User talk:WLU/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6


Pitch drop

Hi! they are deleting your uploads on commons, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Pitch drop experiment images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Past life regression EL

Hi WLU -

I was surprised to see that you added this extrenal link, because I've seen you remove so many EL's or replace them with DMOZ links, especially when the EL's have advertising as that one does. I've removed it because it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:EL, in that it contains nothing that could not be in the article, if the article were of top quality. As a footnote, that source is not reliable, though the sources mentioned on the page at that link might be reliable. To be clear, I am not in the least supporting the idea of past life regression as science, it's not. This is only about the use of the EL. I have no doubt that your attention will improve the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlike say, satanic ritual abuse, which has extensive scholarly interest, past life regression appears to have minimal scholarly interest. As a fringe topic with little mainstream attention, I think the Skepdic entry is warranted; it's a good starting place for the skeptical side and until the article quality improves, I'd say that keeping skepdic in the page is reasonable. I would also argue that using it in the page as a reference would be warranted (failing the on-line text, I have a print copy I could use). I wouldn't use it on cancer or Scientology (maybe on scientology actually), but here I think it's a reasonable source - fringe topics inherently have minimal scholarly interest and the standards of reliability for critical claims are lower because of this. But you're bang on about integration - a much better option than an EL is to use it as an inline citation. I'll source initially to the book, and probably link to the webpage out of convenience. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this topic is far to the fringe and that sourcing to the Skepdics book would be appropriate as it's published by a reputable publisher. The website on its own though includes a lot that's not in the book and has no editorial review, that's why its reliability is questionable for Wikipedia. Although the content of that particular Skepdics page seems OK to me, in general that website has been used as an EL on many pages and I don't think it's good to encourage that kind of use of a self-published ad-supported site. The way you plan to use it though, as a convenience link for material from the book, makes good sense and I see no problem there. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
In this case, the editorial review would be from Robert Todd Carroll, who as a professor of philosophy and noted critic of pseudoscience would probably be acceptable for such a fringe topic. The publisher is John Wiley & Sons - even were it a notably worse publisher (even self-published), I'd probably think it acceptable. Whether others would, that's another question. I'll check what's in SkepDic's paper version (or web version, hurray!), if the webpage adds more, we should discuss on the talk page and WP:RSN if necessary about adding it for extra information. I've got RL stuff to take care of right now (I'm certainly not using wikipedia to avoid actual work), but the google books link has pretty much the content I would be using - feel free to add if you feel like it. The link also means we only need to link to the webpage if it's got extra info, avoiding EL concerns. Yay! WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my the things you can find...

[1] This is a nobel topic but look at this stub! I don't even know where to start with this one since it is developed on supposed testimonials. Add to that the comments that the diet helps people like me live a normal life just pushed me over the edge that I cannot edit it any further do to my own restrictions about editing articles I have a strong POV about. Would you mind taking a peek? Personally I would like to see it speedy deleted and a new article if someone desires to do so. I've never done a delete request so I don't know what to do, I do know how to delete though I suspect that would be greatly frowned on. ;) Don't worry, kidding. Anyways I would love your opinion on what to do and how to it. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[2] Prodding is the lazy man's WP:AFD (AFD-ing isn't that hard actually, you should try it some time). See what the prod turns up, I doubt it would meet a speedy criteria (it would be WP:A7) but I won't bother editing until I see the outcome of the prod. Prodding is pretty easy - {{subst:prod|reason}} - but you do have to know the notability criteria. A quick google and NY Times search didn't turn anything up, so I've no qualms about prodding it. Specific Carbohydrate Diet is a terrible page and needs a good gutting as well as criticisms from WP:MEDRS if they're there. WP:UNDUE would seem to be a problem, I've deleted some stuff that was suspect from the Gottschall page.
You can't delete, you're not an admin :P WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC nr 3 bates method article scientific research.

Sorry to bother you, but the quality of an article is under threat. If you have time can you take a look at RFC nr 3 in the talkpage of the bates method article. See : [[3]] . It is about mention objective results presented by ophthalmology about the Woods results. These results represent perfectly why the Batesmethod / NVI is controversial. It presents negative, positive and neutral results. The scientific reference which confirms the BM / NVI is controversial : [[4]]. These Woods results have been presented for a while but aren now removed !!! Please comment if you agree or do not agree by providing your arguments on which it is based. See also the listed arguments at this moment. Appreciate your objective comment. regards, Seeyou (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never edited the Bates method. This is not an appropriate way to receive a request for comment; in fact, it looks a lot like forum shopping. If I do comment, I will preface it with reference to this post and that I do not have any experience. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not. Take a close look at [[5]] Without a similar RFC this link would not even be available. regards, Seeyou (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be randomly dropping notes on people's talk pages, about a topic I'm not interested in, have never been interested in, have never been involved in, and without any apparent rational to it or a notification to other editors that you are shotgunning about a dozen other people. Looks like forum shopping and an attempt to get around a RFC that you do not like the outcome of. I am uninterested in this, and will not be replying. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution mechanism, I suggest you abide by it. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for the reference. Material has been restored to the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

External links in Ten little n-bombs

In addition to all of the publication histories, sections on literary significance and images of first editions from my own collection, I did a lot of work on the Christie pages to standardise the lay-outs and bring them in line as much as possible and in keeping with the Wikinovels template, especially with the page for "And Then There Were None" as the world and his dog seems to go to that page (ignoring the ones for works like "Poems" - can't think why!) and then make "helpful" changes. The end result has been a right mongerel of a page, in addition to the almost daily vandalism that the page suffers. I agree to an extent with your comments on the IMDB links for some of the films/tv series and I suppose there is no harm in deleting those links where there is a seperate page for film but not all of the films do have such a page and I think those should stay. I do disagree with you about the link for Burgh Island. Rarely has a book been written whose locale has so obviously been transferred to the written page and its importance is stressed in books such as the "The Readers Companion" that I quoted yesterday. It would be advertising if I had any link with island or lived in Devon (and I am the only person on this site who linked the two pages) but I live in Essex and have never even stepped foot in Devon in my life and know of no one who has any connections there! To not draw the reader's attention to the existance of the island would be to delete a crucial piece of information on the book.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the IMDB links to the films where a seperate page exists as per the comment I made above but I've also reversed one of your changes - I input a section on Burgh Island under the agreed wikinovels template heading of "References to actual history, geography and current science". I agree that it is an unwieldy title but it IS the heading in the currently agreed template (Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate) and it matches that used on every other Christie page where there are similar references and on many other novel pages. If the agreed template is changed, then obviously so do the pages which use it!!--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


[6], [7] & [8] Kind of an unusual way of thinking of 3RR to me but anyways I thought you would be interested that he is off the month block and this is unfortunately the way things have been going.

Just curious but have you been watching the latest Giano soap at his page, administrator board and the arbitrators board? If you want difs let me know but to me from just watching all of this and a few other political BS the voting for arbs is going to be a priority. I think for the health of the project there needs to be some big changes in the sitting arbitrators to end the clicks and the poitical garbage. I just know we need to get some new arbs there to help the arbs who are trying so hard to be fair, transparant and for the good of the community. I hope you are well. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC) If you decide to check out the arb board, the Matthew Hoffman case is also a joke.

I saw Guido's latest sally at attempting to correct the entire community's understanding of policy. I'm curious at what point he will simply exhaust the entire community's patience and simply be blocked permanently. I don't know who Giano is, but I do know a lot of people consider arbitration broken. All my experiences with arbitration have been quite reasonable, but I don't envy them in their tasks.
I'm OK, but unfortunately quite busy. I miss my wiki, I can't think of the last time I added substantial content, wah! WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 16:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Guido adding tag again at Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. RetroS1mone talk 11:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


I'm off work 'till monday, but I'll have a look then. If I forget please remind me. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, will do. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Got it. If you email me here, I'll send you the PDF. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tim. You're like a superhero, but with a cat and a keyboard instead of a cape and superpowers. I think that's still a compliment. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome

You are currently close to violating WP:3RR on Talk:Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. Please stop. Do not edit other people's talk contributions at all. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Somatic psychology

Hi, I notice you cut back Body Memory recently. There is a related page, Somatic Psychology [9] that also contains some unverified material and some waffle. I eliminated many of the most obvious examples a while ago, but perhaps if you have any time, you could also take a look. Cheers MatthewTStone (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for advice WLU

Thanks WLU i wanted to add diffs, some people were asking the blocking admin for them and i was seeing not them. I won't add comment there now. One thing i disagree with you, is , i am not sure i am so restrained!! Some times i am making some exasparated edit summaries but who does not w/ Guido, it is very hard. RetroS1mone talk 01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You know the good thing is, i think the articles are getting better but i wish it was not in this paining way! RetroS1mone talk 01:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
But what i do not understand, why no one has called Guido on the COI, or did they and i missed? He has like the most obvious case of coi i ever saw. Do you think I am confuse about COI or what? RetroS1mone talk 01:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Everyone has their breaking point (I've never seen William M. Conolley be that abrupt for instance). I notice I tend to lose my cool and regret it A LOT later on. I hope my hypocritical nudge will spare others from a similar fate - with my block log and some of my contribution history, should I want to I'm not sure I'd make it to adminship. Keep hope alive, use the day to get some really solid sources in the page.
By COI, you mean having CFS and editing that page? COI rules are more for businesses and financial profit. Plus, it's hard to slap someone with a "since you have it, you can't edit it" rule. The good editors realize they shouldn't (like Crohnie, and Cesar Tort), the bad ones, well, do I need to finish the sentence? I've not read COI in a while, and never with that in mind, but I do know that when an actual COI came up (it's in the ANI archive somewhere), GDB fought it tooth and nail, like all other suggestions that his interpretation of the rules was in some way wrong, and that his actions should in some way be restricted. For the long term, the best bet is always to observe, keep your nose clean, be ready to admit you're wrong, reply to substance and bottle up your anger until you get a hernia. Best bet for wikipedia, I make no promises for your health Face-smile.svg WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Advice from Trusilver, i will keep on mind.
Second thing, no, COI is not having a condition, that is fine w/ me. I like what Crohnie does, but i do not grudge Guido when he does not. It is that he started an organization about ME/CFS, he runs it, he is a major activist saying ME is a different thing in Europe, he is or says he is an advisor on policy to EU people about it, and he writes very POV publications on it. I don't know if he gets money for it but it seems like COI to me. I guess not worth fighting over tho if it is done before, i will look up the ANI archive. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
GDB is making a joke, methinks, with his edits to his userpage. Which journal will his experiment be published in? He can't have been involved though, as it refers to experts following policy... Verbal chat 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw, I read, I didn't bother to comment. I wonder what sort of reception that group of six would have found at Nupedia? Were I dictator of wikipedia (since Jimbo has actually spoken to me recently, quite politely since who the hell am I, I'm laying off the jokes. For a historical record, see here) I'd autoblock anyone who complains wikipeida is failing. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh there's an ANI thread. I'm out of the loop :( Verbal chat 15:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, drama! *walkwalkwalkwalkwalk* WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I made it worse again... Seriously though, he has to stop or behave - and he's been given many chances to behave. With this episode, the legal threats, and his silly experiment.... Honestly, I'm a turn the other cheek kind of guy usually. Verbal chat 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to pop in and see if you saw Guido's user page, and obviously you have. Thank you for your kind comment above about me. :) The thing is, the reasons I hold back on editing things that are obviously are very strong opinions for me, do to my poor health problems, is what I see happening with Guido. I totally understand that he wants the info to be there so others don't have to 'suffer' like he is, which is the problem with editing a page you are so totally emotionally involved in. There is a lot of information I'd love to put into the Crohn's disease article so that others don't have to have the problems that I have now because of not being diagnosed in time to prevent all the damage I now have. He could edit in other areas but of course he is here for specific reasons, to make sure the articles are true and correct to his prospective. These two don't work very well to edit an article, emotional, and RL living with the pain and loss of losing control over one's only body. I really wish I could get him to understand that he is too emotional to be editing the articles he has chosen but he doesn't seem to see things the way I do. I am sorry but I can't help feeling some kind of a understanding though in what he says. I just wish he would do it differently. I find the way he interprets policies kind of different then the rest of us which I see as part of the problems he has too. I was floored by the interpretations of the 3rr rules he stated for example. I am saddened by all of this though but I know the project isn't helped like this and his health is more important then the project. I know I have to step away from here at times do to I don't allow this place to be stressful for me. I am here to help and to find something to do with myself to keep my brain busy on other things, does this make sense? Oh well, thanks, talk to you soon.--CrohnieGalTalk 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the policy problems that floor me too, such as the recent 3RR episode. If editing is bad for someone's health then, for their own sake, please cut back! It is a bit addictive though. I hadn't realised you had Crohn's (despite your name), and I wish you all the best, on wikipedia and in RL. Verbal chat 15:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It's all flabergasting, I agree, and the solutions seem so obvious. If he were to take the advice of others, he could be a valued contributor here. He doesn't. It's his choice and his actions. We've tried, we've all tried, many times, and it hasn't worked. What else can we do?
Yes Crohnie, I have great respect for you (if only you'd be BOLDER!) and it's a credit to you that not only you tried to help, but did so with grace and great kindness. You are a credit to both common sense and wikipedia. That it was ultimately futile in no way detracts from the excellence of your gesture. Wanna be on arbcom? I'd vote for ya :) WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Verbal for your kind words too. Wiki can be addictive but also in my opinion it's supposed to be challenging and fun. I think too many people take themselves too serious here. Just like in RL anyone can be replaced no matter how good you are. With me I have multiple problems do to my bodies apparent hate of itself. But yes, one with a chronic disease like these should avoid stress factors as much as possible and that is the problem I see with some editing in areas where their own health is affected. It doesn't ever seem to work out for those with disablities to try to edit in the areas of their disabilities though I am sure others can and do handle things better. WLU, I am still working on WP:BOLD but I guess timid is more my style. I hope you like me better than to wish me to be an arb! (ha ha) I would be horrible, though polite. No thanks, don't want to manage anything here, like my little world as it is. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Per The Te of Piglet there are no little worlds, only ones that are appropriately sized for you. Ultimately we're all accountable only for what we put into wikipedia, and we're all volunteers - as much as I nag and joke about BEING BOLD, an editor who contributes thoughtfully only once a year is still a great credit to the project. You're above once per year, so here's a gold star -
Crohnie, you are absolutely right, there are a whole lot of people here that need to take themselves about 300% less seriously than they currently do. As one of my fellow cabalists likes to say: "I may be making serious edits to an article, but you can be sure I've got either a tea cosy, lampshade or a traffic cone on my head. It's just an encyclopedia, so, take it easy, the work is better when you're smiling." This place will make you miserable if you can't joke around with it sometimes. Trusilver 21:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutlely well said, thanks I'll remember the cone on my head, I always have coffee and candy beside me. Ok now that I have all of your attentions I am going to ask you all to take a second out of your busy schedules and go here and decide on your own. [10] I don't want to be accused of canvassing or anything but I think this needs the attentions of others so here it is. WLU, please ignore my strong(ish) words though I think you will understand. ;) --CrohnieGalTalk 10:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete, justice has been served. Horray! WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at hte user who put this up and his contributions. Now if someone would take the ban hammer out would be nice. How many warnings are needed! Yes, I was quite surprised at how quickly this was handled, and pleased. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about canvassing in situations like that. Canvassing is more of an issue with taking this to places that you KNOW you will have a biased sampling of Wikipedians... Like Wikiproject:Aviation and their tendency to canvass each other whenever an aviation-related AfD comes down the pipes. Either that or people going to outside websites (or as I saw once: a comic book convention) to ask people to vote on an AfD. Trusilver 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Yet more evidence that, though flawed, for the most part the wikiprocess works.
How many warnings are needed? That's a tough call; regard the source of this discussion - still an active editor with only one, rather abstract restriction. Permablocks and bans are a big deal, and should be - it prevents a potential source of expertise from helping the project. We'll put up with a lot of crap if it means mainspace gets improved. It hurts me to a certain degree when we lose valuable contributors not willing to adopt our mores. But at the same time, we're all human and at some point we have to estimate the net result of a contributor. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 16:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that one of the big problems is the idea that "blocks are preventative not punitive". Personally, I think blocks damn well should be punitive. Someone who is continually damaging to the project should be blocked, period. I think the community spends far too much time worrying about the "rights" of people who don't really have the good of the project in mind. Trusilver 17:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Damned liberal democracies and their emphasis on the rights of man. How I would rule wikipedia with an IRON FIST were I in charge!!!
And that being said...I'd say the line between being punitive to an editor and protective to the encyclopedia is a grey one, but somewhat work hand-in-glove. I'd agree with you 100% if I hadn't been more of a problematic editor in my past, and if I hadn't seen a couple bad apples come around to be good ones - we all need more dedicated editors and I'm certainly wary of frightening them off. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to turn Wikipedia into my own little military junta for years. Some people have been less than cooperative though... Trusilver 17:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Boy I do like the attitude of the two of you, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the "blocks are preventative not punitive" meme, it is also said that "blocks are educational" which I think covers a lot of the grey area. Verbal chat 14:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ya. I think ultimately the thrust of that statement is "don't block people because they piss you off, do it because they're fucking up the wiki". I know I started paying a lot more attention to the 3RR and policies in general after I got slapped with two blocks. They're a great way of getting the editor's attention. I'm reluctant to ever become an admin 'cause I think either my temper would get in the way, or I would be too reluctant to block because I wouldn't be sure if my judgement was impaired by my temper. I've huge admiration for people who manage to admin and edit with near-100% civility (and again I must bring up TimVickers and SandyGeorgia. I've got wiki-crushes on both of them). But ultimately we seem to use the duck test - if your diffs are self-explanatory, that's pretty much it. I think the reason Guido hasn't been permabanned is the editors who have interacted with him are reluctant to take the final, unpleasant - if not downright bastard - step of assembling a list of all the bullshit that has been piled up and using it to comprehensively push for a permablock/ban. Every issue has been dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It's a good process for the most part, because most editors can learn. But when the learning doesn't generalize to all wiki habits and when they're a cpusher (or in this case, uncpusher but barely within the edges of the limits of the policies), at some point the bastard step has to be taken. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi there,

