeen page prove they are notable; if you follow the list of references, the topics covered in these media articles are on many topics, not just what they have written ... and they are third-party. Indeed in the WM article, the references are from independent news and reference sources for the most part. Even though your Google search does not come up with a lot of "hits", The Alan Thicke show [Alan Thicke Show Archives] shows that they have been well known for decades.
I get your spirit of cooperation in your willingness to see what is not mentioned in the other articles to determine how much this article is needed. I appreciate your willingness to investigate like this.
In the meantime, it is clear to me that the mention of the Haven Institute in the WM article is a duplication, and I will deal with this forthwith.
I will await your reply. William Meyer (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wong and McKeen - Another wrinkle - AfD nomination

This article has now been marked for deletion by another editor, during the course of our dialoguing about what to do.

This is the note from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wong_and_McKeen

I have nominated Wong and McKeen, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wong and McKeen. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied:

The timing for this nomination for deletion is quite timely. I am in dialogue with another editor concerning this article ... who proposed that the article be merged with Haven Institute.
This dialogue is on the Talk page for Haven Institute. I will copy it here so that others can see how this has been developing.
MY PROPOSAL: I would like to work cooperatively to edit this article so that it meets the Wikipedia standards that are eluding me. William Meyer (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To Sticky Parkin:

I would like to continue to work with you to make the decisions about merge and/or edit before the deletion process takes place. How do we accomplish this? William Meyer (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wong and McKeenFinal Decisions

You wrote: delete is unencyclopedic and unnecessary due to their individual articles and separate article about the Haven Institute that they founded. Not notable as a collective entity. Plus the pic is painful. Sorry WM.:) Sticky

I yield ... you are intent upon deleting this page. I will not resist this further.
Will you put a redirect so that other links to Wong and McKeen will be redirected to Haven Institute? Please advise. William Meyer (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnieszka Baranowska

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnieszka Baranowska. Remember that you can use http://translate.google.com/ to get an approximate translation of non-English sources. If the source I mention is a reliable one (but I can't tell for sure), then I think she's notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deja Vu

Looks like our conversation on the subject :)

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sticky_Parkin/Archive_1&oldid=1140552773"