User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 3

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


Assessment, Hospice care in the United States

Per your invitation, ping. :) (Forgive me if I'm pinging too soon, please. I'm excited about this one, since I love to see new contributors dive in like this.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just posted my comments and congratulations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Whatamidoing (did I get that right?) anyway, I do not know what Wiki protocol demands regarding your comments about coming to terms with death v. terminal illness. So, I guess I would say if you feel strongly about it I am fine with changing it back, and with that being said I would still re-state my thoughts that from the standpoint of a clinical and therapeutic relationship with a hospice patient that the phrase "coming to terms with your death" would not likely be used. How about coming to term with dying? Again, I don't know how big an issue this is considered. Thanks for your feedback.Tbolden (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for the delayed response: I've been offwiki for a few days. Wikipedia protocol demands that you make a good decision in the end; if that means rejecting my first suggestion, then please do so. I think I like your suggested phrase "coming to terms with dying" better than any previous proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen

Hello. Please see the above page as there has been a change in mediator and state whether or not you accept the new mediator. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Brown-Sequard Syndrome

Please advise what part of Brown-Sequard syndrome article is irrelevant or superfluous. Unless you are ready to make a concrete suggestion, placing tags on a well written article is not helpful. I am a spinal surgeon with 30 years experience, and I would imagine the fact that you have tagged this article indicates you have either no knowledge of the subject or only a superficial one. Be that as it may, please advise. I also have a law degree and have considerable experience as an editor to a medical-legal journal. As such, I would take issue with your placing the tag in what appears to be a willy-nilly fashion, based on some whim or superficial impression you may have formed. Perhaps you are one of those editors who insist that Wikipedia be written on a junior high level. That doesn't really help reach the goal of "making the world's knowledge available to all", as the founder of Wiki has espoused. Brown-Sequard syndrome is rare. Therefore the examples are also rare. There is no way to describe the syndrome without citing rare cases. Please advise, or remove the tag. A E Francis (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on the article's talk page, although I would have thought that the {{examplefarm}} template was perfectly clear: The article contains an excessive number of examples.
You may want to consider the recommendations of both WP:Encyclopedic style and WP:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), but the basic advice I have for you is that no medical condition, no matter how rare, requires nineteen individual case histories to be presented in detail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read your comments. Your conclusion that 19 examples is excessive appears to be an invention you have made up. It does not appear anywhere in the style pages you have provided. But that is beside the point. Please tell me which of the examples you think are superfluous and I will consider removing them. I am not persuaded by your vague, ill-defined notion that 19 examples is too many. If you think the wording or writing style could be improved, please do so. Placing a tag because you think 19 examples is too many, without anything more than a "gut feeling" is unreasonable and unwarranted. Please tell me which examples should be eliminated. A E Francis (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am taking your comments under advisement and will be revising the article as you have suggested. A E Francis (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to work on Brown-Sequard to reduce the amount of information. Give me a few days to get it done. There probably are too many words! A E Francis (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Acute myeloid leukemia

Thanks for your recent contribution to this article. I have no quibbles about changing around some of the wording, but you've inadvertently deleted part of an important detail. Namely, (1) mathematical calculations predicted the project would need much deeper sequence than is conventional (you kept this), and (2) the project did indeed require more than twice the conventional amount of sequence (you evidently deleted this). The current form of the text leaves the reader hanging on this second very important point, especially since subsequent sequencing projects will now largely follow the same deeper-sequence experimental design. It would be wonderful if you would consider restoring point number (2) in wording you consider to be acceptable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

I don't think that any of this is important in an article about AML, and I seriously thought about deleting everything except a bare statement that AML was "first" in this technique. Details of gene sequencing techniques belong in articles about gene sequencing techniques. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I think what you'll find in the not-too-distant future is that such medical sequencing approaches to personalized medicine will become increasingly involved in treatment modalities. The AML sequencing project is big medical news with a lot of chatter right now at oncology conferences, although it's quite understandably not yet on everyone's radar. I'm sure the article will evolve appropriately as these developments make their way further into the mainstream. Again, thanks for contributing. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC).
It doesn't matter. Wikipedia is supposed to be filled with current knowledge, not with speculation about future medical developments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Brown-Sequard talk pages merged

Let me know if you are ever ready to accept that RfA nomination Smiley.png --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions about HIV Cure

I had some questions about what you told me in the other article - I don't understand how you can say that if an HIV patient tests negative for the same exact antibody they used to diagnose them, it can't prove a cure. Are you saying this because the antibodies leave the body during the course of the virus? I need information about this topic, and it is quite urgent. I'm trying to put together a protocol to determine a cure. And it's proving much more difficult then I ever thought it would be. It seems that if HIV is not in the blood, if CD4 counts normalize, if the old antigen test shows no p24 protein after showing a consistent regression, it's not enough to prove someone has been cured. Do you know how to prove the virus has been killed? Using combined tests or one test that is not mainstream? What data is needed to show a cure? And I guess I'll check back on this page for an answer? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Jason1170 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jason, this can't possibly be as urgent as you think it is, because it would take more than one year of consistent results for anyone to believe that there was even a chance of eradicating HIV from a human. It will also be extraordinarily expensive: this study is going to be in the million-dollar range even for a small number of patients. However, here are a few points that you may want to consider:
  • A normalized CD4 count proves that the person doesn't have AIDS, not that HIV isn't present somewhere in the body. CD4 counts can be suppressed for all sorts of reasons unrelated to HIV. This is therefore an essentially irrelevant test, although you might track it anyway as a piece of circumstantial evidence.
  • An antibody test is worthless for this purpose. Antibodies may (rarely) be undetectable in the presence of a virus, and persist (always for weeks, sometimes for decades) in the absence of a virus. Did you get all of your childhood immunizations? If so, you very likely have a small number of antibodies against, say, diphtheria exotoxin, even though your body is C. diphtheriae-free (and likely always has been). You could force a person to be essentially antibody-free: pump them full of any B-cell-destroying substance (like rituximab), and they'll have no antibodies against anything. (Note that this would be dangerous.) Killing the part of the immune system that attempts to attack the virus isn't the same as killing the virus. This is one of the reasons that antibody tests are used for screening, not for formal diagnosis.
  • A p24 test is okay, but it isn't as sensitive as a NAT test. (Have you read HIV test? If not, go read it.)
Yes, you'll need to use multiple tests. Given that eradication is the virologists' version of a perpetual motion machine, you'd probably want to run essentially every test in existence. Note that you must run your selected tests pre-treatment to establish not only the diagnosis beyond a shadow of a doubt (misdiagnoses do happen) but also to demonstrate that these specific tests show consistent and reliable results for the specific people in the trial. Do not change the tests -- not the type of test, not the brand of test, not the labs performing each test -- for any reason during the study.
Remember that you are attempting to prove something that all experts believe to be essentially impossible. You must therefore provide extraordinarily thorough, gold-plated data. You must have a non-treated HIV-infected control group (to prove that your tests keep working), and you should probably have a non-treated HIV-negative (and low-risk for infection) control group as well (to prove that the absence of HIV is being correctly interpreted). You must blind the study: the people doing the blood draws, running the blood tests, and interpreting the results [note that these are all different people] must not know which patients are in the treatment group.
The tests must be handled in a systematically secure manner. If it were me, in addition to the precautions that you would use for evidence that you expected to present in court, I would have the tests performed by two large third-party labs, and I would also demand that each lab perform "genetic fingerprinting" tests on every blood sample to prove that the "cure" isn't a case of mixed up tubes (accidents happen, and "well, we've known all along that tetrasilver tetroxide was worthless, so we substituted someone else's blood after three months so we could get rich anyway" also happens). [This means, BTW, that you must exclude identical twins from your study population.] All blood samples need to be stored for possible re-testing in the highly unlikely case that it works.
Finally, to do this properly, you would need to demonstrate not simply that HIV couldn't be detected in the bloodstream, but also that it couldn't be found in the known reservoirs. I'd start with latent infection of memory T cells as both the most widely accepted problem and the simplest to test, but you also need to consider some dendritic cells, several structures in the digestive tract, and (sadly) nerves in the brain.
Oh, and the ethical thing to do is to publish the study design in advance and to publish your results even if (when) your data prove that it doesn't work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow that was very informative, and I thank you so much for putting that much time into writing a detailed reply for me. I want to explain my situation quickly for you, and you have confirmed what I planned - to have patients take all tests before the “product” then after, and, as you said ALL HIV tests except antibody. The thing is, this isn't for some profit, it isn't for the scientific community. You've enlightened me to the fact that if a group of doctors develop a cure, but only has a few hundred grand among them - enough to market the product a little - if they attempted some sort of trials without spending millions (like trials that indicate CD4 and VL increasing and decreasing consistently), special interests can easily rip them apart if they did not take all that you've written into account.
If you have time, I wanted to shortly explain why I need the info: I am part of a non-profit organization that doesn't want any money, we don't give a damn about money or recognition - our organization's website doesn't even list our names. We just care about helping people and saving lives. And we have mass amounts of donated stocks of a product developed by a former U.S. FDA registered, DEA licensed pharm. company that employed former college professors, a product researched by quite a few professors at North American Universities (mostly American), and finally a product researched and partly developed by an NIH laboratory. It was tested in vitro, in vivo against HIV in humans. Also, in vivo on rats injected with 10,000 times recommended dosage - the professor found that product produced NO adverse side-effects.
So, now you know our true goals are to help HIV patients and to save lives of AIDS patients. After CD4 counts normalize, after VL or NAT indicates no virus in the blood, we needed to determine "what's next," how to adequately prove a cure for HIV patients, not for the scientific community. What interested me most in your reply was what you said about testing known reservoirs, starting with "latent infection of memory T cells." What kind of test do we have to have HIV patients take to test for that? I'm guessing they provide blood? And when we call a lab, what kind of test do we tell them we want conducted? Latent infection of T-Cells is the most vital test, how could HIV be present in the body if it's no longer present in the T-Cells? No matter it's reservoirs, wouldn't they die out if there's no HIV in T-Cells? And, I was wondering if you know what the average cost of NAT, Viral load, p24, and the test I was asking for info about are? Any related info you are willing to provide would be very much appreciated. And if you would like any more info from me, I would gladly give it, I know the explanation was quite sort. Thanks SO MUCH for everything. Jason1170 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
My fundamental reaction is "you poor person" -- not in the sense of not having enough money, but in the sense of being in way over your sneakertops. This doesn't have much to do with Wikipedia, though, so why don't you send me an e-mail message, and we'll take it offline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)



Notice that I'm going through bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. It's fringe from what I know, and I don't see the recent substantial revision as an improvement. If you've any special knowledge, your input would be welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the sme you're looking for.
In general, here are my non-expert thoughts: BHRT isn't outright quackery like, say, cancer neoplastons, but it's certainly not important for most women. I suspect that custom (compounded) formulations probably do work well, or at least no worse than one-size-fits-most formulations, for some women. (The major advantage is probably just dose control.)
I can believe that the bioidentical hormones might work somewhat better for a few very rare women: I know and respect a gynecologist who has had good success with giving BHRT to several women that had failed other/non-BHRT treatments. I suspect, however, that the purported physical benefits, when you're looking at a population of a hundred million women, are overblown. (Then again, the physical benefits of fourth-line cancer treatments are unimportant to >99% of the people in that population, too.)
I suspect that for some women, the psychological benefits (which can be important) are much more significant than the physical effects. Overall, the whole thing reminds me of an acquaintance who takes one name-brand painkiller every day. She says that the generic version "doesn't work" for her, even though the only difference between the two (in this instance) is the shape and price of the pill.
I also suspect that the FDA's hard-nosed regulatory position dramatically overstates the risks. It's probably more about the regulatory turf war than about protecting patients.
But I'm not a reliable source. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I'm not really looking for a whole lot of expert support, more just a review that I'm not being overzealous or my edits are unjustified. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bachelor party

Hi, you keep undoing a link I add, its totally relevant to the page so not sure why you keep reverting it? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would guess because of our rules on external links and promotion, but WAID will have to respond herself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
WLU is right. The link to your "stag party service" violates Wikipedia's standards. See, for example, WP:ELNO # 4, 5, and 14. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How have I not given you a barnstar yet?

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Excellent contributions, superb sourcing, high standards and tons o' contributions? Have a barnstar because coupons don't e-mail well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor's displeasure with my crop of his PD pic

Can you offer your thoughts on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

John Ordronaux (doctor)

Thanks for the re-assessment. – ukexpat (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Is there a specific place that you would like my clarification?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this vandalism??

Please look at his third attempt to edit this article basal cell cancer in the last few weeks: --Northerncedar (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (cur) (prev) 22:40, 25 February 2009 Nickcoop (Talk | contribs) (23,265 bytes) (I have moved the Mohs advertisment to the Mohs section.) (undo)

I'm not sure who "he" is in your question, but I looked at the last 50 edits on the page, and only this one (which removes information) could possibly be characterized as even partly vandalism. If your complaint is with any other change, then you have a garden-variety content dispute, and you need to stop the WP:Edit war and talk it out on the article's talk page until you all come up with something that isn't entirely disliked by everyone.
I don't think you understand what Wikipedia considers vandalism, so let me suggest that you take the next ten minutes and look at the last fifty or a hundred changes made in this list, or, if you're short on time, click here, here, and here to see a few examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I second what WhatamIdoing is saying, I've reverted Nickcoop's latest but not because either of you are right or wrong, or participating. You need to BOTH take this to the articles talk page and please stop editing the relevent section of the article until you've established consensus amongst yourself. Consistent reverting is just gaming the system. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Unassessed-Class ophthalmology articles

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Unassessed-Class ophthalmology articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Unassessed-Class ophthalmology articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Unassessed-Class ophthalmology articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force

-- MifterBot I (TalkContribsOwner) 21:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pernicious Anemia Symptoms

I apologize for both using the first person here and not having an account. What were the copyright violations of the version you condensed? Without question, the article's symptom section needs to be cleaned up. The descriptions are far too anecdotal and figurative. Some of the details, however, need to be left in a more scientifically rigorous format. I suggest we work together in slowly paring down the material. Your edits were not undone out of spite, but simply because some of the material is potentially useful. I input some material into academic and commercial searches to find any violations, and so far I do not see any. The anemic features of PA are too small a sliver of its presentation, and its effects on the CNS and PNS are significant and merit recognition, or at least another good look. Just respond on this page, and I'll be sure to check it. And maybe I'll even get an account! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for pointing out to me at Wikipedia: Village Pump the category of external links requiring clean-up. It seems that one can always learn something new about Wikipedia. By the way, while I am here, I see you state on your userpage that you understand the difference between "it's" and "its". Hurrah! It is good to know that some one does. As a lecturer whose work involves marking undergraduate essays, I am rather concerned by the number of times I have to correct punctuation errors in essays which my students have submitted! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the GA review

Jokestress want's to rewrite the whole page before she would say it was neutral. Sectioned into "description" "proponents" and "critics". (ironic since it basically is that way now, instead it treats this as a science issue and not a political one.) How much would ya bet she still would not be satisfied?--Hfarmer (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning behind edit

Hello! I've been puzzling over this particular edit: [1]

Perhaps you decided to proceed fairly quickly, or maybe only after long deliberation. Could you please explain why you made that edit?

Thanks in advance! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have explained the purpose of this section several times, and on the policy's talk page, where anyone can read it: It is to prevent POV-pushing editors from elevating one policy over other] core policies. The fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (your stated reason for removing this section) is irrelevant. The "local consensus" of a few editors at a single article can never trump the community's major policies.
I have no belief that you actually want to understand why other editors do not consider your interpretation of your favorite policy to be the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia's purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
* So to summarise: you thought it was ok to revert my revert on the basis that you had explained the purpose several times already?
* A different question: Why do you think that I do not want to understand other editors in this case? Our interactions on this topic so far have been very brief. Could you point to a particular statement or edit I made that leads you to that conclusion? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I thought it was appropriate to revert your deletion of an entire section on the irrelevant grounds that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". Policies like WP:Consensus are supposed to give direction about how to apply them, and there was a complete absence of any bureaucratic procedure in the three relatively simple sentences. Furthermore, there was, and had been, a good deal of talk about how to improve the section, which you might have better respected by joining the discussion (which you did) without imposing your POV by deleting the parts you personally dislike. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


see talk page Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the introduction to Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for the notification and invitation!