I am not going to argue about your recent changes in Weightlifting‎, but I do believe that the sentence you removed commenting the coin is very valid for Wikipedia. It gives, from another angle, the importance of the sport. Since you left the image of the coin and changed its comment, I will leave it as it is. I just wanted to point out that the comment "... it is not valid for Wikipedia at all ..." I do not agree with it.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It was unsourced and original research; providing specific examples of something generally strikes me as a bad idea since it's not a secondary source. If it's been a main motif in many coins, a single coin isn't adequate to source that statement. The coin's kinda a neat idea, but the text isn't in the right place (certainly not the see also section).
Has there been any attention to these coins in a secondary source? If we've got some better text on the importance of the coins, perhaps we could find an appropriate place for it. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced it depends from which angle since it was wiki-linked to an article where all the sources are there. My point is that you removed it, you did not change it to address your points. But I am ok with it, my main concern what your comment when removing the text "... not valid for Wikipedia at all ...". About secondary sources, did you check the article that talks about the coins? There are several sources there, and every coin has at least three sources.
PS: We can easily missundertand our expressions and feelings in these talk pages, so allow me to re-iterate: I am honestly ok with your edition, I just did not agree with your comment when you did it.
PS2: You may wanna take a look at {{template:talkback}}.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
{{talkback}} you mean :) Ever since I found out about {{tl|, I've been in love.
To get back to your main comment - I stand by my "certainly not suitable for the see also section", but my "not sure it's suitable for wikipedia overall" would more accurately be summarized as 'not suitable for this article overall'. I'm on the fence about trying to find a place for it in the weightlifting article, but I have no issues with the existence of the "Euro commemorative coins" page. Though it seems like an odd title. Though I'm not familiar with any guidelines provided by WikiProject:Numismatics. And anyway, I'm very careless in my edit summaries so I wouldn't read much into it. If you do think of a way to put it into the article, I'll be certain to provide comments and discuss so you won't have to worry it'll be removed outright. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem, you left the coin and chaged its description, so I am ok as it is. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Child-child abuse article

I'd be interested to know whether you see Child-on-child sexual abuse as a fringe topic in any way, or if you share my concerns about sourcing bias (selection and use) and the volatility/indefinite nature of the lead. forestPIG(grunt) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a fringe topic, but some of the sources do trouble me. The Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect I'd love to see a good RSN discussion on it as I wonder if it's one of the more off-to-the-extreme, low-impact journals (not as bad as Dissociation though). Sage publications is a good source. That loveline interview should probably go. References 4, 5 and 6 are somewhat problematic - the Psychology in the Schools is dubious since it doesn't specialize in child or other groups' sexual behaviour or norms. The "in the media" section should be removed outright - it's probably notable enough for its own article, but it's an example and not appropriate for the page itself in my opinion. I'd say it's legit, but it should probably be re-sourced. Have you asked User:Jack-A-Roe? I don't remember if you're on good terms with him, but if you're the sceptic side, he's usually a great partner for the opposite viewpoint. Knows sourcing, does it well. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

United Nations

You might (maybe) be interested in GDBs most recent edit to his user page, and my follow up on his talk. It probably isn't interesting though... Verbal chat 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw, but I don't think there's any merit to commenting - the only thing that'll happen from this will perhaps be a WP:POINT block, and guido's not been contributing much these days. I'm still watching, 'cause I'm a whore for the drama, but I'm trying to restrain my actual posting. See User talk:Davidruben? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh-oh. Phase II has started. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 02:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I see he is off his block and back in action. I don't think this should be continued into a phase two experiment with him. We know what the first experiment showed to everyone but him so maybe it's time to go for a full block of the subject articles with him? I don't think everyone should have to go through it all again just for his experiments or ego, not sure now which it is. I just know I wasn't very happy when I read a about this on his user page since I was honestly trying to understand him. Oh well, just my 2 cents. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
See my comment on Davidruben's page (User talk:Davidruben#Advice). I think this has gone on long enough - apparently he was serious, wiki is an encyclopedia, not a social experiment or a place to prove a WP:POINT. I would suggest bringing it up with User:Carcharoth or perhaps User:Verbal. I've got RL stuff for the next couple hours, possibly all day, but I'll certainly be interested in the process. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that a full block is now a compelling option. I didn't realise the last ANI thread was archived so quickly, as I was busy in RL. Should we start a new ANI thread, referring to the last and outling the reasons? Diffs from blocks, his experiments etc should be added, and I'm not great at that kind of thing. Let me know. Verbal chat 14:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think it is time and everything should be shown so that there is no doubt in anyones mind that he has been given many chances and that he thinks of this project as some kind of a scientific testing zone or something. I just noticed that he went back and did the same changes and putting up tags that he disagreed with which was part of the problems that got him the 30 day block. I don't see anyway other way than this as I really feel that he is now into some kind of a weird phase 2 experiment to see how long it will take for him to become a victim again. I really do sympathise with him being ill as I barely function lately myself but you don't see me doing the kind of things he feels he has the right to do. I'm not good at gathering the difs required for the original reporting but I would definitely voice my opinions on this matter again if someone else can get all the info together in a logical way. Yea WLU WP:BOLD but too many meds at this time to think through something like this clearly enough! :) (private joke for those reading this!) I just don't think it's fair to the editors who have worked so hard on the article to have to deal with reverts and his POV idea for the article. It has to be stopped before things get to where they were the last time prior to his latest block. Oh and by the way, if I remember correctly, the consensus at the last ani was leaning very well towards a subject ban for him along with the block. Why it got archived is because he said he was leaving and didn't mind the 30 days away. I think this is a good rememberance but please check me first to be sure. If I can help please let me know. I think the other active editors and administrators in this should be informed of this idea like Carcharoth, David Rubin, RetoSimon and so forth. I'm sure they have enough info to help get the difs needed to show there is still a major problem that needs to be addressed. Please let me know what is decided, thanks. I feel like a failed some how with all of this, that maybe I might have helped the problem continue unknowing that I was part of an experiment which leaves me feeling a bit empty with my honest attempt to help others understand how hard it is to live with a disabling disease. Oh well, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I commented on User talk:Davidruben#Advice, please feel to correct anything I have stated with an edit summary stating I give permission to alter my comments to either of you, I will back you up on this. I am trying my best here but I am out of it a bit and want to be correct in what I say so any help, if needed is appreciated, sorry. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
[11] Well I can't think of a thing to say to this. :( I am surprised by this response sadly. He's a messenger now? --CrohnieGalTalk 16:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
A "messenger" eh? Reminds of the Blues brothers. Verbal chat 17:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I almost choked on my coffee! :) But you're right, we just recently watched it. Oh my, thanks for the laugh, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Makes me think of Joan of Arc. Advertising without disclosing fully is absurd and childish. Perhaps he'll make a complete 180 and be the best and most civil contributor now, but I don't give a fuck. If he's still editing as an experiment, he's breaking WP:NOT and WP:POINT, and he's had enough as a disruptive effect as far as I'm concerned. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Attention all page watchers

If you've an interest in User:Guido den Broeder, see here. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Updates to IBD / IBS

G'day WLU

I wasn't aware of the DMOZ guidelines. Thanks for highlighting the finer points. As a newcomer here I've done a lot of looking around and given consideration to how others have gone about their entries. TBH haven't seen the 'DMOZ' at all. In this instance then the Open Resource needs to be clarified as the entry point to External Links with all new readers and us with our learner plates on?

I'm here to learn WLU and have to say the Wiki rules are complex. I appreciate that this is the way its done but its not very user friendly and its a great way to share valuable information across the world. Thanks again & Merry Christmas Zippomk2 (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, you can't really go by any other articles unless it is a featured article; even in those circumstances you're not necessarily guaranteed. The thing is, it's a wiki, which means anyone can edit (the only exception being page protection and that's not used because of the quality of the page). It's extremely dubious to base contributions on other articles because five minutes before you read it, someone could have totally trashed a wonderful page. That's why it's important to read the policies and guidelines - they're really the only constant and standard we have for our work (and even those can be edited). Wiki rules are complex, but you should be bold. It's a great way to learn. Generally even if someone reverts your edit, you can ask them (or someone else) why on their, or the page's talk page. Be sure to read any policy/guideline/essay other editors may point to, or even just the nutshell. Eventually you get a sense of how things work. Being polite and asking questions are a great way to learn. If you think they're wrong, present your own arguments and ask if you've missed something. A good editor will let you know if there's a nuance or sub-policy that applies.
Note that the DMOZ is an external project we link to 'cause it's convenient. External links are a specific kind of link we use at the bottom of pages, to append information that couldn't be footnoted. DMOZ isn't 'official', it's just useful :)
It should be friendly here (see WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF), but sometimes it's not. A lot of editors get sick of vandals and POV-pushers and end up quite short. For the most part even those will come around if you're polite.
You may be interested in this utopian vision of wikipedia that I wrote. It's long, but can be handy. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for tips and the latest message, didn't appreciate the expletives and have deleted those. TBH you can get your message across without them as am sure you know. Kind regards Zippomk2 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I can hardly take offence to that, and you actually did a good thing - you replaced the text written by someone else (normally a VERY bad no-no) with content that retained the original sense. Good instincts! WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about this?

Hi WLU - I noticed a recent edit to Motivation for rape and checked it out. In reviewing the page history, I found that the same edit had been done previously and apparently reverted, and now being done again. It seems to me unlikely that it's supported by the sources. I was going to revert it, but I noticed you had edited the article so I thought I'd check it with you first, since I have not read all the sources used on that page. What do you think, should it be changed back? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Originally I'd say take the middle path - alter the wording so the gender of the rapist is neutral. After that my choice would be the alternative of chasing down the sources. On the face of it, common sense is that the male gender is by far the most appropriate (and several sources explicitly say so (first and second). The third kinda implies it. I'd say warning to the user, comment on talk page, revert.
I have edited the article, but it needs a lot more attention that what I gave it. My attention was mostly wikification if I recall. I have no doubt that your attention to the page will improve it. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I made a couple edits and stared to check out the situation. I see what you mean that it "needs a lot more attention". Various articles it links to are in similar condition as well though the main rape article is in better shape. I don't know if I can take it on as a project right now, but I'll give it some thought. Have a good one... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I doubt I'm doing anything more than confirming what you already thought :) One of my concerns is the types of rapists discussed is currently supported by dubious gray literature or docs from survivor or other informal groups. There must be scholarly literature somewhere, but it'll be quite the job to track it down and pull together an article. Have you seen the Justin Berry page? I did a very minor amount of work on it, apparently it was quite controversial. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 04:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


You have mail! :) No rush as usual. I hope you are well, happy editing, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out my contributions in about 15 secionds. 14...13...12 WLU (t)/(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 15:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


[12]I thought you would be interested. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

MfD for GDBs experiments

Hi WLU and assorted watchers, I saw GDB move his experiment to a new page, so I've tagged it for deletion above. We should probably move forward with the ANI soon too. Does that need any further work? Thanks, Verbal chat 13:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw this too and I voted to delete it. Also I agree, this has gotten way out of control, the report need to get started for real. WLU has been working real hard to gather the links. Go check out what he has there and see if there are things you feel are missing. The only thing I couldn't see but may have missed was the horrible intereprations of 3rr in regards to RetoSimone in the report by Guido. He reported for reverting on multiple pages as a 3rr violation and of course it was closed. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I've started a diff-by-diff review of his contributions from his earliest edits (check the history and expansion of that page); whether it is enough is a judgement call I'm not experienced enough to make. It certainly shows a pattern of disruptive editing in my view. I'm only about 500-1000 contributions in out of a total of 5K or so, but with popups it's pretty easy to view/copy/paste. I'm only up to about October-November, 2007, so the recent stuff isnt' there. If someone wanted to start from now and work backwards, we'll get the whole set.
I'm not familiar with MFD stuff, I'll look but I don't know the policies in the area. WLU (t)/(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Eek that sounds like a big job. Is popups a tool? I think I'll let you guys handle that stuff. I was worried that if this page is deleted we lose some (compelling) evidence, but actually it's still in his user page history so that isn't a problem. Verbal chat 13:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE GLORY AND WONDER OF POPUPS!!!!!!!! WHAT! THE! HELL!!!! We can no longer be friends.
It is a big job, but one reason I like to think I'm a decent editor is that I try to be thorough in my research. Also, I would think it's hard to call for a block/ban when it's not a specific thing that's earmarked as block/banable. He's not a blatant vandal and once he is blocked for something he scrupulously avoids repeating the part that got him blocked. Whether it is a tough sell or not depends on whether those admins and users who have had the experience with him a) see the notice, and b) are still sufficiently convinced that he's disruptive enough to warrant a perma. Working in favour of the perma is the lengthy, repeated, and from-the-beginning-to-now nature of problematic contributions (which you need diffs to see). Working against is most people have one or two encounters on one or two contact pages, then leave it. The extensive listing of diffs and links demonstrates that, in fact, it's systemic. The issue however, is by cross-posting to every single person who has ever had a run-in with him, you face WP:CANVAS. I'll have to check if this is a kosher application of it or not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, popups are very handy so long as they don't consistently crash IE - I've never had a problem on FF and my issues with IE only happened starting a couple months back. For CANVAS, by placing the notice only on those with a previous history, I think excessive cross-posting would be avoided. A neutral message is easy enough - a link to the section and a sig. Votestacking would be an issue, but by notifying those who haven't had a history of conflict (Tekaphor? A couple other redlinked accounts?) would balance this out. Also, when posting the discussion I'd ask for advice on soliciting non-hostiles as well. And I'll be posting any alerts on talk pages, not e-mail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I was told that it is not canvassing to leave a note on people's talk pages as long as it's generic (ie:There is a conversation you may be interested in responding to at (supply the dif). But we have to advice both pro and con that he has had contact with like you say above. I would also caution about making it too long and going too far back to 'stale' problems in the past as it may turn people off and look like a pile on. There is a lot of people aware from the past few ANI's and the bogus 3RR's too. I think this will bring attentions to everyone esp with people being upset with the experiment he posted. That was mentioned in the last ani report and was not received well. Got to go to physical therapy. Yuck! I will catch up later if I can. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So it turns out I'm already using popups.... Works fine on FF3 :) His friends list should probably be notified. Verbal chat 14:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Oh, and now we can be friends again :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, think you should be advice

Along with Verbal to this. Let the games begin? I sure hope not but I thought you should know if you weren't aware.--CrohnieGalTalk 14:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a pain as I'm going to be offline until tomorrow in about 2 minutes from now. It'll all be over bar the shouting by then. Verbal chat 14:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I need to actually do anything. If this drops like a rock and no-one bites, I'll ignore it. I'd rather be comprehensive and slow than quick and have it drag out. With a fully-formed posting on AN, it should be a short discussion. If this turns into a 500K monster, it'll take longer. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:CONSENSUS - Despite numerous discussions of the same topic, with consensus reached by the editors, Guido does not allow the interpretations drawn and conclusions reached to affect his editing, and insists on bringing up the same points without new evidence that would support a rejection of the old consensus and adoption of a new perspective.

