User talk:WLU

your economics question

that you put in the economics project- I do not know if you have had it sufficiently answered - If you have I would like to see the answer, please respond - it would be nice if you would put a message over in my talk page.--Kiyarrllston 18:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, your sig makes it two whole steps to find your talk page. I'm outraged.

See here, but the real response was on the talk page above where you commented. I believe that's the only place where it was answered and my original question was motivated by a conflict of interest concern that I could not address due to a lack of experience. You may want to discuss this with User:Guido_den_Broeder, who was the COI party that added it in the first place (note that I've a far from smooth relationship with GDB and my quite biased opinion is that he is problematic to deal with as I believe he fails to acknowledge that his COI could in some way impact his editing). There may have been been other answers that I can't recall right now, if I remember them I'll post them.

Personally I'm content to let others deal with the issue because I'm ignorant - if someone familiar with economics says that the sources are appropriate, I'm content to leave it. I've no idea if they're fairly represented.

Incidentally, on your wikiproject posting along with one other editor your indent is off, making it twitchy to tell who says what. Not hard, just twitchy. Which is probably ungrammatical in addition to being nonsensical. Hope you don't mind, I've corrected it. WLU (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, thanks. I think I improved my sig in terms of the problem you described even though I understand you meant it humorously.

I was under the impression that the indents worked like a table of contents, therefore only to indent when responding to a question, therefore allowing threads, and... I see how this might not actually work.

Thanks for the edition on the wikiproject postings, Much clearer in fact.

I found your actions in regard COI very proper, I just wish I could either discredit or understand that passage you quoted.

How do you like my style of response? I generally like to re post the entire thing on both talk pages (which makes for a better read afterwards - if for too much room occupied.

--Kiyarrlls-talk 17:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to reply here - it is too complicated to switch to your window for a reply after reading your comment. Normally I'd bounce back and forth but meh.

Regards your signature, you can have pretty much whatever you want, but when it's different from your actual user name, it makes it harder for new users (and those who encounter you for the first time) to connect comments on the talk page with user pages and identities - it's a concern I've seen expressed somewhere. It's not something that's huge, but it may be a concern. Were I to adjust my sig, I'd keep the same name but modify it via colour, font, size, etc. But that's me, don't worry about it too much. I do think that making the talk part clearer is an improvement for me.

Indents work in almost all cases I can think of with experienced contributors at the level of a new post. Each new post added indents one colon more than the one above. Once it's ridiculously far over, put an {undent} or some other signal to indicate the discussion continues but you're respacing. Much easier to follow. There used to be a trend of every editor picking an indent but that seems to have gone by the wayside.

Alerting other editors is usually an idiosyncratic thing. In my experience only one reply is needed. If communicating in real-time, I usually bounce back and forth. If not, I usually post on a single page. If it's mine, I get a message, if it's someone else's and important, I make a point of checking the appropriate talk page. No real hard rules, it usually works - once you find something that works, stick with it.

The passage is from types of unemployment I believe, so you can check it for yourself if you'd like, as well as check out the lengthy discussion on the talk page of that section. WLU (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

[1] I didn't know this kind of secrecy happened here. Apparently no one knew what was happening that involved themselves until the closing and sanctioning, kind of scary to me. Anyways, I thought maybe you would be interested since I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of talk about this for some time to come. If not interested, of course ignore and delete. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really scary - I'm sure OrangeMarlin knew about the process, but the rest of the community might have been excluded or contacted on a need-to-ask basis only. (untrue, and would be quite troubling were the outcome and circumstances not so banal) I am very, very unsurprised that OM had this happen to him/her (conventionally going to be a he now). He's habitually rude and abrasive to people that disagree with him. Being right isn't the same thing as given free reign to be rude, and that's more what this is about I think. I regret the loss of a dedicated and knowledgeable contributor, but don't regret the loss of someone who comports themselves far out of keeping with WP:CIVIL in the process of contributing. Arbitration is usually reasonable from my experiences and readings and the ruling back my opinion I think - both parties were admonished, OM wasn't even blocked for a short time. Basically he broke the community's tolerance for rudeness and was slapped on the wrist. Since he adhered to the letter of the 'important' (i.e. content, edit warring) policies and guidelines, there was no block. Since he broke the spirit of the community guidelines, he was rebuked. I hope he comes back with a more polite approach, but I doubt it. I also hope that editors with a similar approach (I'm thinking of one in particular) will see this and adjust accordingly (though I doubt it because again, since the 'punishment' is symbolic and in my mind gives the impression that if you're rude, as long as you don't break the 'important' guidelines and can edit according to the letter of content rules, it's OK).

OM's behaviour was tolerated for a long time, I'm certain because he understood sourcing, had sources to back up an extreme (skeptical) point of view and could play the game. But being right doesn't mean you can be rude, only that you can be rude for longer than a blatant spammer.

Anyway, I don't know much about it, I don't really think it vital to invest the time, and I don't think you should worry either. I like to think we both take the TimVickers approach of firm without name-calling or deliberate provocation (most of the time in my case, I can be a bit of a dick and I'm thinking of a specific talk page) and we both know what a reliable source is, why it is important to use them, and the difference between verifiability and truth. OM was quite sure he had truth and luckily for him science backed him up, but that's still not a stick to beat people with.