Psychiatricnurse (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


I'm contacting you because of your participation at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. In that context, please consider watchlisting one of the threads which is developing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. The specific thread is awkwardly captioned:

Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article

I don't construe this as improper canvassing; however, I would expect you to form your own opinion in light of WP:Canvassing.

If you believe that reaching out to you was somehow improper, then don't contribute. Please pardon my mistake in posting this message on your talk page. Please do share what you think so that I'll begin to understand what it is that I've done wrong.

On the other hand, if you believe as I do that your arguably useful contribution to the development of this thread will be welcomed, then good -- no problem ....

Do whatever you think best. --Tenmei (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that ArbCom wants information, not opinions, at this stage. Since I haven't been involved, I can't provide any information that they can't get themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Arbitrator Risker posted this implied invitation: "I have asked at the Arbitration Clerks' Noticeboard for one of the clerks to try to find a suitable wikiproject at which to post a request for assistance from an experienced editor/admin with respect to the interpretation/verifiability & sourcing issues."
2. Arbitrator Carcharoth posted the following open-ended comment: "Hopefully more statements will have been made by then by uninvolved users who may want to opine and explain what they see happening here."
3. Frankly, I didn't quite understand how these sentences help move a flexible ArbCom process forward, but I construed both to mean that more words were anticipated from editors who are both
  • (a) uninvolved and
  • (b) interested especially in parsing the application of WP:V in specific situations? --Tenmei (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unwelcome and disrespected

Exactly, I felt unwelcome and very disrespected by MastCell implications I'm incapable of learning/improving and/or being reasonable. In case you are unaware, those are serious accusations amongst Wikipedians. Apparently you unaware of that since I see no message from you on MastCell's talk page. I give people ample patience, MastCell routinely maxes it with vague arguments that end up simply being ze's unverifiable POV. With our long history, it is hard to keep good faith going at times. For future reference, when things get heated; you can refer to this link to help make your point.

If my short outburst put you off Wikipedia in any way, for that I truly apologize. You should have seen my first draft! However, I will not sit on my hands And play nice when I encounter tripe; and MastCell made more personal attacks than I. My second regret is mistakenly calling the NCI workshop a systematic review the first time. It actually doesn't pass. - RoyBoy 03:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to sit on your hands. I'm asking you to stop using profanity on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. It's rare and has intent. - RoyBoy 03:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


I struggle a bit with orphans, but I think your usage may be casual and what you have left is an opinion on usage. The version you changed was clear on "popular usage" but the extensive line of dictionaries on my shelf (OED, Chambers, Collins) all use the word "lost" which is possibly a euphemism for dead or possibly not. Orphanages were all full of "little Annies" whose parents may or may not have been dead. "Orphan" in reference to orphaned lines on documents etc often means "separated from" and although I have some reasonable level of greek it is not enough to disambiguate because of the same problem of euphemism. There are also a lot of phrases like "social orphan" etc which do not imply death (mind you neither does grass widow so perhaps that argument is weak). Can I suggest we change the wording to "lost theiur parents" which is the most popular in the dictionaries I have and accept an equal degree of ambiguity? --BozMo talk 09:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. What I want to avoid is the inappropriate impression that temporary circumstances can make someone an orphan. If a parent has been shipped off to war, there's a "separation", but the kids aren't orphans. If a mentally ill parent runs off during a manic fit, there's a "disappearance", but the kids aren't orphans. If the kids are removed from abusive parents and all parental rights are permanently terminated, they're still not orphans.
The article also needs some decent social information: Orphans often qualify for state assistance; many end up living with relatives, in formal foster care, or orphanages; some are homeless; the impact on education; and so forth. I wonder whether we could find any decent information on modern orphans in the developed world. (Historical information and developing-world information should be easier to find, as there are more orphans to write about.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The article needs a few things. I agreed with you that both legally and generally as a minimum a child needs to be believed to have lost their parents permanently. Whether "lost" means "death" is not clear. Frustratingly I have trawled a whole range of dictionaries to find a definite "is dead needed" answer and find that is this only implied in the simpler dictionaries (in the Oxford ones in the paperback dictionary and below, such as the schools dictionary). In comprehensive dictionaries ambiguity is opened e.g. for the Oxford ones the concise and bigger say (and I don't have a consistent set of editions available) "a child bereaved of parent(s)" with bereaved defined as "of death etc". So whatever "etc" means, it is not exclusively death. I think I would also be happy with a phrase like "usually by death" but that's a bit OR because I cannot find exactly that. I will try please feel free to rehack (and perhaps move this to the article talk page): I am doing no better than iterating. --BozMo talk 19:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The ambiguity is probably due to real-world problems: Imagine a baby whose father is unknown. If the mother dies in childbirth, then the baby is effectively an orphan, because nobody knows anything about the father, even though the father is probably alive. Perhaps we should have a section specifically on the variations in defining an orphan. AIDS orphans, for example, are specifically defined as having lost a mother to AIDS, whether or not the father is alive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
On Aids Orphans even that isn't really true (and if so by whom? who can define what is "technically" what: usage rules). Even UNICEF who have been advocating the "maternal death means orphan" definition also use varying expressions like "double orphan" and "half orphan" and "maternal orphan" also of which imply a different definition and are as confusing as anything (on top of which no NGO on Earth insists on establishing the cause of death for parents of AIDS orphans because culture forbids autopsy and anyway this label gives additional problems for the child so in practice the terms is only ever accurately used in demographic statistics). In practice whether someone is technically an orphan or not rarely opens specific social rights, occasionally opens specific rights to care (e.g. because of the way widows and orphans are treated in the Koran) and probably matters most in immigration law. --BozMo talk 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
To add see "UNICEF and global partners define an orphan as a child who has lost one or both parents" so that includes Prince Harry and someone whose unknown father dies. What a mess. --BozMo talk 20:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
See the UNAIDS reports on AIDS orphans, such as page 5 of this one, which says "UNAIDS, WHO and UNICEF define AIDS orphans as children who lose their mother to AIDS before reaching the age of 15 years. Some of these children have also lost, or will later lose, their father to AIDS." The decision is based, in part, on the difficulty of identifying fathers.
This one has an interesting footnote at the bottom of page 13: "Contrary to traditional usage, UNAIDS uses “orphan” to describe a child who has lost either one or both parents; the organization uses the terms “maternal orphan”, “paternal orphan”, and “double orphan” to describe a child who has lost its mother, father, or both parents, respectively." (The term AIDS orphan is deprecated by some agencies now.) That could be a useful source for what is both the normal use and the more specific terms.
Must run, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Good source, thanks. I think we now have three or four different types of definition: common usage, technical amongst development agencies (with several variants), legal/immigration. There is also the question of how young a child needs to be (16, 18, independent etc.) but I guess sticking to "child" is safe. What is still unclear to me is whether common usage insists on "dead" or just means permanently lost. This euphemism of lost is prevalent in aid organisations too. --BozMo talk 06:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Just my personal opinion, but I think that permanently lost is probably acceptable for common use. It feels like people conflate "an orphan" and "might as well be an orphan". The age of the child depends on when a culture expects teens to be capable of supporting themselves instead of being dependent on their parents for basic necessities. I agree that the term is very rarely applied to people whose parents died when they were adults.
Should we copy this conversation to the article's talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copying over --BozMo talk 16:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual

Are you satisfied with the current article structure and content or do you intend to make changes to it. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The recent changes represent an overall improvement.
To be candid, the article's history has been so hostile that I avoid making changes to the article that are more substantive than correcting grammar and formatting. If I add anything that I think is appropriate, interesting, well-sourced, encyclopedic, and doesn't happen to strongly condemn the idea, then our resident professional TS activist instantly and endlessly complains. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing's assessment of the user conduct problem, although I do not know on what basis one might call user:Jokestress a "professional" activist. — James Cantor (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Her (two-person) company does public speaking on various topics, including transsexuality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha; thanks.— James Cantor (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes yes all those conferences and such that she speaks at. One wonders if she makes money off of that and if so how much? Fanning the flames of this old fire could be a cottage industry for her. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I don't have very much information, and I believe it would be very rude to ask, it's my impression that they make very little money directly from this activity. In many, perhaps even most, cases, I think it amounts to little more than expenses and a very few dollars. The indirect benefits are likely much more important: if you want to make films about transsexuality (or just about anything else), you need to be known in the relevant community for being on "their side". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I see. Your probably right. Unless someon's like a Nobel laureate, or former prez they won't make bank off a speaking engagement.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC) ?

If you want this translated, then you need to help with the anatomical terms. I've started here. Find any term that is linked to the German Wikipedia, and link it (pipe trick) to the English one. For nearly everything you should be able to click the German link and see what English page it connects to, so this is tedious work, but requires no actual ability to understand German. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A penny for your thoughts?

I’m very interested in the broader implications of Wikipedia’s medical articles and how the general population does and should use them. I see that you've made numerous edits on medical articles. I recognize that many people get medical information and general advice from Wikipedia, despite the stated policy that Wikipedia is no substitute for a real doctor.

I’m working on an essay on this topic that I hope to publish in a medical journal, although I have no guarantee that I will be successful in this endeavor. As somebody who has clearly dedicated substantial time and effort to making medical Wikipedia articles better, I wonder if you would be willing to answer some interview questions to be used in the essay. My goal is not to invade privacy, laud or degrade, but simply to gain a better understanding of what motivates some prominent Wikipedians with an interest in medical articles. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the questions below. Any suggestions of other editors who may be interested in sharing their thoughts would also be welcome. Thank you! Wawot1

  1. What prompted you to begin your involvement contributing to Wikipedia?
  2. What motivates you to continue contributing?
  3. What role should medical Wikipedia articles fill for the lay public?
  4. What role do medical Wikipedia articles fill for the lay public, do you think?
  5. Are Wikipedia medical articles dangerous? (For instance, when editors introduce inaccurate medical information, whether intentional or not.)
  6. What responsibility, if any, should Wikipedia have to protect its readers from inaccurate information?
  7. Will your role as a Wikipedia editor ever be finished? If so, what goals will you have achieved?
  8. What is your medical training/background?
  9. How many hours per week, on average, do you devote to Wikipedia?

--Wawot1 (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you've become active again. Your questions don't strike me as being well-developed, so I'm guessing that this hoped-for article is still in the very early planning stages. Here are some quick responses that may help you refine your questions:
  1. I had information about a question on an article's talk page.
  2. Some days, I wonder that myself.
  3. Wikipedia provides information to readers. In the ideal, "finished" article, this information is complete, verifiably accurate and neutral. Less than 1% of Wikipedia's current articles meet this goal.
  4. I have no information with which to form an opinion on this subject.
  5. Only to fools.
  6. The Wikimedia Foundation disclaims all responsibility. In general, I believe that information wants to be free. If you need an answer beyond that, then you'll have to define your terms. For example, who or what is "Wikipedia"? Do you mean the Wikimedia Foundation? The articles (which, being inanimate, are utterly incapable of taking any action)? The editors? The readers? Something or someone else?
  7. Which role?
  8. I was not/am not/will never be a licensed healthcare professional. If you need an answer beyond that, then you'll have to define your terms.
  9. I don't know: very little to dozens of hours. It depends in part on how you decide what is "devote[d] to Wikipedia".
WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I apologize for poorly developed questions. Of course, I’m aware that Wikipedia has a disclaimer absolving it of legal culpability for inaccurate information. I also recognize that many Wikipedia readers don’t really know what Wikipedia is—they don’t realize that it’s volunteer-written, etc. etc. For an article on French impressionism or history of the Ming dynasty, that’s fine. I do think that medical articles are qualitatively different because people may act on medical information that they get here with potentially harmful consequences. Are people who act on this information fools, as you put it? Perhaps they are, but I do think that there are some interesting underlying ethical issues. For instance, I’ve found that patients with rare diseases often have few reliable resources to learn about their conditions. Wikipedia seems to fill a niche for these people, however it may be problematic that these articles are not written/reviewed/edited by people with any experience with these diseases. Do you think that contributors to these articles have a responsibility to these patients? Do you think that WikiMedia has a responsibility to make it clearer that these articles aren’t written/reviewed/edited by experts? These are the types of questions that I was hoping to get your thoughts on. Thanks again. Wawot1 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that articles written by people that have experience, particularly with an uncommon disease, may be more dangerous than articles written by people with no experience. It's too easy to mistake "my personal experience" for "the Truth™". A person that has no personal experience must necessarily rely wholly on published sources (which ideally will be reliable medical publications). I suspect, for example, that the article I wrote on an exceedingly rare condition is at least as good as the one that any person with this condition would write.
Consider, for example, a complicated presentation like hyperemesis gravidarum. Every single HG presentation must be evaluated for bulimia. However, for those that actually have HG (instead of, say, a plain eating disorder or an effort to self-treat globus hystericus) the idea that a person claiming to have HG might have a psychiatric problem is both deeply offensive and very threatening. So you've got HG, and you're feeling incredibly stressed by the HG as well as perceived pressure and disapproval from everyone around you. Are you going to write an accurate and balanced article? Or are you going to play down the potential for bulimic patients to be misdiagnosed as having HG, to the detriment of the family member who needs to be thinking, "You know, every single time she's thrown up, she's been alone. She has never vomited while she was in the direct line of sight of any adult."
Consider all of the cancer patients that want to recommend the specific diet or "natural" supplements that they have chosen to take, because they (deeply but wrongly) believe that the bottle of shark cartilage pills did more to cure their cancer than surgery. Consider the number of times we have to delete links to internet chat rooms and patient-recommended clinics and physicians. "Experience" isn't necessarily going to result in a good article, and it may result in a very dangerous one. If you don't believe me, look through the histories of articles like Multiple chemical sensitivity and Chronic fatigue syndrome.
This issue is one of the reasons that Wikipedia's mantra is "verifiability, not truth". We do not want people to lean heavily on their own experiences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That was such a good explanation. It ought to be where more people will see it.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


I'll respond here, in order not to antagonize MastCell. You said:

Jonathan108, you're missing the point. Every single sentence in Wikipedia must be verifiable. So you want to include a statement that there's no basis for the scientists' conclusions. Fine: Just point us at the independent, published reliable source that says that there's no basis. We must have a source. In the absence of a source -- if, for example, the reasoning is, "I don't know of any basis, and my personal ignorance of any basis proves that no basis exists" -- then we have a direct violation of WP:NOR and we cannot include the statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My response: The absence of a source is equally verifiable. For example, someone could cite the fact that no PubMed articles on a certain topic exist and that would not violate WP:NOR. The absence of any published basis for the claim in question is objectively verifiable. The claim itself is made by these organizations without offering any justification. You don't need an "independent, published reliable source" to tell you something so obvious. --Jonathan108 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The absence of a source (1) that I can find using search strings that happen to occur to me (2) on PubMed does not tell me that no source exists anywhere in the world, in any language, in any kind of appropriate publication. PubMed does not index even every scientific journal, much less every medical textbook or collection of professional treatises. We cannot equate "I didn't find anything" with "Nothing exists". If some other person published that statement, then we could say that "John Smith says that no scientific basis exists", but we cannot make this assertion.
If you don't believe me that this would be a violation of NOR, then please post your question to WP:NORN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of claiming that they have no basis for their assertion, I should have said that they offer no proof of their assertion. That would be more accurate. In either case, their assertion is unjustified and they know it. --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says they offer no proof? They offer some data: deciding whether or not their data constitutes "proof" is original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Talk:Homosexual_transsexual#Homosexual_transsexual_.22Used_in_psychology.22.3F It it pleases you could you please give your input on this request for comment.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I'll try to take that advice.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to move pages

Hi. I just moved Faggot Cell to the corrected capitalization. I noticed while moving it that there was no page at the destination. That means you could move the page yourself. You only really need to get assistance if there's already an article history at the destination that needs to be deleted. Not that it's any trouble; I just wanted to let you know that you're welcome to complete uncontroversial moves yourself, and you're able to do so in many cases. If the move requires admin assistance, then WP:RM is there for your assistance, or if it is likely to be controversial, then it is advisable to start a discussion at the talk page first.