Chronic fatigue syndrome

You are currently close to breaking WP:3RR on Chronic fatigue syndrome, with 3 reverts in a couple of hours. Please consider other ways of editing than reverting everything you don't agree with. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Filed it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you still deliberately not editing any talk page but your own? If that's the case, it's very hard to have an actual discussion since the last couple edits I've made to your talk page have been removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to re-review, but isn't it not 3rr if I revert to "various" versions? - no, sorry, quite wrong. *Any* revert counts. And yes, I have noticed the discussion is closed - this is just for info. Be aware of [13], though it doesn't help in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again sorry

[14] Since you have been gathering difs it might be useful for you here plus save you sometime that can be used to work on articles. I haven't commented yet. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's already replaced it on his user page, and even if not it'll be easy to retrieve from the history. Sorry to be short, I'm combining a comb-through of contributions to corrections when necessary, 'cause even when in a hurry I can't resist editing... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem I see you are having to bop all over the place. I commented though just recently. I think this might fit in too but want to pass it by you. [15] He deletes his talk page and doesn't archive anything so you have to hit the link to see the discussion about the science test comments esp. his being a messenger and some other comments, you'll understand. thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleting rather than archiving isn't really a big deal, though the deletion during an ongoing debate is more so. I've just added a bit, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the note. Will do (sorry, been busy with pre-Christmas work). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll save me a lot of time; please feel free to do the work right on my sub-page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WLU. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Enjoy your break! Sorry for kicking off a lot of work for you just as I had to leave my PC for 24hrs - I didn't think a simple MfD with clear policy support would lead to ANI and the ban quite so quickly (if I was into conspiracy theories I might think someone pushed it fast to try to derail your efforts). If I can help you on any articles that need attention just let me know. Remember to take Christmas off! Yours, Verbal chat 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your break and have a great holiday! --CrohnieGalTalk 17:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It had to be done, I think it could have been done more properly, but the end was the same. I shouldn't say wikibreak, I should say wikignoming - quick edits that I can use as a break between other stuff. I never truly leave. Merry Christmas to you both also, but I'm certain my conviction of hard work and real-life duties will be for naught. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/RFCU on Guido

Hi... in response to your comment on Jimbo's talkpage, I don't see any need to keep compiling diffs and stuff for an AN posting (kudos for blanking it, too). Guido is gone, he's unlikely to ever be back, it's not really fair I think to keep on at him. If he ever comes back then dig it up again, sure, but he's already been banned so I don't think we need to keep waving the pitchforks, y'know? Personally, I'd add a {{db-user}} to the page, but that's your call. // roux   17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am ever a liar, for here I be.
I'm not compiling diffs anymore, now I would be sorting. Guido will not go down without a fight (witness every single block, ever, plus now two arbitration comments), but I think if people don't bother engaging on the talk page, that's the best way to prevent it from lingering. It's mostly for people who think a disservice has been done - it'd be nice to demonstrate that we're not a bunch of pitchfork-waving fiends. But I'll take your advice - there's due process and trying to convince everyone, then there's pointless drama. It'll depend I guess.
I'll be keeping the page just because I don't like creating new sub-pages for nothing, but I'll keep it blanked, probably use it as an article sandbox one day. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm aware. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

I was looking through the old talk page of Broeder, and I gotta say, you gave him a lot of chances. You were civil to him repeatedly. I still don't know if I fully support the commnity ban, because I don't understand everything that happened, but I think you treated Broeder better than most editors would. travb (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You E-mailed me regarding Guido, perhaps as I have not edited for some time now, I am too late, however the link you provided does not go to the said item. In the event i usually try not to get involved in such matters as my observation is they cause more disruption to the Article than supposed incidents. In Guido's case I would be happy to comment on his contributions as I consider him a valuable editor on CFS. He is intelligent and knowledgeable professional, as a sufferer he can also speak to the subject. I have found his insight and ability to see and express matters from a different perspective to others, makes a valuable contributor. Although I admit knowing nothing of the current incident, I am also wary in case of attempts to suppress opinions in favour of some popular beleif particually on a subject where so little is absolute. If anything the Article (IMHO) at present is leaning a bit far to the right of center, and I could imagine Guido being vocal at such time. In other words such incidents may be but a symptom not so much a reflection on Guido but of a more general malaise? Jagra (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The AN/I section has been archived, but there is now an arbitration hearing, though that's closed until later. The comments and objections to Guido's conduct were about considerably more than his behaviour on CFS (and I believe it is much worse behaviour than what existed last year), but if you want to comment in January, that's where to do so. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
RE: User_talk:Inclusionist#Guido thanks for your note. I read your early interactions with this editor like a Greek Tragedy. There are so many times that things could have turned out differently, if people (mostly Guido) would have changed just a little bit. travb (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
And the differences are our reactions - mine is to block, block, block the disruptive editor (you a Order of the Stick fan?) while yours would probably be to work with them. I'm guessing that a large part of our differences is that I was the one dealing with it, and you were reading after the fact. The alternative is, I'm a dickhead with a chip on my shoulder and you are far more patient Face-smile.svg I could see it going either way, but I'd like to hope it's the former. Thanks again for taking the time to review - it's a time-consuming pain in the ass, but it's pretty much the only control we have on wikipedia to prevent all the abuses that are heaped upon us at Wikipedia Review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hahahah... block, block, block the disruptive editor.. thank you Elan! // roux   17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I own The Start of Darkness and On the Origin of PCs, as well as the first two paper compilations. Totally worth the forty bucks+SH, all who disagree are FOOLS!! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


Since you were not notified I thought I would bring this to your attentions. This is to notify you of a conversation on the ANI board that might be of interest to you. Hope you are well. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you've followed my edits today, you'll see my stance. Notice the guy's talk page? Who is right at the top... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes I had followed the links around and saw his page and figured you should be alerted to the discussion. I agree with the others that someone should have done something with his crude remarks with the editors name twisting too. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the "problem" is that his contributions have been erratic and rather infrequent - takes more than 200 edits over a year to accumulate the sort of attention needed for a formal block or ban (and that'd really be overkill for the most part anyway). He's kinda like the final bullet in WP:GIANTDICK - do bad things, infrequently. Incidentally, were the situation reversed, I probably wouldn't have notified you - since I wasn't involved in the present dispute, it's brushing against one of the WP:CANVAS problems. Since I'm not an impartial party, and not involved in the current dispute, it may be seen as inappropriate canvassing rather than a friendly notice. I'm not sure, I generally try to avoid canvassing concerns like the plague, so I don't have the experience to really say what the general community consensus is or would be. I had thought I was being asked to look into it as a disinterested third-party! Still, it's pretty clear that that specific example was problematic, and that's not the only problem that existed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Well see the way I looked at it I must of missed looking at the dates appropriately since I thought you were active in the recent. My mistake and my apologies for not looking at the time dates appropriately. I screwed up and I admit it. I had to go and check and see what you meant and you are right so thanks for bringing it to my attentions. I will try to be more careful next time I see something like this. Oh well, water under the bridge and all. Thanks, and have a happy holiday with your family and friends. I go to my mothers tonight and son's tomorrow. Yea, no cooking for me! Later, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that happens. I only mentioned it because occasionally when I raise an eyebrow at some of your talk page postings, it's cause there's a fine point of policy or guideline that you weren't aware of. I was surprised to see this one because normally you are very conscientious in my experience regards what is polite, what is good sense and what is problematic. You mustn't feel bad about this 'un, you're not the only one who has made mistakes this week either! [16] Merry Christmas to you too, or happy holidays if I've got the religion wrong! Eat, drink, be merry and try not to strangle your relatives, no matter how tempting Face-smile.svg Advice I'll certainly be trying to follow with three sets of parents to play with this year. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Big James Henderson

Nice work!! You beat me to the punch as I was looking for those sources. Just one small thing - two of the links to the IPF World Championships (Denmark and Canada), don't work. Just a heads up! --Yankees76 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Three actually! I thought it was a simple substitution for each link - add one for each year - but apparently not. Fixed 'em, what an unhelpful website that was! I'm wondering about WP:NAME for the page, should it be James Gregory Henderson? But most know him as "Big James" I guess. We could ask JPH... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
He's his webmaster after all... --Yankees76 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
You're fukkin' kiddin' me. So my original COI worries were justified. I love being right. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep he admitted it later on [17], I called him out on it on his talk page. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

JPH Talk page.

Regarding this post

And if this guy wasn't a ticking time bomb I'd let him figure it out on his own. I have this innate ability to pick the most lost cause to help. I've tried once and the guy ended up getting permblocked for socking. Maybe this guy will be different, thanks for letting me try. Padillah (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Had I known I would have sent someone else to your talk page a couple months ago. Good luck, I've managed to redeem a couple myself (well, perhaps one) and it's great work, but it's getting over the initial hump of "No actually, you can't do that, ready the rules" that's usually the hard work. I find a block is a good shove though (worked for me). Anyway, hopefully a couple months from now and a couple hundred more edits he'll figure out the norms and start to work with us. That was a good civility nudge to me too - it's always hard to take a post being deleted when you tried to be helpful, and it's always after you hit the save button that you realize you've done it yourself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm Stressed

I'm really stressed out right now, I'm probably too unstalbe to be editing Wikipedia right now. I'm just upset because an article I spent two hours making ogt deleted. I feel like killing myself. Sorry if I put htat speedy tsg up and offended you. I'm done with wikipedia anyway. Mrld (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you requested a copy of the article from the deleting admin? You could put it up on a sub-page and keep working with it until it's read to be replaced in mainspace. What was the article? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Adventsljusstake med tre brinnande ljus.JPG Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...
Civil, knowledgeable, and you recycle? Now I've got a crush on you :P WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

References in Watchmen

Hi, I see that you changed the references in Watchmen to include citation templates. However, it is proper proceedure on Wikipedia to add references in the style established in the article. You're not supposed to completely change the reference style. Cite templates haven't been used in the article since they are needlessly complex. You also did a fair bit of overlinking; be careful not to link words unless it is necessary for context. I've reverted your changes for the time being. See Wikipedia:Citation templates and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. If you have any questions, let me know. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a variety of comments on the watchmen talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've read them and I've responded, but I just wanted to explain why I reverted personally so you don't run into the same problem on other articles down the line. Ultimately the fact is that it's advised not to boldly change the reference style wholesale in articles to what you prefer. Primarily, it's an inconveniece to regular editors (in particular, I completely rewrote the article during its Featured Article Review). I personally used to use cite templates, but don't anyone because I find the script to be dead weight and I don't need the parmeters for reference when citing anymore. Cite templates are helpful in some case, especially to new editors who might not know how to cite a particular source. While there are benefits and drawbacks to citation templates, linking to Google Books, etc., not everyone does it on Wikipedia, and they're not required to do so. Basically: whenever you come across an article you want to work on, check out the reference style is and go with it; for the love of god don't change the reference style without seeing what the situation is. If I'm working on an article that uses tons of citation templates, I'm going to cite new info using those templates, because that's what's been established. Nothing personal, believe me. I just wanted to clarify this for you, since you should be careful not to do the same thing in another article in the future, because someone with a short fuse might get really mad and so you don't feel like you're wasting your time changing references to fit a certain style.
Additionally, since I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with you by reverting hours of work you did, let me know if you need any help with any future Wiki projects of yours, and I'll do my best to lend a hand. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I still disagree with many of the edits you chose to revert, on the grounds of what looks like aesthetic and personal preference reasons. Possibly because I don't work on or towards featured articles as a goal, I may not be familiar with the vagaries of the rules around them. Citation templates offer in my mind clear advantages over manual formatting, not the least of which is the ability to change thousands of pages at a time by changing the transcluded template if necessary but also the ease of generating a citation with diberri. The use of the cite tag is also a clear advantage for reading, referencing and verifying all of the text, as is the links to specific google books pages; I don't see why that would be removed because some books may not have such links. Not all journals have pubmed links but we still include them when available. It's a clear advantage, it's an enormous leap in utility, and it's a tremendous asset to the page and the reader in my mind. However, much as your reverts appeared to be for personal and aesthetic preferences, I can not argue that mine are not either. So I'm just going to drop it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, putting all this aside, if you need help or have any questions on anything, feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll be glad to help out. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm good thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It's too late for a Merry Christmas, but I'll pass along a Happy New (Western) Year! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you get a moment and feel like it..... ;)

Hi, I added a second paragraph to my user page. If you feel like it and wouldn't mind would you do a copy edit for me? I mean I don't know this stuff too well and did my best to update what going on since I've been grouchy lately. I know you can't know exactly what is going on but you can get an idea from what I have written. I just want to make sure it reads ok esp. since I am really bad with run-on sentences. Thanks, and remember there is never any pressure from me about things. Just so you know, I got testy yesterday, which you know I don't usually do, but I did apologize this morning which was accepted by the editor. I am glad the editor understood and everything seems to be ok. We have never run into each other before so being grumpy in my responses were not to cool to me. Oh well, I guess it's true, I'm only human after all! :) Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look, and probably will edit directly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey no rush, I noticed you put up a wikibreak template, go for it and enjoy! There is no rush with me but I'm sure your RL would appreciate your attendance! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Everyone is napping in their cat-hair infested house. It's everywhere.
I've been itching to pretty-up your talk page for MONTHS now, do you mind? I've a couple ideas and I think you may like 'em. If not, there's always a revert button... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey go for it, I don't mind. As long as my stuff is still there do what you want, I'm easy and would enjoy seeing what you want to do! I'm going off line for now since I am in pain and can barely feel my arm at this point. I am also quite pissed off because of an article Stormfront (website) and an editor who feels he WP:OWNs the article. Grrr! So have fun! --CrohnieGalTalk 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)PS: I actually may learn some more things too! All is good. :)

Watchmen and R's Journal

Over in the watchmen article, I've been trying to count all opinions from the various discussion threads on R's journal, but Preppy is a little focused on the specific "need a vote" [18] thread. My own fault for creating it, I guess. Would you mind making a yea or nay in that thread, if you want the journal included? --Bertrc (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't usually vote; when I'm back from my break I may step in, I'm not sure yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I learned that too late. I am ever the newbie. Right now, I am using that thread more to get a general sense of how people feel. Maybe I should merge all 3 journal threads . . . Thanks for you contributions to the discussion. --Bertrc (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into it when I'm back more permanently. I really, really think it's worth including on the page in some form as even though we are not able to state for certain what the outcome is, it's certainly there for its implications. I wonder if it might be worth scanning the final page or typing out verbatim what the text is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


I thought this might be of interest to you. It's being put together now and since it is new and since you have sort of dealt with this I thought you might be interested in a link to it.