I do love to ramble. Arbcom plays by its own rules, but it does have them and it does play by them. I'm not going to worry about it, I've too many sources to slog through.

Note that I'm a bit uncomfortable in my charicature of OM's behavior and I don't think I've enough evidence to prove my assertions. I may even redact this in the future. But don't worry, be nice and you should be OK. WLU (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I was not informed about this. Second, I do not have an extreme point of view. Removing references to Ginko curing Alzheimer's disease from the article could hardly be considered extreme. Otherwise, you might be right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple qualifiers - I know you have the outcome hanging over your head and your preferred blunt (in a sense of uncomplicated and true to your feelings, not pejorative sense) mode of communication is unlikely to be present. I haven't read most of the evidence or followed the diffs, I've only really read the verdict. Further, I've not interacted with you across your full range of interests so I've a limited sample of interactions with you. That being said:

• The verdict in your 'secret trial' was a slap on the wrist. You're not blocked from editing, only from being rude. Your co-accused was given a similar admonishment (but less so I realize, I'm painting in broad strokes). And in my experience you are rude and hostile, to the point that I've ceased editing some of the pages that you are a regular on (a small number but true in principle and in part because I'm pretty sure my input is unneeded because someone who agrees with my position and knows more than me is on board).
• You know your policies and you know your scholarly sources. A good source and understanding of the policies are in most cases sufficient to promote good editing and a sound research basis as well as deal with the nuts.
• The verdict demonstrates great tolerance for editors that edit according to the core content policies - it didn't block you despite an approach that incites conflict. It does demonstrate that civility and adhering to the policies in spirit is important (though obviously less so than adhering to the content and sourcing guidelines). I see the verdict as symbolic and a gesture as much (or more) than it is an arbcom finding. A lot of the skeptics use the skeptical position to lord over the nutters (and I've done so myself). It's rude, it's unnecessary (I've rarely found that a policy and a source are inadequate for dealing with a dispute; the noticeboards work in the skeptics favour as well) it invites, incites and accelerates acrimony.
• I hope you don't leave wikipedia. Your expertise is obvious and very valuable. Your knowledge of policies is also good (even if I'm not to keen on how you use that knowledge at times and think it's unnecessary). I think imposing a mentor is stupid and somewhat insulting - you are certainly experienced enough to be able to interact more civilly, it's not a lack of understanding that makes your tone what it is.
• I will say that how the arbcom approached this is...unusual...[2] and hopefully it will be cleared up and result in positive changes.
• And finally, who the hell am I to say anyways? I've only interacted with you on a small number of pages, I've not read the verdict or evidence and I'm not an admin; since I rarely have a need to edit pages you are active on 'cause I'm generally of the same opinion we rarely see each other. These are only my opinions and I'm not saying they are valid. They certainly aren't going to change anything and I hope if you disagree you are willing to let it wither as the opinions of no consequence by someone of little consequence.

Incidentally, did you arrive at my page due to this post? Otherwise I'm curious how you heard of it - the curiosity of all wikiholics, simply to know rather than as an agenda. It may mean that a heady few are watching my talk page and I find that outrageously flattering. WLU (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi WLU and OrangeMarlin, I am concerned and trying to keep up with this for many reasons. First off, though I have not interacted with OM that I remember though maybe I have briefly, I really don't know. But I have watched the past stuff like the 'White Pride' controversy. I agree with OM on the usage of this and being Jewish myself I understand his reactions esp. if he has ever been attacked because of being Jewish (I think I remember correctly that you are also Jewish, sorry if I am wrong.) Though OM could have stated himself in a more civil manner with editors, it's also a very emotional reaction that if you have been hurt or attacked or lost family members, either physically or emotionally, to react with uncivil and emotional behavior. I have experienced all so I stayed out of the comments going on at AN/I because my own POV would probably have been uncivil too and as I hope you know by now I do try to stay civil at all times.