Anyway, happy editing! :) -GTBacchus(talk) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


This is fantastic. Well done! JFW | T@lk 08:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about template:psychology

You were very helpful in the past, and I thought you could answer a question. If you visit the developmental psychology entry or outline of psychology entry you will notice that the psychology template is transcluded on the bottom of the page. When you look at the page, why isn't the template open as it is on many other psychology Wikipedia entries, for example in the abnormal psychology entry? I know that I could click the word "show", and the full template will appear. However, in the abnormal psychology entry , the psychology template is visible, and the button reads "hide". Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Iss246! What a fascinating question. It appears that the answer is because there is only one navbox on the abnormal psych article. The default is to have it open if there is only one, but if there are two or more, then it autocollapses. I think that you can change this behavior (assuming all the usual "everyone agrees it's a good idea" issues) by typing {{Psychology |state=uncollapsed}} instead of just plain {{Psychology}} where the navbox should display.
Thanks again for the interesting question: I learned something today! WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You have been unfailingly helpful.Iss246 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet

Hi there. I see you removed this article from wikiproject medicine, the rationale being that "this is not a disease or a treatment for a disease", yet the diet has been proposed as a treatment for type 2 diabetes, acne, autoimmune diseases and a host of other illnesses. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Many things have been proposed as treatments, including prayer, clean drinking water, swimming, and sleep. The topic seems more of a general health article than a real medical article. I've been trying to avoid the modern cultural tendency to overmedicalize everyday life. If that doesn't seem sensible to you, then you can get a third opinion at WT:MEDA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but then why are the following articles included in WPMED? Mediterranean diet, Low-carbohydrate diet, Vegetarianism, Veganism, Raw foodism, etc. --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In general, they probably shouldn't be. Without looking at the articles (and thus not knowing which ones have significant sections dedicated to medical [which is not merely physiological] information), I might consider exceptions for the first two -- the term "Mediterranean diet" basically exists because of medical research, and low-carb diets are commonly prescribed in regular practice to control both blood sugar and polycystic ovarian syndrome -- and possibly raw foodism, because doing a raw-only diet (for more than a couple of weeks) is pretty much diagnostic of an eating disorder.
Again, please feel free to make a case at WT:MEDA (and to remove the project's tag from anything that seems odd to you: with some 15,000 articles, mistakes are bound to happen). I don't own the project; I'm just trying to reflect the current trend in comments that people have made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Endoscopic Thoracic Sympathectomy

That link to total number of surgeries done (100,000) has been there for a while and is not spam if you read the contents of that page. Where do you think that 100,000 figure came from? Please don't keep deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See the article's talk page, and in the meantime, please quit restoring inaccurate information and unreliable sources to the article until you have replied to the problems in detail on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the article's talk page? That 100,000 figure came from the linked site, and that link was added there by someone else. I changed the text and did not add the link there. After I changed the text, you removed the pre-esisting linked page from which the 100,000 figure is appropriated from.

Talk:Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy. The talk page is tab that is (confusingly) labeled 'discussion' at the top of each article.
It doesn't matter who added the link the first time: it is not a reliable source and should not be included by anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So why is the 100,000 figure included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue why someone thought that this was an important fact, but let's have that conversation at the article's talk page, not mine, so that anyone who is interested can join in, okay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


I earlier removed a bunch of links to based on the info at the main author's talk page and other related discussions. I stopped removing them when I came across this discussion: [2] and am confused as to remove the rest or restore the ones I removed. The edits do now appear to be good faith based on the above discussion. Should I start a new discussion at the project page to see if the site has begun its mentioned peer review or expanded significantly? What's your take? Flowanda | Talk 19:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they're probably made in good faith, if with some concerns about conflicts of interest, but many Wikisurgery pages simply won't be good links: they may be incomplete, of interest solely to surgeons, etc. If it were me, I probably wouldn't bother restoring them, on the theory that if the links are really valuable to our readers, then they'll reappear on their own. I would evaluate remaining and future links according to whether or not the target page seems to meet the relevant standards. Since you do a fair bit of anti-spam work, you should become very familiar with the guideline, but a quick question is whether it might interest a person that arrived at the page by clicking Special:Randompage and was interested enough in the article to want to know more about the subject.
BTW, websites listed under ==External links== are not required to be notable; they are merely required to be on-topic and not absolutely prohibited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I do think I need to restore the talk page entries with a note. Until I found the above discussion, I thought I was doing basic cleanup of a spammer trying to skirt another block and inevitable blacklisting. Thanks also for your candid observations; they are very helpful. Flowanda | Talk 04:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed User

Hi WhatamIdoing, I have a question, when I gonna be an autoconfrimed user?

I read wikipedia but I don't find anything.

Help Me! --Xopauxo wiki (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually after four days and ten edits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Special education

Why did you revert the intro for special education? It is a perfectly good introduction. --Academiic (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because they introduce outright errors into the article, remove information that is sourced and accurate, and are based on wildly incorrect information such as "Special education doesn’t really help them achieve independence" and "People suffering from profound mental retardation do not attend school at all as they are incapable of learning". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The current introduction doesn't have any references either. So what makes you think that's right too? Mine makes sense. There are two types of students in special education: One who is truly disabled and one who is at risk. People who are at-risk don't show any deformity. The disability is invisible. Special needs children were abused in the past that's why they have special education to protect them. The goal is to make sure their childhood is safe. --Academiic (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Because your information is wrong. For example, people with profound mental retardation do attend school. They are capable of learning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
People with profound mental retardation are burdens of society. They require nursing care their whole life. How can they attend school if they can't even take care of themselves? They stay in an institution, not a school. --Academiic (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I flatly disagree with your highly offensive premise, but the fact is that every single child in America, regardless of the severity of disability, is legally required to attend school, even if there is no possibility of the child learning anything. For example, there is a "student" in my area that cannot hold a baby bottle, focus her eyes, babble, or even move deliberately, and yet she lives with her family and attends the local public school during the day.
Contrary to your uninformed assertion, being placed in a residential special schools is still "attending" school. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Well in that case, that means that they attend "school" for their whole life. --Academiic (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm surprised you haven't been awarded this before!?

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Persistence (in flogging that dead horse...)
For your repeated and curt persistence in flogging that dead horse. Stop, desist, it's finished, and had been for quite some time. You've made your point, whether correct or not. The other party has taken your point and either chosen to ignore it, or use your advice. For future reference, don't be so obtuse. Happy editing.
Oh lord that's not me, it looks like they copy-pasted from the barnstar I gave you in a section above, but forgot to take the rest of my signature off. My, that's sufficiently uncivil that were I an admin, I'd block the editor in question. AIDS denialist perhaps? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Why aren't you an admin? You should give RfA a shot - it's a cross between spinning a roulette wheel and being investigated as part of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. :) MastCell Talk 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
WLU, I'm not sure that AIDS denialist is the right category, but I suppose it's a possibility. It's also possible that he just doesn't know how to differentiate between a speculative case report and an actual test failure. False positives in low-risk populations are pretty common with the oral HIV tests. I need to figure out how to contextualize and display this sarcastic "award". I'm really quite pleased with it.
MastCell, my previous excuse was that I haven't managed to empty Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles yet. Since that excuse is pretty much "used up", my new excuse is that User:MZMcBride gave me a new toy to play with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
One time someone gave me an asterisk (*) as an award. I took it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Aaahh crap. Sorry to USER:WLU, didn't know what that stuff was at the bottom, and didn't think it was a user. BIG apologies for that. MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
WAID, I was going to suggest that you relax a little. A lot of my responses to your requests has been due to you being on the front foot all the time. It's just plain arrogant. How about giving people room to admit they stuffed up, and apologise without losing face. Unfortunately you don't provide that at the moment. I'm steadily loosing faith in wikipedia and perhaps the only page i'll edit is : All edits I attempt are in good faith. I'm relatively new to this, so just learning the ropes. Perhaps if you throw me a little, I might actually make better contributions? MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi MrAnderson7, I understand that this conversation has been unpleasant for you. Copyright violations are a really, really, REALLY big deal on Wikipedia, and we have to be very firm about rejecting them, even if they're accidental (which is very common). Doubtless the website that you saw the list on didn't choose to tell their readers that they'd copied it from Virusmyth or that it was copyrighted by someone else, so it would have looked perfectly fine to you. If you'd said a month ago what you've said today -- that you simply didn't realize that the list was copyrighted -- then everyone would have been understanding. We've all made mistakes on Wikipedia, so we know how easy it is.
For myself, I'm willing to consider this particular issue completely and permanently resolved, and to offer a helping hand if you run into any future questions or problems. Wikipedia is a highly (perhaps overly) complicated place, and I'd be happy to help you figure out the parts that I've figured out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Point taken about the copyright issues, and I agree it's an issue that requires upholding. I endorse your efforts on this matter. I therefore apologise for inadvertently copying said copyrighted material, and will try and do better in the future to source information with greater thought as to where it came from etc., before putting my foot in it.
Thanks for the offer of help, I am grateful for your understanding. MrAnderson7 (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Why don't you just leave me alone? Seriously, I haven't vandalized anything. I am just an inexperienced user that can improve. Give me a chance. Why? --Academiic (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not an inexperienced editor: you're an experienced editor that is evading a long-standing permanent ban for abuse of multiple socks (33 socks as of this moment).
On the plus side, I do agree that you're not a vandal (and I sincerely appreciate this fact). I add that you try to be nice to other editors, which is also a worthy quality.
I believe in redemption, but your assertion that you can improve is unfortunately not demonstrated by your behavior over the last four years. That is, your technical skills have improved, but your content is just as bad as it has always been, especially in education-related articles. If you've made the same mistakes on Wikipedia for four straight years, why should I think that you'll ever figure out that information needs to come from named, published, independent, high-quality reliable sources instead of from your highly limited, very skewed personal experience? Why should I expect that in your fifth year, you'll finally understand the difference between formal, dispassionate, encyclopedic writing and tabloid journalism? I am skeptical of success.
However, f you want to edit on Wikipedia, then please quit creating new accounts and pretending that you're not evading the ban. Instead, send e-mail to someone at ArbCom and ask to appeal the ban. You will need to demonstrate that you have figured out why Wikipedia cares about verifiability and sourcing. You will probably also need to get a dedicated mentor (ideally one that knows something about education and/or celebrities, since you like to edit in those areas) that is willing to check every single edit you make for, say, the next year to prove that you have, indeed, figured out how to contribute usefully to Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes in their edits. The majority of my edits have been fine. I provided references. --Academiic (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are your last ten edits to articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Not one of them introduces a reliable source, and many of them introduce information that requires a source. Please: if you're going to tell lies about your editing, could you at least make them lies that are not trivially exposed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The previous revision did not have references. I will provide references when I can find it. Just give me time. --Academiic (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:PROVEIT, WAID is totally within her rights, and the excuse "just give me the time" is, bluntly, dumb. Spend your time finding sources first, then add them to the page. It's a common excuse used by sockpuppets, bored teenagers and other undesireables. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I added the references by the way. I'm not one of those people who say things but don't do it. --Academiic (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This editor has been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sock. I hope that she'll take my advice to appeal the ban, with a mentor to supervise her edits during a lengthy probation, rather than trying to evade it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The new user editing Alternative school and William A. Shine Great Neck South High School is looking like another sock. I could just block it, but it might be more profitable to run another sockpuppet investigation if you have the time to set one up. There might be other active and undetected puppets around. Dekimasuよ! 01:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It's on my mind, and I've looked into it, but there are only five edits in the account, which makes it a little hard to build a logical-sounding case. It happens that I haven't (yet) ever been wrong with this user, but it's always possible that I will jump the gun some day. What's weird is that if she stopped socking and just requested another chance, I think she'd get it. She's not a vandal, and she occasionally does helpful things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

ADHD and Scuro

Wondering if you have any comments? Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing/Header frequency

2,000 pages sampled. 1,547 had hits. It's essentially the "raw" data. I didn't do any analysis on it, though I probably could if you'd like. Sorry for the delay in getting the results—I've been moving / unpacking / everything else. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


PamD has a question that I think could use a better answer. Other than that I've made a BRD edit, discussion is underway, read here. It was an old COI that was unresolved, Archive 5, if you want to refresh. Let's get it over with. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read PamD's note three times now, and I can't make up my mind about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I know the order of the standard appendices is important, but I believe we should stay on task on the verification sections. There are also some procedural issues with the study you've design that would render the results invalid in an active discussion. I'll go over that in my talk. Replied, most of its exposition, skip to the bottom for my questions. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll work with you on User:WhatamIdoing/Header frequency. One question I have in mind is how you're planning on using this. I'm asking for what's on your mind, and what's on the agenda. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd be thrilled to have your help. The project really started with WT:LAYOUT#Appendix_order: Like most editors, I tend to edit mostly articles in a couple of areas. I haven't, for example, edited very many articles related to music, or popular culture, or computers, or military (and so forth: it's doubtless a long list). So what if articles in "my" area tend to be materially different from articles in other areas? How would I even know that, say, medicine-related articles were entirely different from, say, television-related articles? I have assumed that they're the same, but what if they aren't?
So I gave MZMcBride a list of what are probably the more common appendix headers (taken from WP:CITE and my memory of previous discussions), and he has very kindly provided the headers from a random sample of 2,000 articles. (I don't know the randomization method and therefore can't vouch for it, but I have no reason to suspect it to be materially biased for this purpose.) I've split up the table into more manageable chunks and figure that if I can do a little bit every day or two, then in a month or so, we might have some useful information.
I consider this a pilot study, meaning that part of what we need to do is to validate the study criteria (=the list of headers I gave to MZMcBride). I'm not too worried about including rare ones, but excluding important ones should trigger a re-run (with a newly selected list of 2,000 articles). Feel free to list "potentially missing" headers at the top (and to simultaneously add them to the table for the relevant article).
At the moment, my goal is to identify the "out of [official] order" articles. Most of the time, this is a trivial exercise, but sometimes it requires looking at the article (thus the "Maybe" category). The "in order" (including "single appendix") articles can be pretty much ignored (except for determining that how frequent they are). After we have identified the "non-compliant" articles, we will want to figure out whether there's a pattern with the non-compliance (for example, whether ==See also== frequently ends up at the end, like Lima says s/he encounters fairly often).
I'm open to suggestions for improvement or further questions to consider with this dataset, or to let you develop and answer your own questions in parallel.
As for the agenda: At bottom, my real agenda is to satisfy my own curiosity about the order; I like knowing whether my assumptions are correct. If it turns out that we have a substantial disagreement with the order of appendices, then we should probably propose changes to the relevant guidelines. If we don't, then we might be able to use it (or a report based on it) to support the WP:PEREN item (because perhaps "my" articles are the normal ones, and "Lima's" articles are the strange ones, and if so, then perhaps people like Lima would like to see how they compare instead of just being told that "we said so").
In terms of section headings, I think that it would be stupid to reject rare headers simply because they're uncommon. I think it is sensible for pages like WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE to use the most common headers in the examples (assuming the given header is appropriate to the issue being illustrated). It might even be helpful to identify the most common choices as being the most common (some people want the articles they write to look as "normal" as possible). However, I believe that good editorial judgment in the specific article, and the principle of conservancy and avoiding pointless edit wars, is far more important than imposing a "One True™ Answer" for how you label the section that contains the list of works cited.
Oh, and just in case anyone else wants to join in: YES, you're welcome to help out. Feel free to add columns to address new questions, to check articles to make sure that all appendices are included, to add any missing headers, and so forth. My only important request is that you (please!) don't "update" the table to reflect the "new" order if an article has been edited since this list was generated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Compiled 245 entries from Break 0, 14, and 15. I believe the results are enough to establish and end to the pilot study from which we should begin planning for the full fledged one. Here are the results, assumptions are satisfied to run these inferences reliably:

Blocked: Articles with sections
Category Count Proportion Error‡
Single 114 46.53% ±6.246%
Yes 93 37.959% ±6.0765%
No 35 14.285% ±4.3815%
Maybe 3
  • † Sample size too small to run inference reliably
  • ‡ Error bounds are constructed with 95% confidence

Understanding the question, we're interested whether: "yes" the articles follow guideline or "no" they do not. This data is blocked so to articles with sections. We can therefore establish with certainty that the proportion of articles with sections that follow guideline is 23.674% (±7.492% error) greater than those that do not.

Blocking to only articles where the order of layout is relevant (excluding "Single"). The total is reduced to 131. The results are as follows:

Blocked: applicable by WP:LAYOUT
Category Count Proportion Error‡
Yes 93 70.992% ±7.77%
No 35 26.717% ±7.577%
Maybe 3
  • † Sample size too small to run inference reliably
  • ‡ Error bounds are constructed with 95% confidence

Of those articles where the order of the standard appendices is applicable. 48.85% (±10.8535 error) more articles follow guideline than those that do not. Maybe is defined as: cannot be established with certainty that it follows guideline or not. I've included as part of the sample size, but come to think of it maybe I should not. The cases are: Olav Duun, Minoru Torihada, and Oregon Files.