On a different note, I like what you are doing with my page. I put the disclosure on my talk page so that if anyone questioned your editing of my page you could show it was with my knowledge.  :) I will have to look closely at what you have done when you are finished because I have a real problem with coding and the such. I have absolutely no idea how to do a lot of the ocding stuff. You can say I am one of those dummies when it comes to learning how to use code which is a big drawback at times. So thanks again, I look forward to watching what else you have in mind to do. What can I say, I am easily ammused. Oh and I got a laugh at being order to come fix dinner, I left the computer under the same circumstances.HA! --CrohnieGalTalk 14:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of it is pretty simple once you see the significance of each character, but you have to think like a computer (i.e. absurdly literal and kinda stupid). Oh god, the folks are arguing. Yep, it's certainly the holidays. That advocacy page is interesting, I wonder if it will link to WP:CPUSH in some way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about Images on Wikipedia

How do you go about listing a picture for deletion that is an obvious copy from the web? I stumbled across this today. Here's the picture on another website: [19] and here's the Wikipedia image that was just uploaded the other day. [20]. It's the exact same image. --Yankees76 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just hate image use. You may want to look into Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The other thing would be to ask admins who regularly work with images, or just ask the question at help desk. I think the latter answers specific questions about on-wiki stuff. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No prob. Thanks!--Yankees76 (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


A lot of water under the bridge, but I appreciated the link you provided (somewhere!) to the Sept 08 discusion on naming. A great discussion chaired by you but a pity it did not reach a 'logical' conclusion, and seems to have got lost somewhere!. You made i think a good summary point that both CFS and ME fall on a continuum of similar conditions, even if diagnosis for one may exclude the other, and i think you got high consensus for that. However it was also clear that neither the description/crieria for CFS or ME described the continuum in full. Clearly there is no official name for this yet and time and research should eventually clarify it. In the meantime use of the terms ME/CFS or if you prefer CFS/ME has it seems been adopted elsewhere as more inclusive. That is the way the three editors including myself ( none of whom contributed to the recent discussion) saw it when we spent many months subdividing the Article. With a further qualification that all edits should specify which criteria was used in patient selections, so as not to confuse the readers. The fact that some researchers and editors want to use the term CFS as a continuum descriptor IMHO is only heaping another layer of confusion upon readers. I personally prefer CFS and ME to be covered in the same Article, (as above) much the same as sudden onset vs delayed, post viral vs psychiatric etc. But think it inaccurate and retrograde to use CFS as a blanket title and descriptor for a range of conditions, only one of which its definition describes, until there is unanimous agreement for that in the literature. Thanks Jagra (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that there is an official name (CFS) but there's a substantial minority that prefer a different one (ME) and EVERYONE agrees that CFS isn't particularly accurate, helpful, convincing, descriptive, or meaningful, but since there's no convincing evidence on the actual cause of CFS, they're not bothering to change it until they can come up with something more appropriately descriptive. My ideal goal was to have an extensive discussion on alt names for CFS that stated explicitly that ME was preferred and they wanted to change it, summarize it in good detail in the main CFS article, but stick with one name (CFS) throughout to avoid confusion - wikipedia is aimed at the general reader, and as much as we would like them to be able to mentally substitute ME and CFS and ME/CFS and CFS/ME, ultimately it's just easier (and I think more sensible) to use one term throughout. One thing I never saw a good discussion (i.e. sourced) of was how ME and CFS were supposed to substantially differ. Guido was firmly convinced they did. I was not, based on the sources he provided, and it seemed quite convincing to me that they were essentially synonymous. The disputes that Guido brought into the discussion tended to polarize a lot of the editors (including me) into wanting to avoid Guido's position as much as clarify what the page should say. But still, CFS is in my mind what most people use, so that's what I think we should. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, but if I can elaborate a little, I see it a little differently. For instance I am not convinced that the ‘substantial majority’ that favour ME are proposing that name as the descriptor for the ‘continuim’ or spectrum of syndromes that includes CFS and ME, as you seem to be suggesting! Rather it seems to me they seek to promote that ME has a different diagnostic criteria, (as agreed by the CDC) and patients diagnosed as having CFS under say Fukuda 94 may not meet the ME criteria and possibly vice versa? This aspect I think has in the discussion, not been fully teased out yet? That being the case then it is inaccurate as I commented above to lump ME under the CFS name, which implies to readers that ME is diagonosed by the CFS criteria! More accurate I suspect that those two criteria ‘overlap’ with some commonalities on the spectrum.
The situation is made more confusing by the fact that there are different criteria for diagnosing CFS, like; Fukuda, Canadian, Australian, Oxford, they all have differences, for instance Oxford allows psychiatric symptoms, where as others specifically exclude this, yet it can be said all are on a spectrum but none of these diagnose ME. For research purposes the criteria used in patient selection can produce different outcomes in trials. Thus the criteria used is not just semantic. I can understand those that say trials under the Oxford criteria under the name CFS are not necessarily applicable to all CFS. Hence the need in the Article to specify which criteria is used in patient selection. Likewise all CFS research is not necessarily applicable to ME, but in this case only, neither is the name.
Problem is historically CFS was coined as a name to define the CDC 88 criteria for a separate epidemic, when ME already existed (since the 50’s I think!) as a criteria and the name listed in WHO, some time later. Clearly the CDC group who originated the CFS criteria and name, considered it a different condition. Since then the other CFS criteria have been spawned or spun off the 88 origonal, for various reasons. Because of this background it cannot be simply said that ME is just another form of, or criteria for CFS. Rather both overlap to some or other extent on a larger spectrum. Hence the need for an inclusive but not competitively confusing name for the spectrum or continuum. The April 1990 International Symposium at Cambridge University of experts in the field, recognising the difficulty, coined the name ME/CFS. You say that CFS is the ‘official’ name but under what authority (certainly not the WHO) and at which consensus meeting?
To my observation the literature is full now of confusing ‘crossover names’ and I agree some research breakthrough will be needed to provide oppurtunity for clarity, in the meantime whatever name is used I think it imperative so as not to confuse the reader, that each reference, statement or inference made should specify which criteria it applies to, and not let the reader wrongly assume it matters not.
By the way we left the name of the main Article as CFS, not because we considered it accurate, but out of respect to the many editors who had contributed to the Article beforehand under that name, but felt less contrained in naming the sub-Articles. Seasons Greetings Jagra (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi WLU and Jagra, I have been out for along time but I am back for now and I just want to say, Jagra says we, they are talking about a group of advocates like Guido Ward20 and other people. Wikipedia is not about advocacy it is about using reliable sources to give reliable articles. MEDRS is the thing to look at for medical articles. MEDRS especially best MEDRS use CFS almost exclusive. Jagra when you do not like MEDRS it is Wikipedia, you can debate it and try change it. Til then we use MEDRS.
WLU thank you for your work with the Guido problems I am so sorry I could not help out more. RetroS1mone talk 05:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a conversation that should be held on the CFS or related talk pages, as it's going to be archived quite soon on mine. Unfortunately I don't see anything in Jagra's posting that I would use as a source, but if it can be sourced, it would certainly be a good addition to one of the pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hall of Ma'at

What do you think? Worth an article? I don't know if you have a COI, feel free to email me from my talk page. dougweller (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned in your edit summary that it was reviewed by an Egyptology magazine? That's WP:WEB for me, depending on the depth of the review. I've only read the page, I don't contribute to it, so I have no COI. If you do (edit summary again), I would suggest drafting a version on a sub-page. If you let me know, I'll review and paste into mainspace. If it passes WP:WEB then it's certainly a great article to have because we can link to it when debunking pyramidiots and Graham Hancock. And Gavin Menzies execrable magnum opus. It is unlikely I'll make the time to draft the page itself, but reviewing is much easier and faster and I'm certainly willing to do that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


Special:Contributions/Mattmr. (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note; I've indefblocked and tagged the account per WP:DUCK. Surreal. EyeSerenetalk 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Could the account be hardblocked? I'm not even sure what it is, I just see it thrown around a lot. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh, it just means that any IP addresses recently used to login by the blocked account will also be automatically blocked, to prevent the user from making a new account or editing anonymously. If that option is selected when blocking the mediawiki software does the rest automatically, but depending on the IP range the autoblock may expire in as little as 24 hours, or never. I did hardblock the account, but I have no control over when (or even if) the autoblock will expire, and obviously if they manage to get a new IP address (some ISPs assign them dynamically) the autoblock may be ineffective. All we can do is keep a weather-eye out and WP:RBI if they show up again. EyeSerenetalk 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on user

Hi WLU, FYI some editors at Chronic fatigue syndrome have talked about banning me. That is a later step in a dispute process, but it can start with a request for comment about me and i think comments are good. I sent some of the editors the guidelines for Rfc [21]. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Geez. I'd really like to do something with the CFS pages but I know it'll be a time sucker and I'm really supposed to be doing important things in real life. I'll try to step in, and if a RFC is actually launched I'll certainly look into it. I would also suggest to you and them, that you assemble a list of disagreements, the best sources to support each position, and then put in a single, or multiple requests for comment on the content. I think Guido's presence unnecessarily polarized both sides of the debate and that's been harmful to the page. If everyone calmed down and started examining citations for both sides of a very controversial debate rather than trying to assert one side or the other was true, the page would probably get better. That's my current, relatively uninformed view on things. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi there you've got mail! Warning, I'm in a bad mood so it's a bit testy what I need to chat about. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I have my balance back again. You always seem to know how to get me to focus better, thank you. I also responded back to you. Take your time, I know you are busy. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Supposed to be busy, but past life regression has raised my ire and invoked my wrath - RELIABLE SOURCES, TAKE THAT!! I love google books. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep it up, I love it. I haven't had too much to smile about never mind laugh about in awhile but I did with this! I love it when you keep me smiling, even laughing.  :) As for being busy else where, I hear you. I have a zillion things to do but nope not gonna do it!  :) No energy, so the heck with it. My attitude is, it will be there for me tomorrow so what's the rush! Thanks WLU, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, google books is incredibly useful, as long as you're lucky and the bit you want is included in the preview. It looks like they include most pages of most books, which is pretty good (but maybe not so good for the authors). --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes for Day Care

I think the controversy will always be there with that article by the nature of the topic. There are some articles that are so contentious that every word is argued over. I think the exact wording in the quotes will be helpful when the next person comes along to challenge. I am a big reader of biographies, and 1/3 of the text in one in print can be the reference and endnote sections. No one is expected to read all of them in a book, and no one is expected to in an article. But, when you are a serious researcher looking for an exact source, and an exact quote, I am glad they are there, and are complete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


WLU, I wonder if I could get you to watchlist this page for a few weeks -- and then (really) to do nothing about it, except to glance over the talk page comments every couple of days, to be sort of an extended part of my memory? I'm starting to think about what it would take for an involuntary topic ban for a user that is having trouble with the difference between WP:V and Truth™, but I don't have time or energy to deal with it right now, and I don't want to make hasty decisions.

In the nature of fair warning: Nearly every editor has a very strong, deeply personal POV. Most have some level of conflict of interest (e.g., one of them is named in the article, another is a real-world friend...) There's usually a fair bit of yelling on the page, and a good deal of edit warring. This request is sort of like asking a friend to help you muck out the basement after a flood, and I know you're busy, so if you're not up to it, that's just fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) (who will watch this page for a few days)

I'm sorry WAID, I really can't commit to any long-term, dedication requiring projects. Have you ever talked to User:FisherQueen? I've huge respect for her and she's interested in LGBTQ issues I believe (and an admin). I'm not even checking my watchlist these days, I'm just looking at my contribs for anything that's been changed since my last edit. What? That's not page ownership. Not even a little. I'll have a quick look, but I really can't promise anything for the next couple weeks. Sorry, I'd like to help but I still owe someone a favour at fathers' rights movement that really needs to be cashed. I also can't think of someone at the top of my mind who could help - all the dedicated editors I'd normally volunteer are busy! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
No problems. This is a problem that will easily keep. I'll think about suggesting it to FisherQueen, but to be candid, I think one of the biggest problems is having too many editors that are interested in the contents, and too few that don't care about anything beyond Wikipedia's policies. It's WP:MEDMOS#Audience's "You emphasize or de-emphasize verifiable facts so that readers will make the "right" choice in the real world" all over again, except with respect to beliefs about sexuality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic income in the Netherlands

Thanks for cleaning up after me--and I think you know that "misspelling" wasn't the right word: it was a leftover from the Dutch article. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to this?

You were involved in the whole naming thing, so I think it's fair to give you a chance to comment on it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Sort of ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Diana Napolis


No harm intended. I'm no expert on WP:BLP, just so you know. My reason for doing that little edit was that I was worried that mentioning the harassment in the lead paragraph, so prominently, gave that one fact undue weight and made it possible that it could result in a WP:BLP challenge - thus putting the whole page in jeopardy. I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seemed to be the type of assertion that someone could argue is libelous... and some of her associates do come to Wikipedia. Really, just seeing the "she harasses people on the internet" in the first paragraph made my alarm bells go off.

Personally, I think it might be wise to re-write the entire article in a traditional journalistic voice - e.g., instead of saying "Posting under the screen name 'Curio', Napolis began a pattern of harassment against those she believed were involved in the conspiracy", I'd re-write it as "an article in (insert source here) asserted that Napolis, posting under the screen-name 'Curio', began a pattern of harassment against those she believed were involved in the conspiracy". That way Wikipedia's only reporting assertions, not making them. That seems to work for journalists.

In fact, might it also be good to re-structure the article to a sequential account of her notable activities? I don't think we'd normally have an article on the average internet stalker (else they'd number in the millions). Maybe the article should establish her importance, and then place the more recent craziness further on, to give it its proper weight.

Anyway, I dunno. I'd like to see the article remain, even though I think she's only borderline notable. And while I'm no expert, I'd think it'll be very difficult to make an article on her withstand BLP challenges, since there aren't many positive things that could be said. So, that's the only reason I got involved.

AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's cool, I'm just happy the page is getting more attention. I don't think a page has to include positive things (i.e. Hitler may have painted roses but frankly, who gives a shit 'cause he's famous for slaughtering millions - though he's also dead) and all coverage of Napolis is about her being a stalker and harassing people in the context of a wild, tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theory. I'm no expert either, but I hope other editors will step in and help out since I don't have the experience to write a really good, sails-past-BLP page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, I read the "Michael Aquino response" too. I wonder whether investigators have gone back and looked at her work as a child abuse investigator and a licensed MFT in light of her delusions, which I think would be quite warranted. Also, the fact that she was apparently able to keep her delusions in check so long as she was on probation, and started up again once it was over suggests a certain shrewdness to her illness! Шизомби (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've recently added "mentally ill" to descriptions of Napolis, both in her article and the Loftus one. This might be going way overboard in violation of WP:BLP.
  1. the source you're giving is only stating that she underwent a competency hearing - in 2002. That does not establish that she is mentally ill. (Yes, I've read her blog, that's beside the point.)
  2. identifying someone as mentally ill is over-the-top, for all sorts of reasons. The Syd Barrett article, for example, doesn't start off identifying him as "the mentally ill former member of Pink Floyd". That devalues the subject of the article, making him/her a "mentally ill person who did things" instead of a "person who did things, and later on, was diagnosed as mentally ill".
  3. all rules aside, dude, you're just looking vindictive. Seriously, if there is anything personal between Napolis and you, you might want to recuse yourself from active editing of anything to do with her and limit yourself to page-guarding; but if there's nothing personal between you two, hopefully you'll see the merit in keeping these pages as legal as possible, for the benefit of Wikipedia.
AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, nothing between me and Napolis - never talked to her and never, ever, ever will. Also have no problem with the page being in line with BLP - unfortunately I'm not certain of BLP. I'm also not sure if calling someone diagnosed with a mental illness "mentally ill" is pejorative or a BLP concern, or just factual repoting. If my edits were out of line, then certainly they should be removed or altered (and reviewing, Sauer 2002 doesn't justify it, though the city news service article does to a certain extent - "A La Mesa woman [was] ordered to undergo mental health counseling...In addition to enrollment in a mental health counseling program...Judge Browder Willis said the defendant needed some time to develop a stable mindset, by continuing to take prescribed medications." Stops short of a diagnosis though). I think you're right to call me on it, mentally ill does over-reach the source (though see here, footnote 5 in the right-hand column).
I would contend that "mentally ill" is only as pejorative as people let it be. It's not inherently insulting to the subject in my mind, but it does qualify the article. In Barrett's case there's an extremely good case to be made that his mental illness is secondary to his life's achievements. I'll just leave the implications of that statement for the Napolis page. Napolis accuses Loftus and others of being baby-sacrificing satanists; to someone unfamiliar with the satanic ritual abuse conspiracy and the complete lack of proof there possible credibility there. Mentally ill does offset that to a certain degree, but it could very well be completely out of line. But given the larger issue I see here (Sauer 2002 doesn't justify "mentally ill") I'll remove it from Loftus. I'm wondering if the Sauer I'm seeing online is different from what was published in the print article - de Young states she was committed, citing Sauer but obviously the on-line version doesn't support that or mention Patton State Hospital. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This book?

Just wondering why it was removed:

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS/ME): The Facts, Frankie Campling, Michael Sharpe, 2000, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780192630490 --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi - a little confused by your message... not sure if you realised that my last revision was simply some text next to the Open Directory Project link to state that it is what it is: a list of CFS-related organisations - I didn't think it was as clear as it could be. There's nothing against Wikipedia:MEDMOS#External_links there (in fact the policy encourages such a link), nor am I promoting anything, nor any of the other things you've told me to stop doing. I realise you've taken on a lot of the overseeing of this article, and that editing has to be tight where there is controversy, so I can understand your heavy-handedness - but I think saving such messages for those trying to push a particular POV or interest into the article would be a good idea. Apologies if this seems like a rant, it certainly isn't meant as such - I appreciate your work on this article, and I'm reasonably new to this. Always curious when I seem to have trod on a toe. - Bobathon (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks WLU. Bobathon (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome and again my apologies for my error. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to deal with this...

...or should I take this to AN/I? For what it's worth I accept your "I told you so" and am humbled for it. Padillah (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not and I don't have time, sorry. Why are all the headings on that page first level? I won't tell I told you so - trying to reform belligerent editors is a thankless task that needs to be done. If it doesn't work, they go to wikipedia review and we say we tried. Some people have never read WP:BATTLE and appear constitutionally incapable of understanding the disclaimer, policies and guidelines. You tried, I'm glad someone did. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Re-reading, I wasn't specific enough in my praise. You should be proud that you patiently tried to coach towards JPH being a good contributor. It is not your fault if he did not take your advice and chose to edit in a way that further alienates other contributors. If JPH continues to be disruptive, belligerent and cause problems on the pages he edits, when you post on ANI (which I wouldn't unless/until another serious problem arises) please let me know and I will add my !vote. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

PMID 11809249

I have it but it is a pdf file. How could I attach that to an e-mail to you? Ward20 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to have e-mail enabled. If you do, the only way is by replying to an e-mail I send you, you can't attach from wikipedia. I'll send you an e-mail in a sec and you can attach it in your reply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sent, let me know if you don't recieve it. Ward20 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

R's journal in the Watchmen

Hey WLU, it sounds like life is working you hard. Heh, wikipedia is actually me escape from the grind. Ah well, I don't suppose you want to come back and voice an opinion on including Rorschach's journal in the Watchmen? [22] I thought I had a massaged earlier versions into a good edit [23] but I am getting tired of it. Heck, I'd even appreciate it if you let me know if you think I am being a poor wiki-editor for pushing this. I hope things perk up. --Bertrc (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My advice would be start a new section. Ask for each editor who has expressed an interest to give their opinion and reasoning. You may want to try alerting interested editors in a very open fashion (i.e. I still have an opinion but I don't have the time to contribute mightily). Have people re-read the others' reasoning, then perhaps a straw poll. I agree that the closing implications of the comic lends itself to the idea that the conspiracy is revealed; I also agree that it is too vague to do anything but hint. And finally I think that there is enough there to have some sort of mention. Part of the power of the story is that it closes with a "all for naught" implication. If you do anything I would like to know. But to avoid WP:TLDR, use a new section. If you're really feeling ambitious, read the previous section and summarize the objections for other people. Another option is of course a WP:RFC. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, WLU. I think I'll try WP:RFC. I am feeling a bit tired about this and will just except the outside suggestion. I do not see how a separate section could be written. It would be along the lines of "People disagree as to the significance of the journal . . ." without outside sourcing. I did suggest that Preppy give it a try when he brought it up, though. I have raised an RFC: [24] --Bertrc (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. All of my suggestions were aimed at talk page interactions - start a new section on the talk page. Summarize positions, reasons for and against, and suggest the best, sourced-based wording that you think people could live with. I really don't think there's enough for a main page section unless you can turn up some sources explicitly discussing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
D'Oh! I actually was feeling bad about the number of journal threads that already existed. Ugh, I hadn't realized that an RFC would start a new thread in the Watchmen discussion page itself -- I had thought there was a dedicated "RFC Discussion" page. Ah well, I am learning. Thanks again. --Bertrc (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with infobox publisher

I've replied to your problem on the Help_talk:Template#Help_with_infobox_publisher page Ronhjones (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks very much. I've played around with the template and the transcluded instructions, if you have any suggestions I'd love to hear them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Happy to have helped. I'm still on that steep learning curve for templates, myself. It was like an error I have made in the past. Ronhjones (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I ended up ploughing in a bunch of time on that template today, and learned a lot about how to adjust the fields, field names and errors in filling out the template. I must say, pretty satisfying but not near as satisfying as frustrating. I wish I could fix it by yelling, but to date that hasn't worked. Dammit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey stranger

I just want to pop in to say hi, it's been awhile and I didn't want you to think you were free of me! :) How's it going? Are you able to edit more often or are you still on a short leash? Well anyways, hope you are well. It's so cold here, but saying that I am in FL so things are as bad as it is in other places. Take care, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Where I'm at it's −30 °C (−22 °F) with wind chill, so Florida gets no sympathy from me. I'm still pretty busy, but today I made a point of taking care of {{Infobox publisher}}. Made me think of you, I learned a bunch of stuff by making an enormous number of mistakes. It's not the mistakes that made me think of you, it's the willingness to be bold and make them that I always encourage you to do. I'm taking my own advice! Also playing "catch the sockpuppet", which is both amusing and easy. And there's a lot of them, it's like I'm taking a tour of Fox River Mills. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge of vacuum assisted closure wound therapy and negative pressure wound therapy?

Hi! I noticed you have contributed to either or both of the aforementioned articles. If you have any thoughts about whether or not and/or how to merge the pages, please respond at the discussion page of negative pressure wound therapy. Thank you, Where next Columbus? (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Time line of requisite dress in Western civilization


I think you misunderstood what the following was about:

This isn't so much about SRA, but rather a before and after time line of when the "general public" started taking the sexual abuse of minors seriously. It didn't necessarily have to be the McMartin preschool case, and easily could have been a different one. McMartin just happened to be the first that generated a HUGE amount of media attention. Most likely, this was due to the then-recent discovery that AIDS isn't limited to homosexuals, and could infect anyone. Unfortunately for naturism, many Americans feel nudity and sex go hand-in-hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RGNU (talkcontribs)

It's unsourced and despite a fair amount of reading on the subject, I've never seen any mention of it. It reads very much like original resarch and would rather see a source than see it re-introduced. Also, McMartin was more effect than cause of SRA. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


What do you mean by hardblock? Extending his 1-year ban to indefinite? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, that is possible, but unfortunately, ResearchEditor operates from dozens of IP addresses. I might block him on one IP today, but he'll pop up on a different one tomorrow. :/ Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:

I saw that you reported this user for vandalism and was surprised to see that he/she appears to have marked as resolved their own case here. Please also note that the photograph he has been trying to use for mouth breathing and is now on his talk page is actually the son of a fellow editor who has been trolled by this user. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that as well, and wasn't surprised (I'm surprised more vandals don't do the same, and went to ANI to make sure it wasn't ignored). It's blatant vandalism, 3RR doesn't apply, and I'm quite willing to revert on sight. There's no reason to treat this as anything but editing abuse in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WLU. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

False sockpuppet accusation

Please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet. I have never edited using any other account (though I have been looking at wikipedia for some time). I consider false sockpuppet accusations a kind of personal attack. Henry James Fan (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. And when I do a sock investigation for more of ResearchEditor's socks in a month, as I will have to, I'm sure you will be exonerated. That's fantastic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

An Invite to join Novels WikiProject

Book collection.jpg

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres.

As you have shown an interest in Steven Erikson we thought you might like to take an interest in this well established WikiProject.
You might like to take an extra interest in our Fantasy task force
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Alan16 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the invitation, but every time I have tried to contribute to something more than a single day I've ended up disappointing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't reveal my secret handshake

Friend of yours?PelleSmith (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly. That's fantastic. Thanks for the redirect. I suppose this means I'll have to start yet another sockpuppet investigation. I love the gradual manipulation of the page name. Did you see xtreme abuse survey? That's a sport, not a word. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Take note of who else showed up on the talk page to argue against deleting it (before my redirect). Curious how s/he knew of this oddly titled and at the time 10 day old entry. I mean I'm no conspiracy theorist but ...PelleSmith (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Biao? Yeah, it's so easy to check the contribs of editors, I'm never much concerned when one of the regulars show up - though were I you I'd wonder if my contributions were being checked on a regular basis. Since they are regulars, I find it actually makes it easier to deal with - point to the P&G in question and they shut up. ConspiracyMcTherapist on talk:SRA on the other hand, will probably keep squawking since generally it takes a good month before a noob bothers to read a policy.
I have a conspiracy theory that conspiracy theorists create conspiracies when on wikipedia. It's deliciously meta yet gives me a headache. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WLU. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ResearchEditor.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
  •  Clerk note: RFCU A is not appropriate as no Arbcom sanction is identified Mayalld (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I could really appreciate your opinion if you have time

I just reread the Crohn's disease article and I have to admit I am disappointed. I think there is a lot of garbage now in it but need a POV check from you. If you have time can you take a look? I think if you read the lead you will see what I am talking about. Thanks in advance. It's been awhile so I hope you are well and busy with fun things! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 12:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a bit of a look but only to the lead. If you're talking about the eubacteria stuff, there does seem to be excessive emphasis on the "cause" when it looks to be quite preliminary. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to do much more with it. Sorry, perhaps WP:MED might be more helpful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with you but with my strong POV about this I think I will do as you said and ask for help at WP:MED and see if I can get someone to help with the article. I read it in some parts to say that bacteria is a major cause and control of the bacteria will well, almost cure if a way. Since I have tried bacterial things to help me with no changes, like eating yogurts that claim to help, supplements and so forth, I don't think I should do any major editing like deleting what I feel is WP:Weight issues. I saw what you did to the lead and what you removed from it should be removed from the article. Do you think I should be bold and do it or just ask at WP:MED? Thanks again, I hope you won't be so busy in the near future, I miss you. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 16:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Well you always tell me to be WP:Bold so I am being. I have made some changes like removing some of the over wikilinking, deleting and so forth. I hope what I have done looks good. Let me know what you think, you can do it by email which you can really be bold yourself and really tell me like it is in your opinion! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I checked CD before checking my talk page, and thought to myself "that's pretty bold of her". Good stuff! I'll try to get to a review, but I'm prepping for a trip and that's taking my attention. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, do you happen to be coming in the direction of S. FL? I would love to meet you if you are! ;) Have a safe trip, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, other coast. I was in Florida last year, near the freakshow that is Disneyworld. A very compelling freakshow, but a freakshow none the less. You can't help but love it. Or they inject you with drugs and MAKE you love it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I was up by Disney myself about a year ago for the weekend with my family. My mom owns a timeshare near there. But I don't do Disney anymore, no patience with lines for a 3 sec ride. :)

Well I saw you did the external links again to remove the excess. I didn't get that far before I got sick. I am battling with the flu, yuck. Anyways, what do you think of my changes? I am really trying to be a lot more bolder than I have been. I am going to try to work another article, Diane Downs when I am feeling better. It needs a lot of work too and is also the target of vandals so it should be intersting to say the least. Well have a good trip and hope to see you on the flip side. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try a diff-by-diff comment today but I make no promises. I still have my "check out the freaky things in the grocery store" shopping to do, post cards and I'd like to see Watchmen if the theatre is playing them today. One thing I did note - MEDRS states that we should avoid popular press if at all possible. At one point you quote a BBC news article talking about bacteria being the cause; try to find the original article to cite, then reference that. You can link the bbc article as a lay-summary if you think it's useful. I'll try to get to it, but it seems these days I'm regularly breaking my promises. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know I didn't put that info in, someone else did. I thought my POV would get in the way so I didn't change anything. Take your time, I'm in no rush. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw, I was talking about this diff. If I see any sort of reference like this, that discusses the medical aspects of a condition but is sourced to a news agency, I like to find the actual pubmed publication and source that. In general, medical pages with news sources = bad thing except for the history/social impacts sections. I mean, the BBC article is better than no source at all, but still below what I like to see for medical pages. And it's not like I'm really worried, 'cause I didn't go in and remove it. When you don't have much to criticize, you end up pointing out issues that are less important. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Abduction phenomenon & article name

Hi, a few days back (after spotting Mormon sex in chains case wrongly, though amusingly, placed in Category:Abduction claims), I eventually found my way to Talk:Alien abduction, where I read the discussion that led to renaming the article. If I had taken part in the discussion, I would have supported the name that you suggested, Alien abduction phenomenon -- and I still think that is preferable. I was planning to reopen that issue, in connection with renaming the poorly-named Category:Abduction phenomenon, which still retains the now-discarded prior name for the article. But another editor preempted my plans and opened a CFD to rename the category. It occurred to me that you might like to join the discussion. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. You somehow saw my note & posted your response before I had finished my own comment. So what would you like to do about modifying the name of the article? Do you think it should go through a formal process akin to what happened recently? Cgingold (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Sooooo tempted to recommend WP:BOLD. I was the only one to bring up the "alien abduction phenomenon" name and rereading the discussion I don't see any reasoning that prevents it. I really do think "alien abduction" simply places too much "real" on an inherently unproven phenomenon, something that's far more of a social movement than a factual event. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Crohns Disease

Hi WLU with regards to the removal of the following text from ther above page:

Am sorry you have overstepped the mark! These organisations relevant. If you check the page as it stands the remaining organisations are USA based. So I have undone the edit and dispute your claim to remove them as unber the WP EL. These medical conditions are not the sole domain of the USA, in fact are unfirtuantely world wide. WIKI is NOT the sole domain of the USA either. I have family in Ohio and NY so am not anti USA at all, as you see I'm UK born, now residing in Australia and I have Crohns...Kind Regards Zippomk2 (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:ELNO number 10, this section of the medicine manual of style page, and the DMOZ. Links to support and national associations are not appropriate. I would suggest you submit the first and third links to the DMOZ for inclusion, the second is already on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Also note that this is not a bias issue because no patient associations can be linked to, not merely because they are from specific areas of the planet. Also note that no external links should go in the see also section. I have re-removed them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't agree with your arbitray decision on exclusion and to leave the External Links, see below;

  • The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada
  • Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America

The links I inserted are no different to the remaining two in anyway shape or form. Except they are US based, which is you re read my post above is what I was and still am getting at. I will as you suggest and I was going to anyway refer all 5 (five) for the Open Data Project as the remaining two are also an External Link and fall into Wiki Criteria as such. Zippomk2 (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the two links as they are in the DMOZ link. I hope this helps. You can find discussions in the history about all of this too. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
In this case I must point out that you're both wrong. The "See also" section is solely for internal links - links to existing pages on wikipedia. The {{DMOZ}} is a directory of external links - web pages that are off the project. The DMOZ should be in the "External links" section, at the bottom of the page. The "See also" section should contain only wikilinks and is always below the main text and above the references. See MOS:APPENDIX for the details. In this case, because the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada and Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America both have their own wikipedia pages, they should be linked in the see also section.
The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada is not in the US by the way.
If the Australian and UK foundations have their own wikipedia pages, they would also be appropriate for the see also section, but not the external links section. Before creating the pages and linking them however, please become familiar with WP:CORP to ensure they pass the notability guidelines. If they don't pass the guidelines, they stand the risk of being deleted. May I suggest you draft them on a sub-page before moving them to mainspace. And if too many of the associations end up having pages created and links made, they will themselves have to be placed on a separate List of Crohn's disease associations page which is linked to only once (and probably again in the Crohn's template).
Zippomk2, the links in the see also section are in fact different from the ones you were adding to the external links section. Please do not re-add them. I am happy to answer your questions but please do not accuse me of bad faith without giving me a chance to justify why I do what I do. My actions are almost never arbitrary, it would be quite rare that I don't offer a policy-based reason for my actions.
Crohnie, I've reverted to the last version by me, but replaced the short bowel syndrome wikilink. It's already linked in the GI symptoms section, but the page is long enough that a second link is easily justified.
And after all that, I ended up removing both the links anyway because they are in the {{Crohn's}} template. Oops! Crohnie, was that what you meant by the DMOZ? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me, I missed the things you changed. I didn't realize that we were editing at the same time either. You did good in my opinion. I thought Short bowel syndrome was linked prior but I couldn't locate it when I added it again. I also forgot that the US and Canada support groups had their own articles so thanks for that correction. Yes to your last question. If you would check my last two edits I'd appreciate it. I removed the first paragraph in the environmental section because it was false according to the research I found about Johne's disease, MAP and CD. Here's the EL I went by, [25]. I also changed the wording in the part about Accutane and tried to get it closer to the citations given. Thoughts? Take your time, I know you are extremely busy. See your pushing WP:Bold finally took hold on me a little more. I don't know if you made a monster though! :) Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen

I have proposed the above article for deletion, because I have taken the info, and it has been split into three other articles. Founding Races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series - Foreign Races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series - Human Races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series.

The idea is that rather than having 4 pages open to read about the Tiste Andii for example, you'll now only need one. It isn't finished yet, but the page I proposed for deletion is now no longer needed. Thanks, Alan16 talk 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're probably better off keeping the "races" page but using it as a broad overview page that leads to the other pages. Also, the sub-pages have a TON of headings. I'd suggest keeping the broad overview headings and merging the characters into those headings as a bulleted list. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I did think about the sheer volume of headings, but I did try it and preview it basically the way you said, and I think it is easier to follow the way it is. I think if I just start bulleting all the stuff, it will be harder to find. Also, I don't know if you've seen my reply on the deletion page, but as I said in it, I think there is too much in it for being an overview. One thing I suggested was turning in to a sort of disambiguous page, so it provides links to the three new articles. Alan16 talk 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I've turned Races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen page into a disambig page. Can we stop the deletion process now a result has been reached? Alan16 talk 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Try throwing in a "Nominator withdrawal" comment and adding the archiving template. If anyone objects, it just re-starts the process. But a DAB page is usually pretty uncontentious so I think we're good. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Me again. Today I've been looking over all the Malazan related pages on Wikipedia, basically looking for ways to combine the minor pages into the big four pages (they would be Invading races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series, Human races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series, Founding races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series, and the Steven Erikson pages. BTW, I'm not including the book pages.).
The one I've been trying to combine first, is the Malazan Empire page into the Human races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series page, as I thought it would have been relatively easy. I was wondering how you'd combine them - I've tried a few things and previewed them, and I've not quit got it right. Any help would be good. Thanks. Alan16 talk 13:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You'll probably notice on your watchlist, but anyway, I've done some pretty hefty Malazan moving. The Empire page is now in the Human races page. Added the bridgeburners page as a sub section on malazan military which was on the empire page. It just made sense. Alan16 talk 14:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I took your advice. I just spent the last twenty minutes sifting through the "what links here" pages for all the things I've moved, and I think I got all the double redirects etc. Alan16 talk 14:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Honestly, I think at least the Malazan Empire could be a standalone page with a {{main}}. Look how long the tables of contents are - it's a section in and of itself. I don't really have time to look into it today (and I don't really check my watchlist anymore) but I'll try to get around to reviewing the current pages. I may also end up reverting in some cases, but I'll try to convince you to do it instead. Have a look at WP:LENGTH though - if any of your articles are brushing against the higher values, consider re-splitting them and just using {{main}} templates to link appropriately. So long as each page covers a substantive volume of text in appropriate detail, there's no need to reduce the number of pages that exist. For instance, I would think Malazan Empire and The Bridgeburners are sufficiently lengthy (or potentially so) to exist as standalone articles. I would also suggest not using a lot of section titles, because of what it does to the table of contents (and with very little value added to most readers, I would think).

The other issue to consider is updating the {{MBF}} template - it's at (or should be at) the foot of all the MBF pages. It can be edited like any other page, it's just a matter of finding it. It should also be kept up to date with the page changes, though I can do that if you'd like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did think about length, and it is slightly over the unofficial guidelines. If I'm honest, I disagree with the Bridgeburners having a separate page. And especially as they are not even mentioned in the Empire page. I think I might take your advice and split the Malazan page, and just leave a main tag in the human article. When I do though, I will keep the Bridgeburners in that section. I honestly do not believe they warrant a new page. Thanks. Alan16 talk 15:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, it's all judgement calls! The whole set of pages is a giant mess and needs to be combed through. Darujhistan isn't on the template, Emancipor Reese has his own page, for some reason the template appears on David Keck, some poor bastard put way too much work into List of Malazan Book of the Fallen characters, which grossly duplicates a massive amount of the other pages, and that's not even dealing with actual content! I'd suggest being bold and doing what you think works. If I see anything particularly egregious, I'll note it, and if you've any questions, I'll try to answer them as best I can. The pages need work, but I can't bring myself to do it. Have at thee! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Righto. Well Malazan Empire is now its own page again. I left a tag on the "Human" page instead. The BridgeB's I have left in the Empire page. Sorted out the redirects associated with all that. I actually had the list of characters open whilst reading your reply, and I agree that it is just the same material is in a lot of other pages. I'll see about maybe taking out chunks that aren't in the three big pages and adding them. Then maybe just turn it into a disambig page like the "Races" pages turned into. Reese, I'll think about condensing and adding as a character to the "Human" page. Somehow he has more than Rake, which shows the badly organised way these pages have been created. The Darujh... page I'll add to the template, as well as anything else that is appropriate. Might also semi-re-write it. From what I remember, it isn't fantastic.
And I'm not sure if that was an intentional dig or not, but I'll remove the template from the David Keck page which I created. I think that was there before I relased what "{MBF}" actually meant. Alan16 talk 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The BB in the ME page I can't argue with, it makes good sense. Arguably because of their HUGE role in the plot, it could be a standalone. The list of characters might be useful; convert it into a single table, make it sortable by race, appearance, etc. then roll all the characters currently held in the individual races pages into that one (it'd be neat if there were a way of forcing a sorting when someone clicks on the link but I don't think it's possible).
David Keck wasn't a dig, I didn't check the history. I rarely take digs unless I really hate the other editor, but I'm also pretty blunt these days. FWIW, I think your decision to work on the Malazan pages is a great one and the set badly needs the help. This place is quite confusing, and I'm very, very far from being a master of it, but I'm happy to help. By the way, {{tl|MBF}} = {{MBF}}. Editing tricks are fun Face-smile.svg Again, I urge you to keep it up, use common sense and eventually it'll get figured out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The {{MBF}} edits make sense, but I don't quite see the point of merging Darujhistan. A lot of the info on that page seems to have gone. Was so little of it worth keeping? Alan16 talk 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I can only defend it as based on my judgement; if you look at the last version, read it with an eye towards detail. Remember that this is not encyclopedia malazica, it's a general purpose encyclopedia written for the world at large. We have a template {{In-universe}}, and were I not to merge it, I probably would have thought it deserved that tag. How much of the information can stand alone, can be read without having to read a large number of other pages on the Malazan world? How much of it makes sense without the larger context? How much of it is original research and inference? Is it necessary to have the names of all the members of T'orrud Cabal? Is it encyclopedic to have such a detailed description, lifted probably from a single page or even paragraph within the book, of the "crooked aisles" of Lakefront when Lakefront is undefined? The consecration of K'rul's belfry when K'rul is undefined? I'm not trying to be pedantic or lecture (though I'm probably succeeding, which I can't seem to help), I'm trying to give a sense of some of the background that informed that particular edit. Most of these pages are actually on the fence, if not far into the territory of speedy deletion candidates, because they lack real-world context that is our standard of notability. Have a look at WP:FICTION too - a significant portion of the community would clearly and happily see most of these pages deleted, and I can't really argue with them because they pretty clearly fail WP:N. It's only my love of the series that keeps me from deleting them (and the screams of many fans who would doubtless vandalize my talk page into oblivion), and the only way I can see to help preserve them not only from deletion but from cruftland is to roll the smaller pages into the larger ones, while trying to keep it to the essential details. If you are unsure about the edit still, could I suggest you look into a third opinion? In large part, my decision was a judgement call based on experience, and I'm pretty sure a 3O would back that up - at some point all long-term editors have to strike a balance between the topics they love and the detail they'd like to give it, and the realistic demands of wikipedia if it wants to be an encyclopedia that is taken seriously.

Um, yeah. WP:TLDR may apply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes then? For future reference, I trust you know what you're talking about, so no need for the essay in the future. Thanks. Alan16 talk 13:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I appreciate the questions and I'm not trying to be a jackass - when someone appears really dedicated to a set of pages, I do what I can to convince them to stay. In this case, you got a verbal avalanche because it's not a cut-and-dry issue, it's debatable and nuanced. Much as I do for much of the time like to think I know what I'm doing, I am still wrong and want to make sure my reasoning is out there so it can be challenged or if I missed something so I can learn about it and not repeat. And I'll just stop talking now... But please, if you do think I made a mistake I humbly request you bring it to my attention. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was a mistake to merge it, I was just pointing out that a medium sized page became just a few words. Although, after looking at before and after, I think you're right. Most of it was certainly not Wikipedia material. Alan16 talk 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
A big reason I like having someone to work with is because I sometimes make the wrong call - if you see anything (and not just here, on any page whatsoever) that I've done that is excessive or results in something critical being missing, please feel free to be bold and change, remove or replace it. If you're not sure, a courtesy notice is appreciated but not essential. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


You uploaded the banner to Wikipedia so I assumed it was free use - like the Erikson picture. If you want me to remove, just say so.

Also, I have an E-Mail stating that the author (Aiden Moher - a guy who writes a blog on fantasy novels) releases it under the GFDL. And the rational was okay I thought. After all there is no way it could be used for profit, and if it was to be used on a large scale, then it would be of a lower quality. Alan16 talk 11:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Righto. I'll change the "foreign" to "invading", and you are saying no caps on the "races"? I'll also sort out the redirects. And I'll fix the image stuff. Alan16 talk 12:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, chaned the heading of the foreign page. And I've changed the image stuff, stating the GDFL release. I'll upload the picture later. It isn't on the pc i'm currently on. Alan16 talk 12:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, all redirects have been sorted. I think. Alan16 talk 12:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Righto. I'll get someone to upload the image to commons. The changes are good, and I'll have another look at them when I get back from lunch. Also, you sure you don't want the credit on the banner? Alan16 talk 12:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I sorted out the main redirects (i.e. Tiste Andii etc.). I'll try and sort out the others. And you like expressing opinions, and I like asking questions. This could go on for a while... Alan16 talk 12:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

Looks like we have a hardcore POV pusher on this article. The article seems to have largely been reverted back to an old version from before ResearchEditor was banned with no edit comment, and the talk page was attempted to be "archived" by wiping out all of the discussion completely. Once he was caught he started with personal insults and making clims that his own personal experiences of having multiple personalities prove the condition is real and yada yada yada. Not sure if we have a sock or just a bad editor reverting back to an old, POV-pushing version quite aggressively. DreamGuy (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored the talk page comments, as they specifically detail his exact intentions both to push POV and to sockpuppet. Explaining why someone's violations are violations is not baiting, and, frankly, leaving the notice you did there and on my talk page is more baiting than the original conversation. Just leave it as is. If you deny it, deny it in your head, but don't mess around with other people's on-topic comments. Sometimes the attempted cure for civility is less civil than the original behavior, and I would suggest that is the case here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As you like, but I am concerned that your "sometimes the attempted cure..." comment will bite you on the ass one day. I hope I'm wrong, since wikipedia needs people who actually understand what a reliable source is, but based on some of the recent arb hearings I've seen there's concern in the project about solid contributors who are less than civil on talk pages and edit summaries. Perhaps I'm over-sensitive and mis-reading things (and almost certainly a hypocrite), and you are of course not bound to listen to what I have to say.
I do appreciate the notice that there was an issue on the DID page, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I am well aware of the hyper-concern some editors have for civility (and perceived civility issues) over everything else. Believe me, boy do I know. I'm currently on a poorly defined ArbCom sanction that never expires and allows any admin to block me at increasing lengths if they come up with anything that might be construed as uncivil, and often it's a rather self-serving interpretation to provide an excuse to get the upper hand in a conflict. On top of that, most of said complainers are far from civil themselves. But in this case I'd rather have the talk page comments documenting the behavior that got the person blocked than give in to worries about something maybe being not as nice as it could be. The guy reverted some 7 times n an hour to push a POV and was an admitted sockpuppet user. If my comments were a tad snarky, well, go figure. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair 'nuf, I won't be reverting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you edit

WLU, thank you for your edits on Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The article flows a lot better after your edits. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • cough*Barnstar*/cough*
No problem, I was surprised to see the page read that choppily despite very good referencing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is long past due..

Please except this to you to show how much I appreciate your friendship and time you have spent helping me to become a better Wikipedian. Thank you very much for being my friend and always having a helping hand for me when I need it.