From trying to follow what is going on so far I can say that 1st, no one was notified about this ARB until yesterday when that page was posted, no one, not even Jimbo.[3] 2) Now it seems that the decision might be based on one ARB member and that the decision given was not a unanimous decision of the arbiter's as originally stated, this I find to be un-wiki to say the least. 3) If it is true as an arbiter states here [4] then this whole matter would seem to fall into WP:Harrassment, WP:Civility and of course other policies. I just think this whole situation if left unabated, which is unlike to occur, will leave everyone who edits here open to a secret decision without the ability to state the opposing facts against those who are accusing, esp. since this case seems to have bad blood and a lot of history that I don't know about and don't want to know. To me the important thing for this project and what I so love with this site is the open and ability of 'all' to be able to say what they want no matter what kind of editor they are (Admins. vs. arbiters vs. the everyday editor). WLU, as you know by now I don't get passionate about things like this and I think this is really the first time I actually feel strongly about something like this. I think this whole mess is a horrible way to help the project; it only hurts it in my opinion. Editors should not be able to use back doors like this to remove anyone that they have bad blood with. This is what I feel is happening here right now. I hope I am not saying anything rudely or disruptly but I really have strong feelings right now about this. I am actually considering whether this is the kind of place I want to spend so much time at if the five pillars mean so little. I could go on and post more diffs about what others have said about this but if you look at OM talk page you will see a lot of how the community is reacting to this. This being said, I do not agree with OM on how aggressive he is when he edits is some that I have seen. I too think that the evidence shown on the ARB decision shows horrendous incivility but there are administrators stating all over the place that though they didn't agree with how OM did this or that, they were upset that their names were used to support this whole thing but that the info supplied was out of context and thus maybe cherry picked to show him in the most horrible light then actually was meant. Sorry this is turning into babble and a venting of sorts. As I said earlier, for some reason this touched me, and hard, thus also leaving me very upset so far with how this was handled. Hopefully the editor who announces this is back from the movies so he can try to explain things, and hopefully more of the arbiters will come out and respond to help clarify all of this. I have not, at this time posted to any of the many conversations going on. The reason I haven't is because right now is not a good time for me to add my opinions because my own rule is not to post when emotions are in the way. I hope I am making sense here. Sorry for the babble again but I have this dire need for some reason for you to understand why this seems so important to me. I know I will never need to worry about this kind of situation for myself but I sure can think of a bunch of editors that are really good for the project who could get drawn in easily to something like this and have the same outcome, another editor leaving that for the most part is an asset to the project and the community. I am not either of those, other than being extremely polite for the most part, I really don't have the knowledge and ability to be an editor that excels more than what I do now. Anyways thanks for listening to me, I feel a little better now. ;)

OM, I hope you continue to stay with the project. May I suggest that maybe a little less emotional responses in some area would be better for you and the project in total. Usually the racism is caught and dealt with appropriately withou having to sink to their level with uncivil comments. Maybe a little sarcasm would work! :) I personally believe that shooting from the hip and being honest is better but with policies in place, we all need to follow them and if any of us do not like certain policies then try to change them in the proper venue. I hope I haven't bored anyone to tears by now. This is really a long response, which is really uncommon by me. Have a good, healthy weekend to everyone!--CrohnieGal^Talk 15:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC) PS: I wrote so much that I am too lazy to look for errors, let me know if I screwed up please! ;)

Removal of lead section template

I notice that you removed the {{tooshort}} template, either accidentally or deliberately, from talk:intelligence. The lead remains too short and I have restored the template. If you did it on purpose, please stop - it's annoying. Richard001 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the template on the main page after Ward removed it from the talk page. WLU (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Try again

My computer took on a mind of it's own this morning and hubby fixed it. A button got stuck on my scanner and took control! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sent one to you to make sure things here are working again. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it a bit later. WLU (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok no rush. I will be gone for most of the day starting around 11:30 so take you time. I just hope you're not upset with me about something. If you are, don't hesitate to let me know so I can fix it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good morning WLU, it is here anyways, are you still having troubles getting to me or did you just change your mind? No problems I'm sure but just checking. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Naw, my editing is reduced significantly due to real-life issues. Plus a short attention span, I don't even remember what I was talking about. I'll look into it now. WLU (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Hi I got them, 2 of them. I did respond to just let you know I received them. If you would, would you copy the headers and email them to me? I want my husband to see it to see what is going on. If you can't do it directly, I gave you my email address and also you should be able to copy/paste it as a response to my email that would be helpful to me so I can figure out what the heck my computer is up to now. It's like it has a mind of it's own lately. I will respond soon. Did you get the email I sent back to you? I hope so, this is driving me crazy to be honest! Since you are having a time, like me, with real-life issues and concentration I will send something to you to hopefully give you a smile! --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I responded to your last comments on my talk page though my edit summary says respnded or some other nonsense.  :) I'm getting tired as you can tell since here I am telling you I responded at my talk and I am chatting over here anyways! :) Well I have a clean oven and clean silverware plus a clean kitchen with all the time I've been putzing around on the computer. Not too bad for me! --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Linguistics

The controversy has re-started. Please have a look at the talk page. There's not a single thing that has been unsourced or uncited. Yet, they want to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supriyya (talk • contribs)

I'd suggest you take it up with them on the relevant talk page. WLU (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User vandalism

Thanks for your message. I'd give the editor a final warning (all warnings had been deleted from their page) so I would have ARVd them pretty soon anyway. I found it amusing that they were trying to accuse me of unconstructive editing - but I've seen it all before. Also, I believe I'd already placed a refactoring (or similar) template on their page - the revision history shows how messy it got over the last couple of hours. Anyway - thanks for helping out - it's 02:10 am so I'm gonna get some sleep! Booglamay (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I really could use your opinion here

[5] I have reverted once and don't like to do a second revert on my for obvious reasons. Would you look in at this and tell me, or the article, if all those links follow WP:EL? I mean like the first one looks like it is not WP:RS and looks more like a blog to me but of course I could be wrong. But basically the links just added is nonsense to me. I don't want to try to sway your opinions one way or the other so would you mind taking the time to go through the links too? I would appreciate the help and your opinions on this matter, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)