I think this is enough; errors follow a power law relationship, that is: to reduce the error bound by half you need to quadruple the sample size, to reduce the error bound by thirds you need to increase the sample size nine times, so on. I can run a hypothesis test if you want to determine how likely when we say "WP:LAYOUT is applied more likely than it's not" with respect to the given sample, but to my understanding more people misinterpret this inference than actually benefiting it.

Since we're working together on this, this is what I want to put on the agenda. We've established with the above certainty the results, you can increase the sample size, but it won't reduce the error bound that much. This is a pilot study, so in my opinion, we should end it here and plan out the real study. I want to stratify the study to article class (FA, stub, so on), in addition to clearly defining our goals, which I believe lack absolute clarity. Hope this isn't too much reading. Other than that, you understand this right? ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I missed this message when you posted it. Yes, your analysis makes sense. I'm finding too many articles with "Sources" to be satisfied with this search string. Also, combinations ("Notes and references") and non-plural ("Reference") need to be considered.
I think that we can get assessment class included in the dump, but of course we'll have to ask. What else do we want? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It's the questions you're asking, they lack the clarity I'm looking for. Sample proportions and binomial distributions need have end in either a yes or a no. Otherwise I have to play around (e.g. blocking to only articles applicable by WP:LAYOUT, and ignoring "maybe") with the data until I actually can run these inferences. Also you said you wanted to look into articles that use {{reflist}} and articles that do not. Before we begin a full scale study, you need to have this work out, because when I pull out AWB and fly through the articles and figuring out which article falls in what category—changing something is very annoying. I'm basically asking for a list of yes or no questions. When you're done I'll combine it with mine, and we can run a full scale study. How does that sound? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be possible to eliminate all "Maybe" categorization; it's just not always possible without actually looking at the articles themselves. For example, you might have Notes, Bibliography, External links -- which is "yes" if "Bibliography" contains full citations, and "no" if it contains a list of books written by the subject of the article.
I consider the reflist template and <references /> to be interchangeable. The question to be answered is not a "yes or no" question: it's "What's section names do people use for listing the citations?" It's also (unfortunately, because it reduces our ability to automate this) an inadequate marker, because of its absence from articles that use parenthetical refs, from articles that list only "general" refs, and its use for explanatory footnotes instead of citations on occasion. This is more descriptive statistics than hypothesis testing: my point is to document reality, not to prove a point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) When I use Significance testing and Confidence intervals, I have to break it down into a yes or a no. However, when we're recording the data, then I'm fine with just writing down the section title, and doing the break down later. The issue I'm seeing is: is there enough to adequately break down the information into something we can go on, and are the questions specific enough. When you did single, maybe, yes, and no. The only thing I could answer was: do articles follow WP:LAYOUT? The results are above. When you just wrote down the section titles in the standard appendicies, we've hit the issue: here are the section titles, but what are they uesd for? Here is what I've got:

  • Write down the section title used for verification. If there is no section title write none.
  • Is the article using inline references, general references, parenthetical references—if it's something else write unknown (and we'll determine what it is later one), if it's not applicable write none.
  • Is the article using {{reflist}} or <references /> (I actually want to know); if it's not applicable write none

You're right, let me rephrase my question: what are you looking for? Think it though. When you're done I'll prepared a table of random articles. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Hello WhatamIdoing, I have added your username to the linked above ArbCom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder as you have had experience with dealing with scuro some time ago so your comments I think would be useful to give a historical perspective of the long running nature of this problem. If you would like to submit evidence and make a statement please feel free to do so.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say that Scuro and I hadn't really crossed paths very often, but a quick trip through the list suggests more than I remember. I don't consider myself involved in the current iteration of the dispute. I'll think about posting a view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That is fine WhatamIdoing. It is entirely up to you. Thanks for looking into it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering if you could let me know your decision. Looks like you are not going to be submiting evidence which is fine but just would like to confirm so that I can remove your name from the listing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had just started writing a short comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so it wasn't exactly short.  ;-)
I don't know how useful it will be, and I'm sure that it re-treads ground already covered by others. But if the effort to type it up and provide a few diffs does any good at all, then I'm satisfied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought your submission was good and I do think that it is a help to get a range of editors views on the matter. I don't think that it matters if your submission is short or long, some diffs or lots of diffs. I think that it is important to just cite your experiences and views (with evidence of some diffs) and that is it. This next stage of arbcom keeps you to 1000 words max (can be much shorter if you like). I just basically summarised my previous evidence with a couple of additional diffs. :) --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Category:Viral skin conditions

As you know, I have been try to populate and refine this category, and in doing so, I have come to feel that a rename is probably warranted. Currently, there are conditions in the category that may affect both the skin and mucous membranes, therefore, I was thinking about renaming it to something like Category:Virus-related cutaneous conditions. What do you think of that name? ---kilbad (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally dislike changing cat names except if truly important. I think you should worry more about a teenager, person who reads English as a second language, or very poorly educated person being able to make sense of it instead of being precise in a highly technical sense. Cats are navigation aids for real people, not formal taxonomies for experts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with keeping category names accessible for everyone; however, I don't think something like Category:Virus-related cutaneous conditions (or some variation) is overwhelming for the general reader. Specifically, I think using "virus" instead of "viral" may be clearer to the general reader. ---kilbad (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I like "virus-related" for the same reasons that I dislike "cutaneous". Have you considered having this conversation at WT:DERM? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Very few people respond to me at WT:DERM. I am usually the one responding. I will, though, post it over at WT:MED. Thanks again for your feedback. ---kilbad (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a catch-22 situation: if you don't use the task force's talk page, then people won't read it (because "everything happens at WT:MED anyway"), and then they won't respond. I don't have a good solution for you, other than to try to keep the task force's talk page looking active. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL footnote

I should have noted this in the edit summary, but I changed the footnote you added because, even if a reference is not reliable, WP:EL is not the applicable guideline. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the change shortly after you made it, and I fully approve of your significant improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Parental Alienation Syndrome PAS webpages editing

Perhaps you could state your qualifications with regards to the changes I made to these webpages. You have reversed some of my editing and I have invited you to put forth your thoughts on the discussion pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceMT (talkcontribs) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't go in for credentialism. Either you've got a good argument based solely on high-quality, independent, published, reliable sources -- or you don't.
More importantly, Wikipedia doesn't do edit wars either. You've been bold; your changes have been reverted. Now you need to discuss on the talk page. Note that the discussion is not about what's Good, Right, or True™: it's about what can be said about the topic while fully complying with all of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you mean True™. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Gosh -- right after your friend Dick Lyon posts on the RFAR aganst me with an interesting attitude, I note your post mentioning him in the ADHD case. He calls me "one of the very worst editors" on WP -- but I guess you are on his list too? Collect (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that I'm very near the top of his list, actually. I hear that he has done some good work in more technical areas, but he doesn't appear (to me) to be able to do so in articles about transsexuality any longer. I won't say that he's incapable of improvement: the most RfC/U about him did convince him to cut down on his profanity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If Dick has decided that Collect is one of the very worst, then perhaps I have now lost that distinction in his book. — James Cantor (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm fully convinced that you are #1 on his list of undesirables. The rest of us truly pale in comparison. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Historically, James takes the prize; well, no, it would probably still be Geoeg, but most evidence of his existence was erased after he was banned for life. But James has stopped editing articles in which is has severe COI, so not such an active problem any more. Dicklyon (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, W, if you're going to say bad things about me, it's conventional to notify me. I of course take issue with what you've said there, and wonder how can you find my recent edits to that article to be anything but unbiased information based on reliable sources. Is there any sense in which Cantor's biased account is better, better sourced, more balanced, or anything? I think not. And I have not received any advice on these edits from Lynn Conway, if that's what you're implying. If anything, it follows more the suggestions that you and H made on the talk page. What are you smoking? Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have smoked nothing of any kind, ever, and would probably stop breathing if I tried.
My reference to you at ArbCom was relevant to why I don't want to be involved in the ADHD case. I think that those two sentences will clearly and succinctly indicate the limitations I'm dealing with. It really does not require any defense by or response from you, as it's focused on how I'm managing my time and energy, and therefore I consider notifying you of my editing priorities to be utterly superfluous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagleemail me 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at my arbitration. I know that you do not think hightly of me, so I very much appreciate that you took the time and expressed a sensitive understanding of my situation. I hope I can improve your opinion of me in the future. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Guido den Broeder‎'s appeal was handled by email.

Although we didn't formally topic ban him from Da Costa's syndrome, we will be reviewing his activity. If he resumes any kind of problematic editing, give us a nudge and we'll either expand his topic ban, or reimpose an indefinite block. I think that Guido understands that we have a low tolerance for disruption. Cool Hand Luke 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Some people think that Da Costa's was one of the original (19th century) descriptions of what we now call CFS. This view is generally taken by pro-CFS people (like the editor in question, except that he's a splitter instead of a lumper by preference), and it's impossible to disprove, because DCS was actually several separate syndromes. Some fraction of the 19th century and early 20th century cases very probably were the dominant form of modern CFS (chronic orthostatic hypotension due to autonomic dysfunction). I therefore think it quite reasonable to include it in the general category of CFS-related articles on Wikipedia.
Guido has a history with the DCS article, and I am not looking forward to renewing the acquaintance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have not made any problematic edits on that article (or anywhere for that matter), and don't intend to start now, thanks. Meanwhile, please do not try to think for me. I am not a 'pro-CFS person' (if something like that has meaning at all), nor do I believe that Da Costa's syndrome is CFS, on the contrary I have argued, based on the available sources, that it is not. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It is edits like this that suggest Guido has no insight into the reasons for his block, that he is deliberately playing with wikipedia, and/or that the block should not have been done. Let this be my first official objection to the unblock, but I am willing to let this play out. I hope if Guido is blocked again after this, it'll be permanent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Since no reasons for my ban were ever provided, I do indeed have no such insight, other than if people pile false accusation upon false accusation (like you are doing here) will eventually get any user blocked, Wikipedia being what it is. Note that you do not mention what you perceive to be wrong with my post above, thereby depriving me of an opportunity to gain that missing insight. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I provided you reasons, as did the community when they banned you. I'm not encouraged by your denials. We hope that you are less disruptive in the future, and it's alarming that you cannot acknowledge past disruption. Cool Hand Luke 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You can do many things, you can accuse me, block me and impose restrictions, but what you cannot do is make me acknowledge something that did not happen. As we are guests on this page, I will leave it at that. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving Pages

I am currently trying to edit the wiki Dyslexia page, which is difficult for me as I am dyslexic myself, and the underlying cuae of my dyslexia Auditory Processing Disorder, makes understanding the technicla methods of working in WIKI very difficult. Usually I only research a topic, and supply the research and technical information and let others do the WIKI stuff. I am a member of the Dyslexia editor team, and ohrer members of that teem who did the WIKI stuff seem to have lsot interest, and inorder to maintian the WIKI Dyslexia article I have had to muddle my way around the WIKI way of doing things. I have asked for help but none seem to want to come forward. due to my disabilities the stress of all of this editing is proving quite stressful so I am on a short time line, and the articles i moved appeared to have no active editors, This articles need to be in a new category regrarding the provision of Special education, the stutes, and support structures and the legla right so those who have Special Educational needs. I have no idea how to make these suggestions or who to, or how to go about creating a new category so if you can help itr would be appreciated

dolfrog (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an incredibly complicated environment. I'm happy to answer questions any time that you want to leave a note on my talk page.
You have several goals above, so let's pick just one task. You said that you want to set up a new category. What do you want this category to be named? Categories themselves are placed in a tree structure, so what "parent" categories (there are usually two, sometimes three) do you want this new one to be placed in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me start by trying to explain my immediate problem. In the Dyslexia project, we have a to do list, which includes sorting out a section which realtes to Legal and Support issues for those who have Dyslexia the section is called "Legal and educational support issues" the problems is that the content is not really to do with dyslexia the condition, more about how dyslexia is regarded in diffeent countries around the world. All have different legal and statutory structures and different special educational needs provision structures, and we need to ber able to address these issues for all who visit the Dyslexia article. Now I am dyslexic, and I am best at researching information etc for articles, not neccesarily running a Category. But there appears to be a need for a Category that for the rights of those who have special educational needs, their legla rights, in their countries, and the support structures for those who have special educational needs. There are existing WIKI articles on these various topics so could they not be brought into one cxategory for rationalisation.

dolfrog (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories are quick and easy, which is why I suggested starting there. If you're not sure what to call it, then start that discussion at the WikiProject Dyslexia, and see what people like best. Then figure out where the category "belongs" in the tree. (This is important because it helps readers find the category.) For example, it probably wants to be connected to the existing Category:Dyslexia. There may be several such categories of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have give up trying to have a globla set of article regarding special education, but instead we have set up a new category as part of the dyslexia project Category:Dyslexia support by country which may interst you, you could even help with a new "dylexia support in the USA" article

dolfrog (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed

I am new to wikipedia and don't know the ropes yet, so would appreciate some advice as to how to deal with an editor here that has a point of view and prefers to obfiscate to preserve it rather than support it. Should I refer Medrs matters disputed to that page, (as that is what it comes down to), or seek a third opinion? Peerev (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have replied, but since I have disagreed with basically everything you've tried to claim, you probably won't like it.
Please think carefully about what I've said there. You are going beyond your sources to assert that any symptom that has any connection to the presence or absence of food is proof of a food intolerance. You may want to find some very boring, very mainstream medical textbook (or similar) on the subject, to get a good footing in the actual issues. (Don't read the popular press: the idea that you can radically improve your health, wealth, and happiness through eating just the right foods sells really, really well, and consequently there's an enormous amount of garbage on the subject.)
If you need more help, then you can ask at WT:MED for another editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble, and you are right i do not entirely agree, not because of popular press i might hasten to say, but because the edit is intended for a paragraph commencing. Food intolerance has been found associated with; Rather than asserting a symptom to any particular food, although the discussion had got a bit obtuse. CFS article you discuss was not intended for the article but supplied at SW request, and incidentally the author was the researcher who did the initial research identifying food chemicals not food per se, a bit of an expert!, the Article cite instead is a CDC current document. I think we can go from here thanks Peerev (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually have a "point of view" - I'm simply trying to keep all the pseudoscience out of the food intolerance article. Peerev seems to want to "believe" that migraine, CFS and other illnesses are linked to FI, and he is using dubious articles to support those claims. I don't give a crap whether or not it does, but I do care about people who try to use bad science to "prove" things. I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. If anything I say is unclear, let me know and I am quite happy to explain. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


I've done some fairly extensive editing, which I'm hoping will justify a 'move', and changed my reccommendation on the deletion page. Take a look and let me know what you think. --OckRaz 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds okay to me. There's no good reason for Wikipedia to not have an article about Contragestion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dressed to Kill

I think it's time they get reviewed by an admin for a permanent block. See their recent edits. Don't know the process though.Mattnad (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added a section to Conflict of Interest Noticeboard here. Mattnad (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:COIN sounds like a reasonable approach. It looks like we've got a few more eyes on the situation, at least. EdJohnston is usually pretty good with these things, so I'm glad to have his response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

Hello again. I have another question for you. You have helped me in the past. All through the current month (May 2009) I been engaged in a major overhaul of the school violence entry. A few days ago, Alarics joined in the effort. He wrote the following: "As regards external links to academic journals, etc., I thought the policy was not to include them if they weren't accessible to everybody, i.e. don't put it in if you can only access it with a library card, but I've just looked at WP:ECITE and apparently that doesn't apply to links in references. I don't like it but I bow before the supremacy of the WP rules!"