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
I award this Barnstar to WLU for the kindness, friendship and help. Thanks for always being there for me! --CrohnieGalTalk 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)--
I'll TAKE IT! Thanks, glad to help out :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion yet again! ;) Is this a WP:RS? It has information that I have read about. I have read that this surgery was done once and with success out of the USA. I don't remember all of the details, sorry, but I know I was very intrigued esp. since I am close to having problems with Short bowel syndrome do to multiple surgeries. I just can't tell if this site is reliable for the information given. It kind of looks like a sales site when looking through it but I need an opinion about this one. My POV is definitely getting in my way on this one. Though I like the idea of this surgery being able to help, I am not sure it really can be done on a regular basis to help CD patients. I could go on but it's not necessary since you know me well enough to know my POV about this. Your opinion would help, as usual take your time. Thanks again! Also, sorry for taking too long to show my appreciations for all of your help. I hope you enjoy the barnstar, you really deserve it and more with all you have done to help me. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link which for some reason is giving me a hard time to put here. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm on wikibreak again, I'll try to get an opinion to you by next week (probably earlier). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I would say that it's not. There's no sources cited that I can see, it's very, very short, and I don't see it even justifying the text that it was used as a reference for. If you think the information is good and solid, I'd suggest tracking down a better source. As a medical page, I would pretty much never accept anything but high-quality, either medical journal or significant, recognized medical entity or organization - NIH, CDC, FDA or the like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


Incase you haven't seen this I thought you would be interested. Hope you are well, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually not well, on my way back I got sick and now I'm coughing up green sputum.
I didn't even get to the ANI posting before it was snow-closed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
GDB TP Alert: BTOT (back to old tricks)... Verbal chat 12:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed. All we have to do is ignore it and eventually it'll die down. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea I didn't make it either, it was already closed when I posted this, that was quick. ;) I've had that same cold now going on three weeks. Lots of liquids, cold meds and even more sleep. Takes a little longer for me to get rid of this stuff. So much for the flu shot this year. It is interesting reading on his page too. Verbal said it right. Take care of yourself. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is these comments considered canvassing? I just saw the accusation and I didn't think anything was wrong with this thread, am I wrong? --CrohnieGalTalk 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
They could be considered canvassing (see WP:CANVAS), and it's something to be aware of. I tried to defuse the previous situation during Guido's initial block discussion by contacting his "favourites list", but it's always a judgement call. It's intellectually more honest to use talk pages than untrackable e-mail, but can get you into trouble. I'd just make sure you limited the number of people you contacted (though I do appreciate it). Honestly, I'm not an expert here so I don't have much guaranteed advice to pass along! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I just checked Guido's talk page history, and it looks pretty much like bullshit. If the best he can manage is one person letting me know, and one person telling me something I was already aware of, it's not much of an issue. I do think it's something to be aware of, but not paranoid of. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and reviewing WP:CANVAS, I'd say it's a friendly notice - neutral, limited, nonpartisan & open. Given my contact with GDB and my familiarity with his contribs, it's quite defensible to say it's a friendly notice because I could be expected to enhance a discussion. Calling it inappropriate canvassing is flatly wrong in my opinion.
You sure do like the serial killers Crohnie. Creepy... Face-smile.svg WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think it was since we were all involved in the article at the time. I just told you before I was going to comment and then noticed it was closed already. So I don't think I did anything wrong and neither did Verbal talking here. Yes, I've always read non-fiction books about killings since I was young. I guess I am amazed that people actual think like that. I am very bad at judging people for the most part so I used to read about 'bad' people to remind me that there are bad people. My husband also thinks it's creepy at times! :) Take care, we're under tornado warnings here and my UPS blew up so I'm shutting down now. Need to replace my battey, I miss my UPS. Take care of that cold, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with this thread; I was just missing you guys, and this was the first opportunity to say hi. I'd have commented on ANI if it was open. Verbal chat 19:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think CANVAS is certainly worth attending to, and it's not a bad discussion to have :)
What's UPS? United Postal Service?
I'm glad that the thread shut down without us having to comment at all, the more people endorse the ongoing ban, the more it indicates ongoing community support. And in my mind, Guido's "canvas comment" section is more poor taste than anything. I mean, he's tracking canvassing for a thread that's already closed, how is that anything useful for the project? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
UPS is surge protection, don't remember exactly what the U is for but it's a battery backup for my computer but the battery died so now all it does is make an annoying noise to let me know it's broken! :) Hi Verbal, hope you are well. I've seen you around but I haven't been too active other than some vandal patroling which has been quite busy lately. I suspect tomorrow is going to be a nightmare for the fools who think it's fun to destroy rather than build. It's ashame. Be careful both of you with the new worm that is expected to hit computers tomorrow. Make sure your updated is about the only protection I've heard. Take care, looks like the weather moved further north of me, yea. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Old timer

I see you've been around a while, so I guess you know where to shove put this:

This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.

All the best, I hope it's the right one. Verbal chat 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I needed this! WLU, if you put this somewhere please delete my laughing, I saw your user box too! :) Enjoy, I think you deserve it though! You're one of the good ones here. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks? I think I'll put it on my user page.
And I would like it noted that the only thing that keeps me from a {{SA-senioreditor}} is term of service. Sigh. In August, 2011, if I don't deserve {{SA-tutnumVI}}, I'm quitting.
No seriously, thanks :) I'm a whore for barnstars. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well you deserve it all joking aside, but I have to admit I enjoy fun threads ocassionally. Don't forget the barnstar from me too, you deserve that one too. I probably should have looked around a bit more but wasn't feeling too well so I grabbed the one I had already. Enjoy! As for the title of this thread, I don't know. With my birthday around the corner it's a reminder for aging.. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yours is already in my trophy cabinet, no worries! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What do you mean that the previous RFCU turned up unflagged accounts? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, CheckUsers report all socks of indefblocked editors. In those particular SPI cases, I uncovered additional ResearchEditor socks operating on the same IPs as the socks you listed in the report. If I don't list any additional socks in my CU report, then that means I didn't find any other socks during my check. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi, You changed the pedophilia in books article. I've not read the book myself, but I have read reviews that say it is Eli (a girl) who is the pedophile's object, not the boy Oscar. Are these reviews incorrect? 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Tony

Yup. Read the book, it's really good. My reasoning is below, but hidden in case you read the book.
The reviews are incorrect, Eli is not a girl but is the object of a pedophile's attention. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Autism therapies #Educational interventions is supposed to be listed roughly in order of most-to-least proven. I agree that this is hard (there obviously isn't universal agreement on that order) but I thought it better than alphabetic. Currently the article doesn't list DIR/Floortime mostly because nobody has taken the time to write a reasonable short summary of it. It's a tricky business, as Myers et al. 2007 (PMID 17967921), our most reliable source on autism therapies, doesn't mention DIR/Floortime, Greenspan et al. 2008 (PMID 18381546) complained about this omission, neither I nor anybody else has taken the time to wade through this tricky topic. Eubulides (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Please be fare and leave more than one reference website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:EL and make the case for your external link based on that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not need to make a case. Spend 5 seconds on the website, and you will see. GenXGlow has also made significant contributions within the glowsticking youtube community. see:

Please stop wasting my time, I do not have much time for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Neil Brick

Anyone watch this page? Check out the contributions of Neil Brick on Citizendium - [26]. Anyone who knew ResearchEditor should check out some talk page contributions too, they're pretty similar... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Skeptical Inquirer

Hi. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments, yes you can indeed remove Talk Page material if it does not pertain to improving the article. Article Talk Pages are not forums or message boards, and thus, using them for general discussion of the article's topic is not permitted. You say that some of the material has "merit". In terms of a discussion about the magazine, yes, but in terms of Talk Page guidelines, it has none, since there is no discussion about improving the article in that thread. If, however, you can point where there is mention of improving the article in that section, I'll hold off from removing it again. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't get the context of the original question, and therefore I didn't realize it referred to something in the article. The rest, however, does not. Material relating to the magazine is not appropriate for inclusion on a Talk Page. Since you made a comment to this effect yourself in that thread, I'll let it go. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for that. I thought I'd read something like that before, but I wasn't certain. Alan16 talk 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cathy O'Brien & other fringe figures

Thanks for your input. I'm actually in agreement with you regarding Satanic Panics. O'Brien has pointed to Hammond's speech as proof that she's not nuts. If I can find a reference from a decent source, I'll use that instead. I feel it's important when editing articles about such fringe figures to include material that is supportive of their claims even if that support is in and of itself not proof. At the time of the speech, Hammond's comments were considered remarkable and important. Even though he has backed away from them somewhat, he has stopped short of disavowing the speech. The speech is one of the few examples of "establishment" support for such claims. Clearly I need to find a better way of including it if it's to be included at all. I'll check back with you if I find anything that stands up to scrutiny and I won't include it without talking to you first.

My word, WP:TLDR normally applies. I usually only write this much when I'm bludgeoning a POV account to get them to leave. If O'Brien has pointed to Hammond, then that MUST be sourced to avoid WP:OR. If Hammond has distanced himself, then that should also be sourced, and also means the entry should be considerably shorter. Linking the two without explicity sources makes it a synthesis that we should not use as it makes wikipedia look like it is supporting a conclusion.

I see you have also made some edits to Ralph Rene. His is another article that often gets tipped over towards out and out ridicule of the man. Please help me prevent that article from tipping in that direction in the future if you can. It's easy for some Skeptics to justify savaging elderly or recently deceased conspiracy theorists, but I don't think that serves the Wikipedia purpose any more than an overly indulgent article would. As a "rational skeptic" myself , I feel we have a duty to accurately represent what these folks believed, why they are notable, support for their positions and reasonable criticisms of their theories and/or the support for them. A well-sourced article can speak for itself and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Yes, we should briefly document their beliefs, but we should equally document how actual science does not support them. Fringe theory pages should, to the furthest extent possible with the sources we have, make it clear that the theory itself is not supported and should include reasons why (IMO).

On another matter, I see you have an interest in moral panics. Would you consider taking a look at the following article:Gerald Robinson (priest)?

I'll have a look. Note that [[moral panic|moral panics]] and [[moral panic]]s both render as moral panics. The latter saves you time.

As a folklorist and someone with ties to the Toledo are, I followed this case with interest. At first it was fairly obvious that the priest was the object of a witch hunt. However, Toledo is an odd place. Over the past ten years there have been a number of very public Catholic Pedophile cases and when Robinson was arrested, the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, assigned a reporter whose editorial stance seemed highly antagonistic towards The Church. His reporting gradually focused more and more on increasingly bizarre and tangential accusations of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Most of what he wrote about never made it into the trial but it did have the intended effect of whipping a certain sector of the community into a frenzy. Even so, most people in Toledo were shocked that he was convicted and don't believe the accusations. Locally, the case has been compared to that of the West Memphis 3. The reporter for The Blade apparently already had a book deal in hand before the case was decided and it appears to me (in my humble opinion) that it may have colored his reporting significantly.

Unfortunately without sources there's not much you can do. However, since satanic ritual abuse is a fringe theory, WP:PARITY applies and the bar is somewhat laxer. Is it this Gerald Robinson? This book would also seem to be a good source. Tantalizingly, this book also mentions him. The page does need a re-work, those external links need to be included as inline citations rather than external links (see point 1). Also, it's not mandatory, but citation templates are of considerable help to a reader, particularly to someone reading a print version. And if the link to the WM3 is your own analysis, it's probably also not a good idea (though see also links have a much looser set of criteria for inclusion). Also needs an infobox, probably {{infobox person}}.

All I ask is that you look the article over and decide if there should be a separate article on the crime itself and one for his Bio. That is often what editors do when the crime itself has fantastic elements such as satanism alleged. This way the bio of living persons standards can be applied to the bio article and the crime article can contain all the crazy stuff. If you decide that two articles aren't justified, please just look over the article and see if you can't bring a little balance to it. As it stands now, it reads like this "Evil Satanist priest kills nun and now is properly rotting in jail". I recognize that the man was convicted of the murder and that belongs in his bio. He may even be guilty of the crime. The thing is, the satanism stuff is almost all coming from one reporter. The jury didn't convict him of being a satanist or for being part of a vast satanic conspiracy, ya know? They only convicted him of murder.

Considering the page is solely about the murder and there's virtually no detail about Robinson himself, the page should really be called Toledo Mercy Hospital murder case or something similar. IMO neither Robinson nor Pahl deserve a separate page if all they are notable for is being killed. WP:BLP also applies. The only way to bring balance to the article is to review hte sources and include information they contain on why people don't think he's actually guilty. Sometimes it's not possible.

If you don't have time for this, I understand. I merely thought you might be of some assistance given your recent edits. Thanks for reading and have a great weekend!LiPollis (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. My overall advice, is to read up on WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE and the other generic policies. In general, I don't need to invoke WP:IAR to improve a page on satanic ritual abuse, because there's a lot of skepticism and skeptical sources. I'll try to look into it, but it's a new topic and it'll take some reading to get up to speed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your note on the ID talk page

Your comment here was at the very least BITEy. I see no sign of trolling in the guy's posts. Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, if it's a WP:SPA I'm not super concerned and if it's a throwaway account they won't be back. Either way, it's too vague to do anything with that I can see. I've dealt with soooo many fundie trolls on the evolution pages that I've very little patience for them. I know what the arguments are, I know what the replies are going to be, and I don't like going through the same dance every time. If they turn out to be a solid contributor over the long term, I'll apologize. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Robinson (priest)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at that article. the two books you linked to are in fact, about the case. The second book you linked to by David Yonke will not likely be a good source NPOV facts. He's the reporter from the Toledo Blade. His writing leans in favor of Satanic Ritual Abuse and satanic conspiracies. However, his book is likely to contain more direct information on the trial since he covered that beat. The first book looks to be a typical lurid true crime book cranked out to coincide with the release of Yonke's book. The author, John Glatt, is as true-crime writer who pumps books like this on a regular basis. He doesn't usual have any direct involvement in the cases he writes about.

The most helpful comment you have made is to point out that the article really ought to be renamed. Your proposed name sounds fine to me and I would support your making the change. That would solve the immediate problem of the POV issues in a BLP article. Going ahead with the name change would put the focus on the crime itself and make it much easier to introduce facts about the case. In the event that you want to do some reading, Court TV's article is a good place to start. It's a good representation of the lurid nature of the reporting on the crime and the case at is progressed. Here's the link: Killer Clergy.

Thanks again for everything. I'm not a Wiki novice but I've not had a lot of time to edit in the past year. I've gotten a little rusty. Also, when an article is just thoroughly troubled, it's often hard to know where to begin! Thanks again. LiPollis (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Drunk. Will reply later. 01:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You always begin with the sources. If the Toledo Blade is very biased, use it for factual and that's it. Supplement with info from other sources that are more skeptical. Anyway, I'm not really that interested in expanding the page, I may review the extant online sources and see if there are any low-hanging fruit to pick but if you really think it's problematic, the best thing is to change the page yourself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the info. I'll remember it next time, and avoid wasting my time on debates where people have made up their minds and are not planning on changing any time soon. I've started this one though, so I'll see it through to the now somewhat inevitable result. Thanks. Alan16 talk 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, part of learning wikipedia is learning when you're banging head against a deletion debate you can't win. I've been through it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Non Sequitur


I am interested to hear the reasons that led you to think that the connection between interest (emotion) and attention is an example of Non sequitur (logic). Diff -

I might as well misunderstood the revert you made.