I thought it was important to cite the appropriate sources regardless of where they are. For example, if a relevant article is found in the Journal Personality and Social Psychology, I should cite it. A reader who isn't a college student or an academic can access it from a public library. Can you enlighten me on this matter? Everything I write includes citations from the appropriate literature. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The question was just resolved. Alarics wrote me back to say he/she meant that we should not use web sites where readers have to pay to obtain articles. But thanks anyway. If I have another question, I will get in touch with you. You have been helpful in the past.Iss246 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding much sooner: Any editor that refuses to allow citations to scientific and professional journals because they aren't free is entirely wrong. Reliable sources do not have to be freely available to be useful and appropriate. This line of reasoning would result in banning nearly all recent books and magazines from Wikipedia, which everyone can agree would be nonsensical. Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Links_and_ID_numbers seems to be the relevant standard; furthermore, WP:CONV encourages linking to non-free sources (because adding a pay-per-view URL to a proper full citation (author, title, date, publication, etc.) does not make the citation any less useful than listing all that information without the URL).
If this becomes an issue in the future, you can always get help at WP:SCG or WP:MEDRS; all the editors there will be very familiar with this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Help me with the links and works (1)

If I made an error about the wrong person which had the similar name or any other mistake, then that should be removed, not the other relevant links that were right, I can see how I made a few mistakes since I am new and wasnt paying attention, but most of my edits was right, so must I now comment on every site about her, which is quite a large work in order to make the work I did be replaced? Should I contact you on your page or can you see this mess! Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

St. Brigid

Thanks for your very patient help - I was not at liberty to have an extended discussion concerning linking policy at that time, and the Meta spam filter link is quite impressive - I had no idea there was so much spam on a single saint. I also have no idea why s/he contacted me in particular, but the timing was a bit unfortunate - your explanation seems to have made some progress. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm happy to help, and glad that you'll be able to respond as well. I hope that she(?) gets some responses at the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Assessment

Hi What, I see you've been tagging large amounts of articles in WP:ANATOMY with WP:MED to them. Please remember that WP:MED's scope only covers disorders, conditions, ect. Not actual anatomy. Just want to give you a fair warning, as I'll be scowering through most of the articles to make sure they are correctly assessed and tagged. Thank you very much! Renaissancee (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at the dates on those WPMED tags. Generally, I haven't been the person placing the tags -- just assessing the articles that someone else tagged -- and these articles were very much supported as being part of WPMED 'way back when (when the scope included "anything taught in medical school"). The change has been very recent (guidelines amended three months ago), and we've made no effort to retroactively remove the tags. When I run across them now, I usually replace them with WikiProject Anatomy tags unless there's a non-trivial amount of clinical information in the article.
You might want to be a bit more familiar with the ongoing discussions on this subject. The "consensus" to exclude anatomy articles is both recent and not very strong, although I believe that we are inexorably moving in that direction. I suggest that you read this, this and this for a sample of conversations at the doctors' mess; consider also this (and most of what follows it) at the assessment/tagging page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
One more thing to consider: Anatomy will once again become part of WP:MED if this proposal to merge WPAN into WPMED as a task force succeeds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for your opinions. Just out of long have you been with WPMED? You seem to be quite active and hopping around making sure things work well. Renaissancee (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, because I started reading the doctor's mess before posting to it. I think I started doing assessment work in October 2007, and I've done (vastly) more of it than any other editor in the project. I have probably assessed about two-thirds of the articles in the project (some of them repeatedly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


I saw your comment, Bzuk and TedPavlic have a discussion going and I think they're starting to get into a WP:LAYOUT issue. Perhaps we need there needs to be a centralized discussion to accommodate the two where they begin to overlap. I'm not sure what to say. For example, Bibliography has two definitions: (1) reference, (2) works; and of the first it can be used for both: (1) inline, and (2) general. Although I've seen the it used for general citations more often. What is your take on it? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have two immediate thoughts: The first is that there is no possible solution that will satisfy everyone, and the second is that I took WT:CITE off my watchlist because dealing with this unresolvable and perennial problem is not fun (especially since it usually comes up in the context of an editor that wants the guideline to support him/her in an incipient edit war). Here are some possibly more constructive thoughts, any of which you should feel free to share with anyone you choose:
  • The articles that I like best don't have this problem, as there are no general refs in these articles. IMO, once an article gets beyond start-class, it shouldn't be using general refs any longer. If it's been a long time since the general refs were added, and especially if the article has been expanded and rewritten to the point that no current editor is capable of identifying what sentences might be supported by them, then I would consider demoting them to ==Further reading==.
  • Articles that split their inline refs into short and full citations seem to use ==Footnotes== and ==References== successfully. It's possible that this system could be used successfully for "inline" (=>Footnotes) and "general" (=>References) citations (especially if there are no short cites being used).
  • I think that an article that has one section of mixed short cites and full cites looks fine. I think that an article that has one section of mixed short cites and full cites, plus another section that is only full cites (either general refs or the full cites for the short cites) looks strange. It's not exactly uncommon (considering only that minority of articles that use inline/non-parenthetical short cites at all), but I don't like it.
  • It's okay to mix general refs in with alphabetized lists of full citations (=the ones associated with inline short cites), at least in some cases (but see above demotion to "Further reading").
  • Parenthetical refs should not be combined with inline <ref> citations in the same article. (Inline refs used solely for explanatory notes in an article that uses parenthetical refs for citations is just fine, of course.)
  • I have, on occasion, used {{refbegin}} (etc) to combine sections of inline and general refs, particularly in articles that seem to suffer from appendix bloat. I generally list the general refs at the end in this approach.
  • Nested appendices are undesirable and may violate WP:ACCESS.
I didn't read that very long WT:CITE discussion; I just checked to see whether one existed (because if it didn't, I was going to recommend that it be started). If you think that there is a serious risk of the discussion creating new problems, then please let me know. We could perhaps attempt to interest people at WP:MOSCO if experienced editors are wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Caregiving and dementia

Hello the allmighty whatamidoing, thanks for all your hard work! :) I was looking at expanding Caregiving and dementia into something like caregiving and degenerative conditions in order to link from the huntigton's disease article and use it as more detailed coverage of that aspect of the disease. I noticed you suggested merging the article into caregiving on it's talkpage - but can't see if you opinion was addressed. Before I get to work does your suggestion still hold true ? L∴V 11:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time since anyone called me omnipotent.
Yes, my concern still stands: Either caring for a person with dementia (or anything else) is significantly different from caring for people with conditions outside the scope of the article, or it isn't. If it's different, the article needs to say how it's different. If it's not materially different, then the article should be merged back to Caregiving.
As for your plan to expand it, I doubt that you will get any significant resistance. The article is essentially unchanged compared to a year ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
...the pixel is mightier than the pen...
On looking at caregiving, I agree I think it would benefit from the incorporation as c&d is better referenced and has a more general tone than a breakdown by region, I'll post a merge proposal L∴V 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Reply Re. My Comment in "Intellectual Giftedness"

About your recent comments at Talk:Intellectual giftedness, such as this one:

It's not fair to blame me for the unverified but trivially verifiable accurate information that was added by someone else more than five years ago, nor is it appropriate to call people names. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (who, by the way, isn't a "Mr" anything)

I "blame" you solely for making a sarcastic and snotty remark to me in reply to my perfectly valid challenge to the information provided in the article.
As I indicate in my reply, by the way, the information is not "trivially verifiable". The person who added the information implies that it reflects some sort of widely held consensus among psychometricians about extremely differing levels of giftedness. My search revealed one psychologist who refers in any detail to the "levels of giftedness" table referenced in the article.
As for "name-calling", if you want to avoid future unpleasantness, then, to start, try not to make sarcastic, throwaway responses to serious comments. I am sure that I can find a Wikipedia policy that disallows such comments as yours, as well, but I really cannot be bothered, right now.
P.S. My "Mr." reference was solely in response to your remark about "Mr. Google". You could be a hermaphrodite, for all I care.Pernoctus (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that my response would be construed as either sarcastic or snotty by any reasonable person. Your response, however, was an inappropriate personal attack that unfairly blamed me for not having magically added a source to Wikipedia to support information that (1) I didn't add to the article and (2) was placed in the article several years before my first edit on Wikipedia.
You will be unable to find a policy that prohibits editors from suggesting that you do at least a little research before declaring information to be unverifiable and worthy of deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Before you can really recruit editors, you need editors to know that these outlines exist"

A few others whose brains I borrowed suggested that WPOOK have an animated advert banner. So Penubag got working on it right away. Here's what he's come up with so far:


Penubag needs feedback.

I've posted a few changes for him to make to it.

If you have any comments and suggestions for him, please let him know at User talk:Penubag#Chocolate banner.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a brief note on the page you indicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pejorative 'Rating'

You left some sort of rating on an article (positional asphyxia) which I substantially edited, supported with references and have been taking the trouble to keep updated. According to you it is 'start' quality and 'low importance'

When I contributed, there was no mention of 'experts' coming along and doing ratings. If that had been stated, then I would not have bothered contributing. If I want my work critically reviewing then I spend time and effort writing a journal article, submit it to a journal and get it peer reviewed by someone who REALLY is an expert on that subject. My employers pay me for doing that, I don't recall you guys stating a pay rate for contributing here.

I've tried twice to remove the article but someone keeps putting it back. If you are not happy with it then why don't YOU have a go a rewriting it - that should be a small matter for you if you genuinely are an expert on the subject. If it is 'low importance' then just leave it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk: I admit that I'm at a loss for how an accurate rating could be construed as "pejorative". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pejorative –adjective 1.having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Response left at - User talk: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 06:56, 10 June 2009 (talkcontribs)

I have responded at User talk: Your talk page is on my watchlist; we don't need to spread the conversation across several pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited Evaluation of Contributions

Value of contributions: Low (Makes pejorative comments on the work of others without contributing constructively)

Responsiveness to equivalent criticism: Poor (Defensive and unresponsive to core objections) (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are unhappy that the article you wrote, but do not own, happened to fall within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Your demand that WPMED not tag or assess the article amounts to a demand that you be able to tell other editors which subjects they are permitted to be interested in and how they are allowed to express their interest. Wikipedia does not grant this right to any editors, including yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Further Unsolicited Assessment of Contributions

Arrogance level of contributions: Very High (Contributions assume a right to evaluate others)

Simplifying the argument for you: it's not a medical article.

Is that simple enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I'm going to suggest that you might be overreacting. The {{WPMED}} tag simply indicates that the article might be of interest to people involved in the Medicine WikiProject - it doesn't mean that they "own" the article. It's actually a good thing, because it may spur some additional editors to come along and help you improve the article, as you've indicated you'd like. The tags are just a way of helping match articles to people who might be interested in working on them, and the ratings are useful because some people like to expand short articles ("stubs") while others prefer to copyedit highly polished articles. Nothing in the process is intended to disparage you or your contributions. We're all on the same side here. MastCell Talk 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Positional asphyxia (1) kills people with medical problems like Florence Griffith-Joyner, (2) gets written about in journals like Am J Emerg Medicine and Ann Emerg Medicine, (3) turns up in 46 articles at PubMed, (4) is a medical emergency, and (5) gets listed by physicians on death certificates as the formal medical cause of death, but it's somehow not a medical issue?
That sounds pretty strange to me, but even if it were true, it's utterly unimportant: WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to decide what is, or isn't, within their scope. "Scope" means "articles our members choose to support", not "stuff that a reasonable person would categorize as being related to our name". If they wanted to, the members of WPMED are free to decide that a kind of sportscar is within their scope, or that myocardial infarction and diabetes mellitus isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Further Unsolicited Evaluation

Ability of contributions to irritate others: High (Contributions maintain a critical and superior character)

Getting the idea of 'pejorative' yet? (It doesn't mean factually inaccurate)

Pleased to see that you have finally got around to doing the most basic - and I mean basic - level of research on the subject. Shame you could not have done that first, before you appointed yourself as an expert evaluator. Some of your arguments are weak, they wouldn't be supported if you actually read the articles, but this isn't the place for that debate.

Just repeating for you - the objection here is to your 'evaluation' of material without making CONSTRUCTIVE contributions. If I had wanted to produce a medical article I would have done so, but I am sure you are more than capable of dominating that arena for yourselves. Evaluating it as a medical article is inappropriate - and the result is pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The objection in the previous subsection was that the subject is not related to medicine. Do you concede that demonstrably false claim? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from above..

"Simplifying the argument for you: it's not a medical article."

Note 'medical article' not 'related to medicine' - it is you who have stated it is of 'low importance' to medicine.

To help you understand the point...

There are articles on PA in law enforcement journals, written by law or corrections officers. These are not medical articles. It would be inappropriate for me to write a letter of reply in the next edition criticising one of these on the grounds it was not meeting the criteria I would expect of a medical journal. It would be an inappropriate contribution and the outcome would be pejorative. The original author would have good cause for dissatisfaction.

In the hope that repetition will get through: it's not a medical article. If I had wanted to write a medical article I would have done so. I am objecting to your 'evaluation' - without constructive contribution - which is pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WPMED rates importance (to the project) based on the subject, not the current contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That's the thing - if would stop shouting for a moment, it would become apparent that you guys agree. states that PA is not primarily a medical topic. WhatamIdoing's "low importance" rating underscores that this particular topic is of low importance from a medically centered perspective (it may be of high importance from a legal or forensic perspective, I wouldn't know). In other words, you agree. MastCell Talk 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I assure you

I am not trying to be a drama queen. I have no intention at all of messing with those articles for at least a year. Some people have enough time to write voluminous blogs etc ranting about how I have made those articles so bad. Let them come here and without me around fix them. If in one year they haven't changed much they won't be able to blame me. They won't be able to blame me anymore.--Hfarmer (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arb comments

Wondering if you have any further comments? A response to your previous remarks has been put forth by Scuro. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Somehow, the page wasn't on my watchlist, and I'd forgotten about it. Today's not actually the ideal day for me to focus on this, but I'll see if I can find enough time to read and react to the comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

random question

I've been trying to update an article that has seen a single editor and (probably) his sock repeatedly revert and claim ownership over w/o discussion. Is that considered vandalism? Is there a way to deal with it so I don't keep getting my work deleted? Thanks for the advice. Fuzbaby (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nurse anesthetist? I'd start with a note over at WT:NURSE to get an extra pair of eyes. Sometimes, having an additional person is valuable. (WT:MED is your second choice, if you don't get a response at the nursing wikiproject).
Right now, you have an WP:Edit war, which means that you need to stop editing the article. Remember: WP:There is no deadline, so whether your changes get included this month, or next month, or next year, is unimportant. Right now, you need to be chatting on the talk page about the smallest possible changes that you could agree to make in the article. Pick one little thing that you think everyone can agree on, rather than a dozen big changes. Explain why you think it improves the article -- does it correct an error? does it clarify something confusing? does it help the reader place the information in context? -- and what reliable sources you have that support it. After that change is fully discussed and either agreed upon (and in the article) or rejected and you're completely done with it, then proceed to the next-smallest change, and work your way through them that way, one little change at a time. It will take a couple of weeks, but the process is easy enough when you set your mind to it, and incrementalism works. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


I just wanted to say "thanks!" for doing that TFD ... I've been swamped, and I really appreciate that you took the time! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing TMWWBQ

This is a first warning to stop vandalizing the article and to stop making personal references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talkcontribs) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting unsourced claims about controversies, POV-pushing, and outright errors is not generally considered "vandalism" by Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

dyslexia and writing systems

Hi WhatamIdoing

the problem with all of the issues that have arisen recently have been cuaed by a great deal of miss understasnding, and a lack of willingness to discuss the issues and to learn from documented research. There is a great deal of resarch which I have been discovering as I have been editing the dyslexia article, I have been reading research paers now for over a month now, just to clarify the existing content of the dyslexia article. There is documented evidence that for some dyalexics writng systems can be a crucial factor, due to the varying orthographic structures, most common of the research in this respect has been to compare orthographies from the same Writing system usually the Latin Alphabet system, which we are now using as English is in that system. However not much research has been done until recently to compare dyslexic issues between the different writng systems, and the research that has been done has not been well publicised as it does not support the needs of the dyslexia industry. So the problem with the RFC was that the research was being ignored by all, but their ill infomed opinions counted for a great deal more.