Perhaps you think there is a connection, but you didn't like the way it was illustrated in the text you reverted? In that case, for the purpose of better illustrating the connection perhaps you might want to formulate something like this: "This however does not happen unrelated to emotions and their intensity levels. The more one finds oneself intensively interested in particular content of another person's conversation, while at the same time one finds the third persons conversations' contents much less interesting, the more - if not entirely exclusively - one finds one's own attention getting concentrated on one conversation only, or - in the other case - the more one can find one's own attention being shared among other, not so interesting conversations, or other not so interesting aspects of one's environment at the time, and/or withdrawn and directed instead at one's own thoughts/memories/plans/etc, not paying attention to what's being said." I wonder if such formulation makes sense to you, or it should be re-formulated furtherly yet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. The lead is meant to summarize the text in the main body of the page. This is a large dump of information about a different topic (interest and the cocktail party effect) in the lead of attention. This should be written, and sourced, in the body text, then briefly summarized in the lead. Even a brief paragraph filled with examples that are tangentially related to the topic at hand is inappropriate. It is also unsourced, looks a lot like original research, is full of examples, just barely avoids WP:TONE through the use of "one" instead of "you", and is really only one small part of all of what attention is. If you are truly interested in "interest" becoming part of the lead, I would suggest writing an appropriate section in the body before placing a suitably short section in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate

I would like to ask you if you would like to look and give your opinion on the new Articles for deletion proposal for FreeOrion. I wrote a new version article and I would like to ask you if you could vote on it FreeOrion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeOrion (3rd nomination). Thank you! Peer-LAN (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd be better off looking for sources than you would be soliciting support. Also, please WP:ATA and WP:AFD - one does not vote for a deletion debate, one presents one's opinion on the notability of the entity. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have time to tell me why do you think a game with such notability over fifty thousand google results (more then 70% of wikipedia articles get) deserve such a harsh treatment. I'm just so sad :(. There was no need to be so offensive with that comment btw, but do as you wish... Peer-LAN (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:GHITS. I am curt because I've dealt with this before and after a while you just get tired of it. If you really want help, look into the links and policies I've provided. Articles get kept or deleted on the basis of sources, not on emotional appeals. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was just being honest. I can't see how notability is suddenly so strict here, what exactly are this sources? Payed computer magazines... what? It got the popularity... anyway :(... can you please tell me what salt means. Peer-LAN (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You are providing your opinion. Since others' opinions will be different, the decision is made based on how people ultimately compare the page as is to the criteria laid out in WP:WEB (possibly a different guideline, but overall WP:N is the most comprehensive). Popularity, like google hits, are more or less meaningless. That's why we rely on the sources instead.
See WP:SALT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok... so I wrote this article from scratch as good and clear as I could, just to see it all ending in an even worst situation then it was before... ok... I'm going outside. I'll just stop making before I'll make it worst... damn I suck. Bye Peer-LAN (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Saving the article is a simple matter. Find mention of it in an appropriate reliable source. If it does get deleted, ask the deleting admin for a copy of the article to userfy to a sub-page. Wait for an appropriate source to come out, integrate it into the sub-page, then ask the deleting admin (or another admin active on AFD) to review for notability and re-create the page for you. From there, you can edit as normal. Notability is about an article existing or not, not about what can be said in the article. So, once notability is established, the article can discuss (carefully) topics that are not discussed in reliable sources. It's more complicated than that, but there's your starting point. Before all else, the article needs some indication of notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems you might need a little pick up so....

Hi, lurking as usual, check your email, maybe it will help a bit. To others lurking, this email has absolutely nothing to do with the project in anyway. I hope you enjoy it ;), --CrohnieGalTalk 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a WP:TALK violation, and I'll continue to be mean until I get a reciprocal barnstar (I hope there isn't actually a "reciprocal barnstar", I dread to think what the image is of... Verbal chat 17:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh, I'll send it over to you so you too can hopefully have one too! --CrohnieGalTalk 17:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you too check your email. Enjoy! Hey I don't get too many barnstars but hey I don't really do that much to get them! ;) Oh well, at least I do try to keep my humor in times of need.  :)--CrohnieGalTalk 17:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That'll teach me to demand barnstars with menaces. Verbal chat 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'll look.
One way to avoid a reciprocal barnstar - Dutch rudder. I'm not sure what it would involve on wikipedia, but I'm sure a way exists.
Actually, I'm in a pretty good mood (bar an Earth Day incident totally unrelated to wikipedia), I'm just in a hurry and as the edit notice says at the top of the page, "read the policies". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I hope the two of you enjoyed it. :) A Dutch rudder barnstar? I think I deserve a rubber ducky one! :) You weren't too testy, I just thought you could use something light hearted to break the patterns of editing here. What I sent reminded me of the Octo-mom. That's where my brain was at anyways. Take care both of you, it does me good for some light hearted humor at times too. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Information.svg Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talkcontribs)

Oops, thanks for the note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
An admin has sorted it out, so don't worry. --neon white talk 09:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypnosis external link

Hi. I was interested that you removed the external link on the Hypnosis page to As far as I can tell it meets the external link guidelines and provides referenced information that contains too much detail to be easily incorporated into the main page. Any chance you could have another look? MatWhalley (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For one thing you would be adding it in conflict of interest since it's your site. For another, if you recieved your PhD in 2004, you're still a bit early, and your publication record a bit sparse, to really be considered an expert at wikipedia (I count at most 7 on PubMed - PMID 19057896, PMID 18653363, PMID 18614265, PMID 17910905, PMID 17267923, PMID 16793207, and PMID 15325387; it's more than me - none - but you're not Nicholas Spanos yet). It's still a personal web page (see WP:ELNO point 11) which is my main objection. But you can argue your case that it is appropriate. I have a suggestion - I am usually a hardass about stuff like this and your case is a borderline one. I would suggest posting a note on the talk page soliciting others' opinions. If several other editors agree that it is a good resource, I'll bow to consensus and add it myself if need be (but please don't canvas). If you get no interest whatsoever, I would suggest a request for comment or third opinion in a couple of days in order to force the issue. When making your case, pretty much your only chance would be to demonstrate that you are in fact sufficiently expert to rate the exception - in which case you might pass WP:BIO and could have a wikipedia page written on you). Doing a PhD on a subject usually makes you an expert, but perhaps not quite the expert required for WP:EL.
In the mean time, your expertise would be well appreciated expanding and referencing the page with reliable sources (including your own publications in scientific journals so long as you don't go crazy and if you are on one side of an expert dispute, use the page to promote only that side).
Another suggestion would be to approach the good people at the DMOZ (already linked in the EL section of hypnosis) and submit your site for inclusion. Their inclusion guidelines appear much laxer than ours, but I'm not sure what is exactly involved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I've added a question on the talk page. I think we had this same debate about a year ago but didn't get many replies from editors ('Links' section on this page). I take your points about it being a conflict of interest for me to add it, and about it being a personal web page - but the reason I started the site is because I'm genuinely passionate about people knowing more about hypnosis research and I honestly don't know any other way of doing it. As far as being an expert goes I'm certainly not Nicholas Spanos (that's setting the bar pretty high!) but I am an expert in the hypnosis neuroimaging sub-section of the field. I'll certainly have a go at adding references to the Wikipedia page in the meantime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatWhalley (talkcontribs) 14:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
As an FYI, generally diffs are better than permalinks, and you can also link using wikilinks - [[Talk:Hypnosis#Links]] renders as Talk:Hypnosis#Links - rather than using the history. I use diffs if I want a specific comment or edit to stand out (you'll see why once you use them), permalinks are generally somewhat less useful. To capture a conversation, you're best to link direct to the subheading in the page, if it's still there, or in the archive.
If you're really keen on hypnosis, you can't do worse than reviewing, editing, sourcing and generally adding expert scrutiny to the hypnosis pages on wikipedia. Extremely high visibility, and as an academic (former academic?) you'll have access to and awareness of all the reliable sources you'll ever need. One thing academics do seem to hate is the inability to comment (which would be original research). If you want a venue where expertise is welcome and you are allowed to discuss non-published comments, Citizendium uses real-name editing, registration-only editing and accounts, and does allow limited commentary from relevant experts. You will have to deal with douchebags, sockpuppets, vandalism and POV-pushers on wikipedia, but some manage it quite well. If you wanted to edit here for the long-term, you'd probably end up being the uncontested expert on hypnosis. We don't get many experts.
Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) to produce a signature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Frederick_Crews.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Frederick_Crews.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

E-mails have been sent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Minuscules are also codices. Mojority of codices are written in minuscule hand. I do not understand this edit. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert, but MOS:DAB states that links are not to be piped. Feel free to get rid of the headings if you don't think they are useful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1) Philosophica, 2) Theologica, 3) Mesoamerican codices (currently only one), 4) Other. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but feel free to be bold and make the changes you feel appropriate. I'm not an expert and I am not certain that my sections were an improvement. If you know they were not, then please correct them Face-smile.svg WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The document housed at the Austrian National Library at Vienna. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the link. I didn't realize someone had a nice explanation already summarized. --MartinezMD (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves

...nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis...

Why don't you trot off to the fringe theories noticeboard and have them bowdlerize the article, making it accord with your determination and POV summary. 'Sheesh! cygnis insignis 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being cranky, er... I mean that in the primary sense: irritable or grouchy :-) Regards, cygnis insignis 08:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


I'll comment; in the future, do ask at WP:PWNB. It's not only admins who can help with this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning in content dispute

It appears that the warning you issued to User: was part of a content dispute. Please be careful to only assign vandalism templates (you used {{uw-vandalism1}}) when there is actually WP:Vandalism - good-faith edits, even if they harm the encyclopedia, are not vandalism. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The removal of sourced information for no good reason is pretty close to vandalism as far as I'm concerned but reviewing the warnings, {{uw-npov1}} and a bit of expansion would probably have been a better choice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you are very policy driven

I think your thoughts might be very useful at Talk:Internet homicide#Name. I thought of you because 1, you are uninvolved and 2, you are extremely policy driven which in this case might be well served. If you are interested pop over. If not, as usual, just ignore. :)

On a different note, I hope you are well. Things here are about the same but I see a neurosurgeon this week and I have high hopes that I will get some simple help with things. I know, I am opening the door to being let down, depressed and frustrated. I'll email when and if I learn anything new. You take care, I'm off to go lie down again. My heating pad is my best friend these days. Thanks, and be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That looks like the brewing of a messy fight. Hm...if there are a series of notable murders that happened because of meeting someone on the internet, it seems like the smart option would be to have a separate article for each one that is notable, and perhaps a list of the less notable and a couple {{main}}. Flatly, for me if you can't find the name in a reliable source on a search engine, it shouldn't be here. Really, the only thing linking these murders together are the use of the internet, right? How is it therefore related as a topic? I'm not sure it is. But that's a lot of reading for something I'm not really interested in.
Glad you're talking to a doc, but I wish it could be more promising. I don't envy anyone with an obscure condition and long medical history, it makes recovery to perfect health almost impossible :( The human body is an amazing and complicated thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yea I'm afraid with the different editors there it's going to get messy. The problem is that the editor who initiated this article also wrote a few more in just a few days during a problem apparently starting at Craigs list. The editor is also a journalist and if I understand correctly, she writes about things in this area and this article is to coin a new term to use. If you just look at the article though, the refs fail and badly. I did a search of Internet homicide and internet killer and I can't find anything to support this article with WP:RS without breaching core policies. I am not the only one having this problem either. What I see as another problem is the use of inclusionist by editors. Now I've seen talk about editors who are inclusionist and do whatever they can to make sure things don't get removed even if they should be. This is the first time though that I have interacted with them and boy are there a lot of words to read. It's kind of overwhelming for me right now that I am just watching. I may weigh in again after a few of them slow down a bit so that what I say, or for that matter anyone else says, doesn't get flooded away with long rambling posts. I just thought that you are one editor who is a stickler for policy in a positive way for the project that you might be able to bring more focus on policy norms. I do understand though if you want to pass on this one, I may too. :) I am going to watch for another day or two but if it keeps going the way it has been I'll be unwatching it. It is involving a bunch of other articles that I am not even aware of nor have I read. But I can get a taste of how many by just some of the postings on the talk page.
My health surely doesn't seem like it going to get better anytime soon if at all. My health keeps getting worse with the immunne system shutting itself down it seems but hopefully my next appt the doc will have something to tell me to help me out. This has gotten so old already. I mean just typing this actually is painful to do. :( I'll let you know offline when I get any info. Thanks my friend, take care of yourself, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know, you have an email from me which has nothing to do with the project. It's apparrent I will be going on wikibreak here soon, the email tells you why. I sure could use some good thoughts about now, I guess I am getting a little worried now. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

I've made the case here indicating some of the imbalance I'm seeing in the Aquatic ape hypothesis article. Can you do a considered response? It strikes me that the arguments for AAH are excluded, while many of the counter arguments we're quoting are really quite feeble - or down-right wrong. I can provide more examples than what I've done so far, but here's another - Morgan makes a powerful claim (that we don't include) "Only two kinds of environment are known to be conducive to nakedness in mammals - a totally subterranean one, like that of the naked Somalian mole-rat, and an aquatic one" - and the article pretends to counter it with "most similarly-sized aquatic mammals have dense, insulating fur ... swim very well". We can't solve this argument, but neither should we be erecting (or allowing others to erect) straw-man arguments that bear no relation to the theory. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:OR - what counts is not what we think of an argument, it is what the reliable sources say. We do not get to challenge or support a theory directly. Morgan's status as a popular publisher with no real academic support or scholarly credibility. She bypassed scientific press and peer review by using a popular publisher. In cases like these, there is a significant limit of what can be claimed; this is a fringe theory within mainstream science and not really considered credible. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying hard not to apply any form of my own research to the arguments - what I'm saying is that the article is seriously deficient, excluding good arguments in favour while presenting, supposedly in the "neutral voice" rather bad arguments against. It's not OR to say "this is an AAH argument we can cover" nor to say "this is an argument that looks as if it's a snipe and doesn't address any of the issues".
Nor is it OR to say that Morgan has a firm grasp of how much can be discovered from fossils and how they can mislead. It might be OR to compare Morgan directly with Darwin, but she does point out that the naturalists were ignored repeatedly - that's an argument easily powerful enough to be included if, as seems to be happening, specialists from one discipline oppose claims from another. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
So find and cite the appropriate sources. If you're not sure, check at the fringe theories, reliable sources or neutral point of view noticeboards. If the page is deficient in arguments, the appropriate action is to find the arguments in good sources and expand the page based on them. It is OR (and POV) for us to say Morgan has a firm grasp, but we could cite someone else who says this as well. If the AAH is well-embraced by mainstream scholars, per WP:UNDUE it should be easy to find good references to this fact on google scholar, pubmed, google books, etc. The limiting factor is, and always should be the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
We've got the appropriate sources, the world expert on AAH. We've got criticism for which we don't provide the original statements - in some cases because, as best I can tell, because the original statements don't say what one might suppose of them. Most of all, we have a badly written article that won't satisfy anyone (other than a rabid hater of AAH), and certainly not satisfy anyone seeking to understand the topic. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If the "world expert on the AAH" you are referring to is Morgan, then she is most certainly not an expert. She is not a paleontologist, she has no university position, her works are not published by academic press, and though referred to by peer-reviewed journals, the substance of supporting and refuting the work does not rely on her analyses. At best, her works could be used to give her ideas on the subject, framed solely as "Morgan has said..." followed by a brief summary. The substantive arguments for and against the AAH must come from peer reviewed journals and books published by university-press and other academic publishers. The AAH page should simply be used to give the mainstream academic opinion of the AAH, whether for good or bad. From my understanding, it is not generally accepted. If you want confirmation, try asking at the fringe theories noticeboard - your edit count is less than 500, so you probably aren't as familiar with the relevant policies and mores as some of the more experienced editors. We can give voice to minority opinions, but it is important that we give more weight to the relevant scholarly opinion. To expand the page in a substantive way, please be sure to use the best sources you can find, which means scholarly press rather than popular press. Per our policy on undue weight, the emphasis on the page should be placed on acceptance by scholars, not popular audiences. Accordingly, if you are portraying the AAH as proven, accepted or meritorious, make sure you can source it to academic, peer-reviewed journals and books. If you're not sure, a lot of the publishing houses have wikipedia pages that can tell you what sort of quality to expect, or you can ask for an opinion on the reliable sources noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Mediation's been started on a Mediation Cabal case where you have been listed. I'd appreciate it if you and the parties involved show up and we can solve this issue. Concrete 22:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)