In the UK dyslexia is mention by the governemnt in its legislation, and the governement are actually comittee investigating dyslexia and the the learning support needs, as part of a wider review of Speach and langauge and communication provision within the UK education system, which in turn is part of the even wide Special Educational Needs provision review, which started 18 months ago. The Bercow the review/report is the rewsult of the first stage of this long term Review. (Bercow can be googled and you need to download the longer report)

because of my communication disability I prefer not to have to type and write too much I much prefer to do the support resaerch, but the editors on the Dyslexia project who did the writing have all jumped ship, and in desperation I have had to do the required editing on my own, which was not my intention, WIKI poses many problems for me for using its own langauge or code, I have problems enough with ordinary text lol. So this means to get the job done I have had to jump into the deep end and I can only hope for the support of others when i make mistakes or things go wrong.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand a fair bit about how dyslexia interacts with writing systems, but that doesn't mean that your plan fits with how Wikipedia uses categories.
Note that the question that needs answering is this: "Is the general reader looking for articles about writing systems going to be looking for information about dyslexia?" The answer appears to be "NO."
You, on the other hand, are trying to address the importance of understanding writing systems for the purpose of correctly understanding dyslexia -- a very different question.
I also object on the slippery slope grounds: if we added a category for every single subject that had a verifiable connection to the general subject of Writing systems, the list would be very, very long indeed. Category:Blindness and Category:Autism have every bit as much claim as Category:Dyslexia does: people with these conditions often have just as much, if not more, problems with common writing systems. Category:Vision, Category:Disability, Category:Congenital disorders, Category:Cryptography, Category:Learning disabilities, Category:Neurological disorders, Category:Education issues, Category:Developmental disabilities, and Category:Corrective lenses could make plausible claims -- and that's without even getting into linguistics, arts, culture, or computers.
It does not serve Wikipedia to have dozens of categories on these pages. Adding too many categories is worse than adding too few.
Yes: members of WikiProject Dyslexia are free to work on whatever articles interest them.
No: members of WikiProject Dyslexia are not allowed to declare dyslexia to be one of the single most important subjects to writing systems over the reasonable objections of other editors.
My advice to you is to give up this particular quest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment of WPMED GA Articles

Yes, Although I've only reassessed a few articles a lot of them have been way of and neglected for some up to a year, so it'll be interesting to what I find. A lot of the articles are small genetic chromosone or horomone disorders so it gets pretty tedious actually. Nevertheless, I'll be on the lookout for possible C, B, GA, A or maybe even FA articles. :) Renaissancee (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're running your search pattern, but C-class is relatively new, so everything in there is more recently assessed (on average). Older assessments in Start and B need to be reassessed to move many of those articles to C class. You might consider looking through either Start or B class articles specifically. (B class, if you want the best odds of finding a GA.)
Also, do you have a script to make the actual assessment step less carpal-tunnel inducing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Possibly unrelated questions: do you have any idea as to how the GA Sweeps process is coming along? Two or three of "my" GAs will eventually be up for reassessment, and I'd like to be around to ensure a quick response. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been following the GA sweeps, and a quick search on relevant links showed no particularly useful page that might answer your question. I suspect that the real answer is "whenever someone gets around to it" -- which could be a long time, unless you're volunteering to be that someone.  ;-)
There aren't that many medicine-related articles left in the review list, if you wanted to look them over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The dyslexia project: A new beginning

Hi All

I have added some new sections below which have come from various talk pages in recent days but all realted in some way to the dyslexia project. So I have added them all below, in the hope that we can all begin to add our own input as one person working alone can cause also sorts of problems as can be seen above. I will post a copy of this to all who I think may wish to the new begining of the Dyslexia project and a copy will appear on your individual discussion pages ( I hope you do not mind). The oringinal copy of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia the talk page of the main project article you will see revise project template, the changes on the tamplate is the addition of a Project pages section, which includes the orinal project pages and the new STAGE TWO page which is hopefuly the new starting point. the STAGE TWO page has the dyslexia article as it is now. And we can tinker with it without changing the actual article itself and discuss and issue we may have before making further changes to the article itself.

dolfrog (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RE Wikipedia:Layout: Other Wikipedia articles that discuss the "header"

RE your question whether other articles discuss the section header -- they are as follows:

I'm not going to contribute anymore to Wikipedia:Layout -- C&C clearly has good intentions but he's very difficult to work with. Before I go, I just want to voice my concern that he is driving dissenting voices away from the page -- again, not because he's got bad intentions, but because his contributions are just so difficult to read and respond to. I don't know how Wikipedia handles situations like this. Good luck. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 06:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I'm sorry that you invested so much time in developing alternatives before seeking input from editors more familiar with the page (and, perhaps importantly, common questions about the page).
You're clearly an excellent copyeditor, and I hope you will direct your considerable skills to more important work (i.e., anything in the main namespace). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI

I replied at WT:DERM#Roseola. ---kilbad (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How about working on content?

As you can see from the discussion, I have done what I could and I encouraged people to write for a contrarian point of view. How about being fair and asking LG to "stop stalling"? Alternatively, you could work on content a bit and write a compromise version. Sincerely The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And LG wants me to be "fair" and criticize your tendency to complain about him (or her). I'm not interested in a childish "even-Steven" definition of fair: I'm interested in resolving this dispute. If I can appear "fair" while resolving the dispute, then that's fine, but I'll settle for simply resolving the current dispute. It would be easier to resolve if either of you would stick rigidly to commenting on the content. Frankly, neither of you are doing a stellar job of working on content, and it only gets worse when you don't feel like a "parent" or "teacher" is looking over your shoulders to make sure that you're doing your work instead of sniping at the other editor. (Thus the apparent need for a daily reminder from other editors to quit posting insults.)
The dispute already covers such a large territory that resolving it will be complicated. I haven't attempted to engage in any significant content work myself because I'm concerned that it will derail the consensus-building. This is a deliberate choice, made to support dispute resolution, and one that I have no plans to change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It does not look to me like you are interested in resolving this dispute, you just like bossing people around and cannot write good content. It would be much easier for LG to accept a balanced view if it is given by an impartial person. That would be the fastest way to end this controversy. I do not need a mother figure looking over my shoulder. Please return to RL to your NIH or wherever you work and boss people around over there. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please read what WP:Etiquette says about being welcoming instead of telling editors to go away, and then see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#The_Sceptical_Chymist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This comment from you -- "neither of you are doing a stellar job of working on content" and "it only gets worse when you don't feel like a "parent" or "teacher" is looking over your shoulders" -- is not very welcoming, is it? I mean -- bossing people around, telling them that they are doing poor job without your "parent figure" and at the same time refusing to help with content and filing baseless reports -- is that welcoming? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

just to break the monotony

Hi WhatamIdoing I just thought you might find this may be interesting reading, which we have both been doing a lot of just recently dolfrog (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I replied there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for a bit of fun you could have a look at one of my old web pages, one day when i have time i will bring all my web sites together lol dolfrog (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If that did not break the monotony, this lot will send you to sleep. You could have a look at some PMIDs and DOIs I have just added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles just to get the sub articles the kick start they need. In time I will ad some that i have regarding reading, but i have to classify them yet on my computer, just a list of numbers that moment. dolfrog (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force

I have set up a Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, and begun a discussion on the talk page for potential benefits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Help me with the links and works

Are my ip somehow blocked or banned or classified as spammer for this mistake that I did so that I cannot make any contribution at all in the future? Saintbridget (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So I am able now to do editions or additions of content in the future without being called a spammer or without my work being erased some time afterwards? Or is it the link I used that I cannot quote from or show the sources I qouted from. Should I never use this link when being here? I am confused? Thank you very much for your help so far! Saintbridget (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are, and have always been, "physically" able to do these things. However, whether or not other editors will agree with you is something I can't predict.
Why do you want to use this link? Why won't some other source do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is much historical facts about the church in the revelations of St. Bridget and the great schism was at the same time which makes it quite interesting. It also has alot of prayers in many different languages that I wish other people should find. I would have a difficulty locating such things in other languages. I am from Sweden too! Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's a lot that we can say about St Bridget and her writings, but do you think that this single website is the only possible place to find good information about her? Aren't there dozens of high-quality, scholarly books about her? Wouldn't those sources be at least as good as somebody's website? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not mean just about her, they have alot of other info, like with the prayers as I said. It would be very hard for me to find that without having the guide of this page to locate the specific prayers in different languages. But she has specific info since she met with several popes and adviced them in matters, and these councils are recorded in her works. These events formed our world very much, quite interesting. There is not so much about her as I know about made by scholars, but you might know more about her than me? I will be cautious in the future and source my material to relevant things. Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to look for some books. You may be surprised by how much information is available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was much! But I think most of that is qoutes from her works or evaluations of her writings, which sadly are biased many times. That is real opinionated material, in my opinion anyway. I would rather think that the main source with the history about her should be used rather than rewritings of the same thing, am I right? I was going to add some canonization info and the popes and councils that confirmed her but I dont understand how to make a new section in the article? Please help! Saintbridget (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies strongly prefer the use of secondary sources, such as what a scholar or respected journalist wrote, instead of primary sources (such as St Bridget's own writings). You can read about the relevant rules here. The primary concern is that we don't want a Wikipedia editor to misinterpret something or to write about his or her new/personal ideas, which would violate the WP:No original research policy. Like any other educational project, the opinions of scholars are more valuable and worthy of presentation (even if you or I personally disagree with them) than the opinions of "fans" or average people (like us).
To make a heading, you type two equals signs on each side of the headline text, like this: ==Canonization== Make sure that it's the only thing on the line, with no spaces or extra letters before it. (Inside the == parts, you can type anything you want, including spaces. We usually try to keep the headline short.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the coaching. But how shall I reference my source, I do not understand this section, it is completely empty when I wish to enter anything in there even though there is alot of references? Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Write the text that you want to add to Bridget of Sweden right here on this page, and tell me what your reliable source for that information is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint Bridget was canonized by Pope Boniface IX in the year 1391 and confirmed by Pope Martin V in the Council of Constance in the year 1415

The Revelations were accorded an exceptionally high degree of authenticity, authority and importance from an early date. Pope Gregory XI (1371-78) approved and confirmed them and judged them highly favourably, as did Boniface IX (1389-1404) in the papal Bull Ab origine mundi, par. 39 (7 Oct 1391). They were later examined at the Council of Constance (1414-18) and at the Council of Basel (1431-49), both judging them to be in conformity with the Catholic faith; The Revelations were also strongly defended by numerous highly regarded theologians, including Jean Gerson (1363-1429), Chancellor of the University of Paris and Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468). Here is the link to the info I found! Saintbridget (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've figured out how to add this to the article, but we have two problems:
  • This is just copied and pasted from the website. That makes it a WP:Copyright violation, which is never permitted under any circumstances.
  • Some of this information was already in the article. For example, we don't need to list the year of her canonization five times on the same page.
Try re-writing this information in your own words. It might help if you look at where a fact belongs in the existing article. For example, the information about the confirmation of her canonization might belong at the end of the section about her life, which already provides some information about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Their website has free copyright on all their material, so there is no problem with using their material. They do not copyright their material. The canonization were part of the same discussion in my thought for it was dealing with things connected to it, I didnt see it five times. My mistake. Was it you who removed my work or someone else, or a bot? Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Where on their website do they explicitly say that they disclaim any copyright?
Copyright is the inherent right of an author: unless the author explicitly and formally repudiates it, then the work is copyrighted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Right on the front page. They have it told alot of times on their pages that people should do everything to spread these words in whatever form they can. So who was it that erased my entry? Peace Saintbridget (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement about "all our books and videos are free to download" is not even close to good enough. That statement just means "we don't charge money if you want to read this." Furthermore, the text you copied was neither a book nor a video, so it's not covered by this statement at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This info is from their book. It is part of their book. Was it you bro or sis who removed it? But if you think I am making things up, contact them please. And I have learned about a law called fair use that allows me to use this kind of material, even though I am fully allowed by them to use their material as you will find out when you contact them. Have you read their books yet? Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The text is either not from the book, or you did not cite the correct source. The source you cited is an "about us" webpage that is not part of the website's books. That page does not expressly disclaim their rights under copyright law. Additionally, the text on the front page (which is inadequate for this purpose anyway) does not apply to non-books and non-videos.
To register formal approval for using the text despite the absence of the necessary language on the website, you'll have to go through WP:OTRS. I am unfamiliar with the process, but the basic idea is that the website owners have to send e-mail to to officially approve its use. If the website owner has a Wikipedia account (e.g., if you own the webiste), then you need to tell them that in the first note, because it would save a lot of hassle over future things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is part of the books, made by the authors themselves. It is a sort of a prelude, I think this is the right english word. But fair use law of US would take care of that anyway if this werent so. Maybe you have you not heard about that law? It is good to know this law. And what was it that erased my entry, please tell me so i know. Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

break it up

I removed your text as a copyright violation.
Fair use does not cover this situation. Fair use allows you to quote a line from a poem, so that you can talk about the author's choice of words in that line; it allows you to show a picture of the book you have for sale; it allows you to read a book to a classroom full of students. Fair use does not allow you to copy several paragraphs off of someone else's website and put it on your website just as if you had written it yourself. Furthermore, even if fair use permitted this, Wikipedia never does.
The text that you copied from the website is on a page called "Information about us". "Information about us" is not reasonably interpreted as a foreword or other part of the book. The parts of their website that are actually the books are plainly labeled, e.g., "Book 1".
If you have permission to copy the text, you must have that permission formally registered. There is no way around this: it must be done, or the text cannot be used on Wikipedia. Do you understand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I could contact them myself since you seem unwilling. What should I tell them to say on their page to please you? I know that more than several pages can be used in fair use, and you say not this little can be used? Where do wikipedia state that they do not follow US fair use law? Maybe not foreword is the right word, afterword is a more suiting word, I dont think this exist as a word though, but you get the point. This page has no hinder to being in a book, info about us can be a part of a book? PeaceSaintbridget (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include it, it's your job to deal with it. Try reading Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
Wikipedia complies with all US law. However, US law does not require Wikipedia to accept everything that might be permitted. To give you a hypothetical example: US law allows websites to use any color they want, but Wikipedia has the right to decide that it will only use blue and black text. The policy is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Note that the policy permits only a limited amount of non-free content, under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law.
("Afterword" is a valid English word.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So where do my entry go against this?. What should I ask website owner to change to please you? As I said, it is part of the book, and the announcement is quite enough from my knowledge of things since I know from previous cases with for example youtube and so on that telling it even verbally on a video in such words as are used on the website makes me allowed to use their material. Can I add it now again when we have come over the mile discussion and I am telling you that it is part of their book? Saintbridget (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Even if we agreed that this page were part of a book (which we don't), the level of permission they give is not enough. You're not "downloading it to your computer" (the use they authorize): you're trying to re-publish on an unrelated website AND releasing it under the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses for anyone in the world to use any way they like, even if "the way they like" is to make another Piss Christ-type piece of offensive artwork.
For Wikipedia to allow you to copy this text into the article, the webpage would have to have a note that the text has been released (to anyone) under a CC-BY-SA-compatible license. Alternatively, the OTRS approach will allow them to give permission for its use on Wikipedia.
Please remember that obtaining permission is the first step: Wikipedia is not actually required to include text simply because they have permission to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It says download and share, did you forget. So I know this is enough from old cases. I ask again, what must they state on their webpage in exact words to please you. Is there not enough for them to state that all their material are free copyright? As your own link says, share is enough. Please! Why do you talk so rudely about Christ? I have followed your rules and have not used too much of their content, but only a minimal entry was what I made.Saintbridget (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't give you exact words, because there are apparently some formalities that vary from country to country. I can tell you, for Wikipedia's purpose, either the word "copyright" or "license" should appear somewhere in it so that it's perfectly clear that they're addressing this point.
"Please share" is not good enough, because you can "share" the information by e-mailing the website's URL to your friends, without copying anything. If they want to do this, they can go read the Creative Commons website, look over the options, and figure out which one they like best. All the necessary information is on that website.
They might not want to do that, however: allowing anyone in the world to do whatever they want with your images and text may cause more heartbreak than anything else. Also, they might prefer to have people visiting their own website, instead of a copy of it somewhere else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: More than half a sentence that is directly copied and not marked as a "direct quotation" is not acceptable. This isn't merely an issue of fair use: it's an issue of plagiarism (telling lies about who wrote the sentence). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So making them say that its free copyright on all their material would please you? But I do not think they mean that they allow people to use their material without giving them credit.

You are free:

  • to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and

This is what your own page says! Saintbridget (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My own page says nothing of the sort: Wikipedia is not "mine". The summary of the Creative Commons license says this — not me.
There is a Creative Commons license that requires future users/modifiers to say who originally wrote it. This attribution does not require the user to provide a link to the website, but just to make a note of the original author's name somewhere. If they do not choose to release it under a Creative Commons license (and many reasonable people would object to this), then you can invite them to contact Wikipedia to give special permission, as mentioned above.
There is nothing you can achieve by continuing to talk to me about this: I am legally incapable of providing you with permission to copy text from someone else's website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So the word copyright must be there to please you, the word share is enough for wiki but not for you strangely enough. I dont understand this cc stuff. A word of acknowledgement on the website of free copyright is enough. So now, I cannot use their website as source, are you kidding with me? This really feels like you are in it for a joke. Have you read the revelations yet, its good to know before death comes. The authors name is not mentioned on the webpage, just as many works in history has been made anonymously, like some of the works of the gospel. Saintbridget (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind the copyright, from reading your talk page that website is currently on the wikipedia spam list. You can dispute this and request its removal on this page.MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals It is unenclyclopedic to copy and paste directly from sources, no matter how good of a source it is and no matter whether the source allows you to copyright. An enclyclopedia should reword and summarise important points or conclusions from a reliable sources in your own words.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

what does this blacklist mean in practicality? What does it do?Saintbridget (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well for one, when google or other search engines next crawls the blacklist it may knock down that website in its search ranking results, so watch out for that happening. Essentially you may have demoted your website on search engines rather than promoting it. Once google views your website as a possible spam site it is very hard to get google to change its mind. You should be careful not to misuse wikipedia for promotional purposes, it is more likely to backfire. I think also that any further addition of the link triggers a spam alert which results in its auto-removal but could be wrong.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So basically instead of say being on page 1 for certain search terms you may end up on page 2 or 3 or worse which will reduce web traffic to that prophecy site. Whether this happens or not is up to google filters.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand fully how to make this entry, it is so many things you must add and complete before it will be accepted. Can you add it if I write the reasons? Saintbridget (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What is "this entry"? There are several things being discussed now, and I'm not sure what your request is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

well, I am wondering if you cannot agree with that its part of the books, please look at the placing on the website, its placed with the books, not as something else. I dont understand this CC stuff, but them saying their books can be shared seems ok, I am sorry if you was somehow offended. I am not a tip top in english and I cannot see how I can improve the sentence, I would only make it worse in my belief, and I would guess to say that alot of material here is direct copy of uncopyrighted old encyclopedias? Am I right. Maybe you can help me with making it better? Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The webpage that you think is "part of the books" says:

We need your help, make a donation here please.
We also need your prayers! God Bless You All!
Would you like to contact us, please send an email to

Does that sound like it's "part of the books" to you? It does not sound like part of a book to me.
Perhaps you'd prefer to read about Creative Commons at their Swedish website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course that could be with a book, the author(s) telling their story and mission is quite normal. Am I stupid for saying that? The holy books I read are full of such things, well maybe not internet adresses and hotmails? I dont know if I can make them agree to this CC, but maybe I can get them to write a statement declaring that all is free copyright on the site, would that do? I think though that they mean that you must attribute their site in any way and that you must not edit their work, should I tell them to write this too? I am learning step by step Saintbridget (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But even though they stated you should not change the texts you are using from them, can one do it since fair use exist. Please answer the questions I asked before so I know. Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If they do not want the text to be changed, then Wikipedia does not want it. Nothing else matters: if it's not okay for a future editor to change it in anyway that he or she wants, then Wikipedia refuses to have it.
Figure out this single point as soon as possible. If it's not okay to change the text, then we don't need to worry about anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can use the text anyway I like is what they said, as long as I source their site. So can I add the text now or is there anything more to discuss. I dont understand, is the site on the blacklist yet? Or is it me who is unable to add the site or newcomers? Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC) (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but their consent would have to be registered through the OTRS system, to prove that you are not lying. The problem is not that I personally think you would tell lies, but that someone might, and therefore Wikipedia has very strict rules about these things. That would deal with the copyright issue.
However, it would not deal with Wikipedia's own rules about writing a good article. Wikipedia doesn't want you to copy and paste a long direct quotation off of any website, even if you properly attribute it (which requires putting the entire thing inside "quotation marks" and naming the source) to avoid plagiarism.
Again: you must write in your own words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What is OTRS? Their consent is shown since they make it on their website! I see alot of people quoting passages from books on the saint Bridget article wikipedia without having any consent from the book owners, not are they uncopyrighted as my source is. Did you refuse their additions too? So where does it say that i must change something which is already ok? If I change the words, then I can add it? Indeed you see it is allowed by their site. Where can I see where the other qouted sources that have been allowed on the saint Bridget wiki have the right and same allowance as you insist I must have! I act fully according to wiki rules. Where does it say, fair use is just a sentence of a poem? Saintbridget (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Saintbridget (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Saintbridget (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to WP:OTRS for information about that process. The "please share St Bridget's own writings and books with other people" note on that website is not adequate for sharing the parts of the website that are not written by St Bridget. If the website's owner really wants to authorize this use of text that is not written by St Bridget, then they will have to contact the folks at OTRS and specifically, directly, and unambiguously tell them this. It will have to come from an e-mail address that is clearly associated with the website. It is not good enough for the website's owner to tell you: the website's owner must tell Wikipedia's OTRS group directly.
The text that other people have included are direct quotation written by St Bridget herself. St Bridget's writing are not subject to copyright laws (because they are so old), and as a practical matter, it is not possible to simultaneously (1) re-write this text in your own words and (2) use text that was written by St Bridget.
The text that you want to include is not written by St Bridget. It was written by the owner of the website. It is subject to copyright laws. Additionally, there is no possible reason for not re-writing it in your own words (except laziness): you could communicate the same facts without using exactly the same words. Since it is possible to write this in your own words, then Wikipedia says you must write this information in your own words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading comprehension in the United States

I am not going to get into an editing war with you. So I have referred your irresponsible move to the Administrator whose move you have just reverted. You continue to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the issue involved, may be you are more like a teacher who like to tell others what to do in the hope that non one questions the validity of what you of what you are saying. You did not discuss yo objections to the move when the option was there for a week. But only reverted the move, days after it had been made, and you did not bother going through any discussion with those who made the original move. You acted only on your own opinion which from what you tell me is not the WIKI way of doing things. So don't the WIKI rules apply to you like other editors. dolfrog (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Like 99.9% of Wikipedia's editors, I was unaware that your ongoing efforts to improperly fork the reading-related articles had affected this article. I voiced my objections immediately upon discovering the move. I was not the only editor objecting, either.
There is no deadline. You never had consensus for the move in the first place, but even if you did, you lost that consensus as soon as I presented reasonable arguments against your plan.
If you're unhappy with that article presenting primarily US-specific information, then you need to add information to balance it, not keep trying to push it off into a US-only ghetto. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I will start from the beginning to explain things my my perspective. For the lat 10 years I have been lobbying first for APD research to be carried out in the UK to help all in the UK who have APD, (as a result of my son being diagnosed as having CAPD as it was then in 1998). I have had to research all the information from the USA and else where to pursuaded the UK authorities to research APD, this happened in 2004. The major barrier to having an increased awareness of APD is the UK dyslexia industry, which prefers remain with the science of the 1980s and 1990s to define dyslexia to promote and sell their support program and related products, including so called health guides, and reference books, and the educationalists are even worse due to the lack of financial provision to provide the support required, and the political pressures that go with that. Until I started to do serious research into dyslexia to try to bring the WIKI article up top date, I was probably of the same opinion as you about all the issues we appear to have difference about. I am not trying to create any Ghettos but just to create greater overall clarity. Dyslexia is about having problems with precessing or reading the written word, So to understand why I and other dyslexics have these problems we need to understand the the skills required to learn to read, and why we have a some type of neurological deficit which acts as a barrier to having the optimum reading skills of non-dyslexics. What has been a major problem in precious research has been the lack of research into the different sub types or different cognitive causes of dyslexia. Most of the research has been just all dyslexics compared to non dyslexic controls. Where thee should have been different sub groups of dyslexics and a non dyslexic control group. Currently the German and Chinese researchers are leading this advance in dyslexia research. And they are now all discussing the different types of cognitive deficits which cause dyslexia vary according to the writing system being used. So it make sense that the sample would apply to the teach of reading in different countries using different writing systems. Especially as many people from these different countries try to learn English which does not mach their existing language or reading skill sets. So before i got involved with the actual editing of the dyslexia article it was decided to make it a summary article, with many sub article to provide the greater detail of the more weighty topics, and for dyslexia support by country due to the national variations in statues and support systems, again this appears tpo mirrored by methods of teaching instruction. Currently in the UK we depend on Peer Review process, for all research, and now the international peer review that exists especially in the APD research. These neurological deficits which can cause dyslexia are the key to help understand the as yet undefined nature of how we learn to read scientifically, neuroimaging will help sort that out may be. All i want to do is to finish editing the dyslexia article and realted issues as soon as possible so I can concentrate on APD and any other new topic that may take my interest, dyslexia is too political. and with my APD I do not do political very well dolfrog (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Read this three or four times if necessary, but please figure out what I'm saying:
I do not care what you want to happen in these articles. I care what the Wikipedia community wants to happen in these articles.
You, a single editor among thousands, do not get to dictate the structure of these articles. You must get consensus for the changes you want to make. You do not currently have consensus for the changes you want to make. You should stop editing and listen to what the other editors are telling you. You should keep listening until you really, truly, entirely understand what you're being told. You should not edit unless and until you have consensus.
You will know that you have consensus when editors stop opposing practically everything you do and start helping you make the changes themselves.
Do you understand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

From what i have seen so far on WIKI consensus means the lowest common denominator, or understanding of a topic. I do not have the time nor the ability to advocate for anything other than my own area of specialisation, which is Auditory Processing Disorder . For all other related issues I can only let the scientific research do the talking for me. I try to make the initials moves in the hope that others will have enough interest and research ability follow up what i have started. So this not a personal crusade more trying to get WIKI to match the research, which should be well ahead of opinion and consensus, and in the case of dyslexia in many countries like the UK the research has been cleverly concealed from both the public and the most of the support professionals. It seems to be part of my role as an APD pioneer in the UK and may be else where to be well ahead of my time, which is so frustrating, the research professionals will explain things in great detail privately but will not say a word in public due the uproar causes when a researcher expressed their views during a telephone conversation with a parent and campaigner in the field of Autism. So currently in the UK research papers tend to be well behind actual research because peer review has become so intensive. The time limit issues are based on my health needs to avoid too much stress, I also suffer from Post Traumatic Stress which was caused by 6 years of Disability Discrimination in the workplace, due to my employers denial of the existence of APD and even the implications of a clinical diagnosis of APD. Eventually in most discussion there will always be some one who refuses to understand how APD affects me communication abilities, not you by the way, and my stress levels explode. dolfrog (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you asked GTBacchus what original research is. This is an example.
Whatever you may feel about it, a core policy of Wikipedia is that it's based on previously published material and opinions. "Original research" is when editors introduce into articles their own ideas, or their own organisation of primary material.
No-one cares how much you know about what's being "cleverly concealed" (and frankly that phrase rings alarm bells about your objectivity toward the topic). Unpublished "insider knowledge" is not usable here. Unpublished synthesis - that is, an editor's own survey of a field, not based on secondary sources - is also not usable.
I know it's frustrating, but we just have to wait until material is published to the required standard of reliability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Dolfrog's efforts are also a crystal-ball problem. Wikipedia attempts to describe the current mainstream consensus -- not what the mainstream consensus should be, or what it probably will be, in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To Both Gordon and WhatamIdoing

Thank you both for your contributions to the recent Arbitration.

With regard to dyslexia in the UK and may be elsewhere the dyslexia industry (those who have a finicial interest in selling dyslexia related products, and proving support) have not been explaining the real meaning and implications of the documented Research of the last decade or so but only making scant reference to the new research by heading only, For example each time there is a new gene recognised as potentially a cause of dyslexia the news is reported as Scientist have identified the dyslexia gene or something similar. The implication from this being that there is only one gene responsible for dyslexia. But if you dig deeper there has been research since about 1989 confirming a genetic link to dyslexia, and research scientists have two or more chromosomes and about 3 or 4 Genes which can each be a factor in causing dyslexia. So why is the motive for concealing this information. To maintain their financial status quo, be it their income, funding, or sales, depends on dyslexia being a single condition in its one right, so that they can claim that all they do is for all dyslexics. What the research over the last decade of so has been demonstrating is that Dyslexia has at least visual and auditory cognitive neurological causes, and more recent research has been highlighting Attention issues as well. This why the research from Germany and China is so important because these countries are almost dyslexia industry free. The Arbitration issue which we have all been apart of highlights the tip of the iceberg of the range of the products that the dyslexia industry has to offer. But if research becomes common knowledge, as it should be, then all of these products should have to be classified as to which groups of dyslexics each product may help, and even which groups of dyslexics it could do harm. The people who suffer are the dyslexics and their families who pay out good money for these products in the hope that they will provide some benefit, most buy blind, and take a very good chance of wasting their hard earned cash.

My insider information can only related to Auditory Processing Disorder, especially in the UK, as I am founder of APDUK and was Chairman from 2002 - 2005 and Vice Chairman 2005- onward. So I have heen in regular contact with the leading APD researchers in the UK and around the world. But I am an outsider when it comes to dyslexia and my research of the last six months (2 months in relation to the WIKI article) has been very revalationary as to the scale of the miss information which has be allowed to exist. dolfrog (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing

you wrote this above

"You will know that you have consensus when editors stop opposing practically everything you do and start helping you make the changes themselves. Do you understand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)"

When that happens I know it is time for me to leave and move on to pastures new, as i have done what I set out to do and leave it to others who better able to fill in the step by step gaps. dolfrog (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles

have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles dolfrog (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


thanks for the reassurance dolfrog (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Got an issue about external links,[3] thought you might be interested. :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Agradman made an edit.[4] I reverted under WP:CON. It doesn't seem to be helping the situation. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

re Just so you know


you might like to have a look at one of my sandboxes where i could add your "Just so you Know". I have created it to help me understand WIKI more easily, like a sort of history or library of information. dolfrog (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Village School (Great Neck, New York)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

FYI. I'd like to break this neverending cycle, as you've suggested, but this sort of behavior makes it difficult to do so. Dekimasuよ! 00:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well... I suppose we could just ask her whether she's ready for round three of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao. I could probably find time to file the case in the next day or two... I've been kind of busy, but keeping an eye on the contributions. The string of AfDs is disruptive and shouldn't be tolerated. Preparing the SPI report is just such a hassle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merges for Food and Drink

Based on your recent participation in several Food and Drink related merge discussion, I would like to point out several open discussions that might interest you:

--Jeremy (blah blah) 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Psst-- Wanna be an administrader?

Impressive work in last couple of years. I did a whole lot of medical content work here from 2004 to 2007, and have returned from a long break with a vow to restrict activity to a narrower list of topics and avoid arguing with idiots. Your contributions are good, your writing impeccable and you sort of seem like natural administrator material (if not natural elementary school principal material-- it's not your IQ that can be annoying, it's your acerbity). Nevertheless, some of what you do would be easier with admin privileges, and as a once-upon-a time fellow Iowan who respects expertise and literacy, I would be happy to nominate you if you wish. (I'll argue with you too, if necessary.) alteripse (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded! JFW | T@lk 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

FDA links

Hey, if you're still interested in fixing some of the broken links to the FDA website, I've collated a list of them. They're at User:MastCell/FDA links - this should be all of the broken FDA links from Wikipedia articlespace. There are a lot, so it will probably take a team effort to fix them all. Anyhow, in case you were still interested, at least we have a list to work from now... MastCell Talk 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've split up that nightmarishly long section; I hope that is okay with you.
I don't understand why these links are even in the list. Should that short section just be removed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Really appreciate your efforts! Yes, this section doesn't make sense, but since it's already finished… Actually we should remove these links from the articles. Just a hint to find warning letters: navigate to the main page and start searching. In most articles the date when the warning letter was issued is given. In my experience more WLs are sent to 'pharma/devices', so 'Browse Warning Letters By Company' isn't that helpful - navigate through the years instead. For 'food' the company's name is more efficient. Thanks again! -- Alfie±Talk 00:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nitrogen narcosis

Thanks for your good-faith edit to Nitrogen narcosis. I agree that "Sources" is not an optimal title for a section (even though it contains the principal sources for the article) - as WP:LAYOUT#"Notes" and "References" says. However, the very next section, WP:FURTHER defines "Further reading" as: A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article.. As you can see, the contents of that section all appear in the article - as cites via {{Harvnb}}) - so cannot be placed in a section titled "Further reading". It is also worth noting that LAYOUT states: Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic ..., in which the use of "may be used" implies to me that it is not deprecated. I'd be grateful if you would therefore either self-revert your edit, or (better) suggest another name for the section more appropriate than "Sources". Thanks in anticipation. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's the inevitable result of merely having glanced over the article, instead of carefully reading the refs.
I think that the arrangement of the refs needs to change, because short citations shouldn't be mixed with some full citations, but not others. Generally, I'd just put them all together under "References" (i.e., "ref" 1 includes all the information from "source" 1), but some people prefer to split them, so that the short citations and (all of) the full citations are in separate sections. In this approach, they typically put the short cites in a section called "Notes" and full cites in "References". Which do you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, using the template {{Harvnb}} creates an entry in the section containing {{reflist}}, just as the usual in-line <ref>{{cite xxx ...}}</ref> does. So I could separate them out by using <ref group="xyz"> syntax, but that makes the text ugly like this[1][xyz1] - for just the gain of having a Notes section for "short" (Harvnb) cites and a References section for "full" cites. I prefer to leave them mixed. I've presently got an article at FAC (WP:Featured article candidates/Oxygen toxicity/archive1), where I had criticism for not quite getting the distinction between harvnb and full cites right, but not for mixing them in the same References section.
However, to explain the real problem, let me give you an example: a Harvnb cite like <ref>{{harvnb |Brubakk|Neuman|2003 |page=301}}</ref>) generates not only its "short" entry (created by {{reflist}} as "Brubakk & Neuman 2003, p. 301") but also a link from that short entry to an anchor which looks like this: #CITEREFBrubakkNeuman2003. This anchor is picked up by a full cite to the work (but not the page) which includes the "|ref=" parameter like this: {{cite book |title=Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving |editor=Brubakk, Alf O; Neuman, Tom S |year=2003 ... |ref=CITEREFBrubakkNeuman2003}}. This allows a single work to be cited "in full" once, but allows individual "short" references to cite different pages. So there is the problem: Where do you put the full cites? You need another section. I usually call it "Sources", for lack of a better title. If that doesn't make sense, you can see a fully-worked example at User:RexxS/Cite multiple pages - where I've incorrectly called the section "Bibliography". Any other suggestions for the name of this section would be most welcome. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
So why not move all the other full citations into the same section with the Harvnb full cites? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

::::Because all the other full citations are automatically generated by {{reflist}} (along with the harvnb short entries) - or am I not getting what you mean? --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok - You mean just put them after {{reflist}} in the References section. I've tried that now. It looks a bit odd to me - what do you think? --RexxS (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That's one solution (usually done in combination with {{refbegin}} to make all of them the same font size), but below is what I had in mind:

Here is the relative narcotic potentials for some components of breathing gases.[1] Xenon has historically been too expensive to be used very much in practice, but it has been successfully used for surgical operations, and xenon anesthesia systems are still being proposed and designed.[2] Due to its perception-altering effects, the onset of narcosis may be hard to recognize.[3] This measures the relative concentration of different gases required to prevent motor response in 50% of subjects in response to stimulus, and shows similar results for anesthetic potency as the measurements of lipid solubility.[4]

  1. ^ Bennett, Peter; Rostain, Jean Claude (2003). "Inert Gas Narcosis". In Brubakk, Alf O; Neuman, Tom S. Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving (5th ed.). United States: Saunders Ltd. p. 304. ISBN 0702025712. OCLC 51607923.  More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  2. ^ Burov, NE; Kornienko, Liu; Makeev, GN; Potapov, VN (1999). "Clinical and experimental study of xenon anesthesia". Anesteziol Reanimatol (6): 56–60. Retrieved 2008-11-03.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Brubakk & Neuman 2003, p. 301
  4. ^ Eger, EI; Saidman, LJ; Brandstater, B (1965). "Minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration: a standard of anesthetic potency". Anesthesiology. 26 (6): 756–63. PMID 5844267. 
This produces one list that contains everything. The Harvnb short cites are still clickable to the full cites, but everything is in the same list. All it requires is replacing the first Harvnb template for one ref (usually the first) with the entire "Sources" template, plus the page number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice - almost perfect! The only tiny loss is the chapter pages (|pages=300–22), but I can live without that. I'll give that a try. All of this would be much easier to manage if we ever get Bug 18890 implemented. Thanks for the help. --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think that this is just as useful to the reader? It avoids the problem with the three 'different' items. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that looks great! The pedants might gripe that the page number is "wrong" when you follow through the harvnb to the full cite, but who cares when the page number is clear in the "short" entry. I have to say I've never seen another article referenced like this, but I am surprised that all articles are not done this way. Apologies, by the way, that I hadn't made the changes to the page already, I've been preoccupied with work and the Oxygen toxicity FAC. If you find time before I do, please make these changes to Nitrogen narcosis, it definitely improves the article, imho. Thanks again --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done Perhaps we should write up a description of how to do this (at Template:Harvnb?) as a suggestion to other editors.
It's true that the page number in the ref only applies to the first use, but I don't think that will actually confuse anyone.
You said that we're losing the chapter pages, and I paid insufficient attention to that earlier. I can't think of any reason why we can't make it work somehow, if it's not. Where is that (supposed to be)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
When I couldn't find a good explanation of how to use the CITEREF part of {{harvnb}}, I worked out the scheme you saw before by myself, then wrote a little essay at User:RexxS/Cite multiple pages. I eventually added a link to that in the documentation for harvnb. However, what I wrote really only applies to articles that have bibliographies, so you could either modify that and actually add it the documentation (I didn't feel confident enough when I wrote the essay), or write up a worked example (using a part of the Nitrogen narcosis, I would suggest) and replace/add to the link which I put in the documentation. What do you think?
The page numbers for a chapter really only apply when I cite a compendium like Bennett and Elliott's Physiology, which is edited by Brubakk & Neuman, but has different authors contributing individual chapters. Naturally they use parameters like |pages=300–322 , but when you also add a single |page=301 at the end of the {{cite book}}, it overrides the earlier one quoting the pages of the chapter. It really is a very small loss as it merely saves the reader from having to look in the contents of the book to find the relevant chapter. --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

re new and dyalexia project

Hi WhatamIdoing

made some replies to your comments in the title on those talk pages dolfrog (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

a further reply dolfrog (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

another further reply dolfrog (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)



This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

For the Committee MBisanz talk 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The study

Made a proposal.[5] Based it off the two studies we did. Did my best to steer the discussion towards an objective direction: asked for an objective response. I think it's subjectivism that's preventing consensus, progress. Those were my thoughts, what do you think? I'm interested to hear. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


You seem knowledgeable so I hope you can help here -- I am the one who worked on the Feingold Diet page a lot, but I am not an expert on Wiki stuff.

(1) How can I get the note removed that there is original work and that there are citations - referring to the chart in that page. I removed the graph which I had made to compare studies (the original work) and cited everything I could find to cite. But how do I get that note off there? Am I allowed to just take it off? Is there somebody in charge I am supposed to go to?

(2) At the top of the page is the note that an expert such as a doctor is needed. Nobody has come forward in a couple of years and it has been suggested that I can put a note out on the email newsletter I write. Somebody in the 30,000 people who get it - all presumably interested in the subject - might just be the expert needed. But who should they go to once they have replied to me that they are interested?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Oops -- I forgot to sign this Shulae (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing much about the current state of the article, I can give you some general background, and perhaps some of it will help.
Original research doesn't necessarily mean that you can't make a graph. It means that a graph, or a sentence, or anything else in the article, needs to be obviously/directly (but not "copyright-violation-ally", if you'll let me make up a word) from a reliable source. The most common problem in a medicine-related article is relying on primary sources (e.g., a journal article about a hands-on experimental study) instead of secondary sources (e.g., a systematic review or literature review that considers the results of several trials.)
I'm sure you can easily imagine that someone could publish a small clinical trial, or (worse) a non-human lab study, and that it would be easy for another person to misrepresent it as absolute "scientific proof." This happens all the time in newspapers: someone puts some cancer cells in a petri dish, drowns the dish in some new fruit juice, and the cancer cells die -- and the media report says "fruit juice cures cancer!" when they could just as easily say "drowning prevents cancer!"
It's also easy to take two or three of these and add them up to make a statement that none of them individually say -- and this is the heart of "original research". If you've carefully looked at each statement, and each reference, and you're sure that every single statement directly reflects whatever the source says, with no adding up to reach a new conclusion (no matter how logical), then you can simply remove the tag.
We of course want to avoid that kind of problem (especially in articles about even slightly controversial things), so we try to stick very closely to high-quality secondary sources (especially to the most "mainstream" sources you can find, because you don't want someone to say, "Well, but all their sources are this crackpot..."). So you might search (e.g. here) for government websites, for official position papers by dieticians, or things like that. They are "less scientific(-looking)", but they are often very good indicators of what the overall scientific consensus is.
As for other tags: if you personally don't think that the article needs attention from an expert, then please remove the tag. (If someone else seriously disagrees with you, then he or she will put the tag back.) {{POV}} tags in particular are notorious for hanging about well after disputes are resolved. If you think that an article (or section) unfairly promotes or denigrates the subject, then please try to fix it. If you think that it's appropriately balanced (showing both the good and bad, just the way a respected, mainstream "world expert" might see the topic) then you can take the tag away. Tags on Wikipedia are just notes to other editors; they are not badges of shame. If the note seems wrong, or out of date, then you can change it or remove it. As with anything, if you make a mistake (in someone else's opinion), then someone else will likely correct it after a while.
If you decide to suggest to your newsletter mailing list that they improve Wikipedia's articles (on this or any other subject), please remind them about our neutrality and verifiability policies. Wikipedia doesn't want to advertise or promote this diet (or anything else).
I hope this helps. Good luck to you, and feel free to ask any further questions here. I'm happy to share what I've learned, and to help you find other people to ask if I don't know the answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm afraid I don't believe I was able to find a satisfactory solution. Let me know if you come across something, though. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've inflicted the problem on User:MZMcBride (whom I've found to be both very responsive and extremely helpful with questions like this). Perhaps he'll know more than either of us, or will have an idea about who else to ask. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the MediaWiki API, it's actually remarkably easy to search for external links limited to a particular namespace - you just pass an extra parameter along with your query. It's a built-in feature of MediaWiki (here is the API specification). I'm not sure why this feature hasn't made its way into the Special:Linksearch interface. With the FDA links, I basically wrote about 6 lines of Python code which will perform any linksearch you want, limited to whichever namespaces you want. It spits out the results in a tab-delimited text file, for easy importation into Excel, but you could easily have it spit out wikicode instead. Anyhow, short answer, if you have a Python runtime (I think most Macs come pre-shipped with them) I can just give you the script I use, or if you have a specific query you want to give me, I can run it for you (namespace-restricted) very easily. MastCell Talk 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Python seems to be present on this computer, but MZMcBride has filed our complaint as bug 19789, so perhaps it will be fixed properly. In the meantime, I put his example list for in User:WhatamIdoing/Spambox, and that's more than enough to keep me busy for a long time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, getting it incorporated into Special:Linksearch is definitely the best long-term solution, and it should be pretty straightforward since the capability already exists in the software. Good luck. MastCell Talk 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Orthographies and dyslexia/Sandbox

could you check content to see if is WIKI acceptable Orthographies and dyslexia/Sandbox dolfrog (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "wiki acceptable"?
The contents of the sandbox are primarily copy-and-paste copyright violations of primary sources. The current contents of this sandbox absolutely can not be placed in an article.
The first section, about a single individual, probably cannot be made to meet the standards (WP:DUE and WP:MEDRS) -- at least, not for an entire section dedicated to that one individual.
The sources for "Research text requiring copy-editing or copywriting" are okay on the surface -- depending on how you use them (an unknown issue, as you've only copied them). Good literature reviews, or any secondary source would be much better than these reports of experiments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Isn't Milo a charmer? MastCell Talk 07:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen the comments. He's been busy at WT:EL as well. I would not be surprised that he's using that article's talk page to propose changes to WP:EL because he's afraid that putting it on the EL page itself would generate (1) higher traffic and (2) result in editors responding after they'd already read the repeated rejection of his very flimsy arguments in favor of fansites.
I wish he'd actually file a formal complaint against me, as threatened. The response might actually be enlightening to him, which would ideally result in him becoming a non- (or less-) tendentious editor. (Or it might be the next step in another endlessly Guido den Broeder-style mess; I don't want to speculate on probabilities.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't hold your breath for the user-conduct RfC. In my experience, he's quick to threaten, in a tone that suggests he be a little too into The Sopranos, but the threats are notably empty. MastCell Talk 23:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup work on references

Hi, there. Thank you for cleaning up the references I added to the dyslexia and orthography article so that they use reference naming. I hadn't had time to go figure out how to do that. An added benefit is that now I have a model I can copy for other articles! Thanks again. Rosmoran (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm indebted to User:Arcadian for cleaning up my ref formatting across many articles when I was a new editor, so I'm happy to be able to help someone else with that. I think of it as a small effort to "pay back" that favor.
I'm also just thrilled to have you back on Wikipedia again. I missed you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I call that "paying it forward". :-)
I certainly didn't expect to be missed -- what a nice surprise. We've had a very rough year, and I just didn't have the bandwidth or motivation to spare. Hope all is well with you and yours. Rosmoran (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi both you might be interested in looking at the Wikipeadia support Reference generator dolfrog (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


The purpose, I assume, since this is part of AWB genereal fixes, is to ensure that all pages are sorted the same way. I have run AWB aggainst the new page location, and the same result occurs. The probelm is that without this sort of defaultsort strategy things such as "TUC Senate" would be sorted before "TUC elections". The name of the article in the category is not affected by the sort key as you probably know. Rich Farmbrough 17:19 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Some review papers that may interest you

Hi WhatamIdoing

I have been listing some review papers one one of the Dyslexia project pages Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia in the section called "Interesting research reviews listed as i find them" Many of them have only been published this year. best wishes dolfrog (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Parental Alienation Syndrome

WhatamIdoing, I request that you please provide comments on the parental alienation syndrome talk page. Thank you, Michael H 34 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Question about referencing

Hi WhatamIdoing,

I've been following the referencing model you demonstrated in your cleanup of my references, but I don't know how to do something, and I'm having trouble finding the specifics in the Wikipedia citation articles.

I see how to create a reference that is "named" so that you can cite the same reference later without having to insert all of the specific citation information again.

My question is: how do I handle having a second citation of the same reference but using a different page number? So, if I create "ref 1 = blah blah blah p. 1" and need to cite "blah blah blah" again later but p. 100, do I have to create and entirely new reference name, or is there a way to substitute the page number with the abbreviated reference? (I hope that makes sense.)

Example in: Citation of "Wolf" in the References section of Orthographies and dyslexia.

Thanks for your help!

Rosmoran (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that you can't do this.
The usual workarounds are:
  • Use {{Rp}} to add the page number immediately after the ref number (looks like [1]:35).
  • Make a new (short) citation that refers to the previous one ("Smith 2009, p. 35").
  • If the page range is small (e.g., in one chapter), use the entire page range for all sources (so instead of p. 24 in one, and p. 26 in the next, you make them both refer to pages 24-26)
Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Thanks!
Rosmoran (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

External links (MOS)

Thanks for your input. I agree, the link adds little value to the article. Your name is very familiar, but I cannot for the life of me remember where we have met before... <scratches head> -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC). Of course, on the naming conventions for Medicine articles! -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability article

Hi WAID - thanks for adding the tag to the page. I have tried to read the guidelines you cite but they are too long, diffuse and unclear (to me). Could you state briefly exactly what it is needs doing to the Further reading section to make it acceptable? Or, better still, could you make it acceptable yourself? Granitethighs (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that after 213 regular references, there can't be that many more books that we really need to recommend to the readers. But here are some suggestions:
  • Re-check them all for duplications of the ref list (e.g., Bookchin, which I removed for you). Double-listing is not accepted.
  • See whether any of more of the books in the list could be used as references in the article.
  • Review the remaining list to identify the most important (to a general reader) items -- a famous book, for example, or one that's particularly complete, or one that someone entirely new to the subject might benefit from reading. Try to pare down the list to this "must-have" reading material.
Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

page move of Jacob Sheskin

I actually totally agree with your apparent reasoning for this move, but just FYI, the page you cited as the reason, WP:CREDENTIALS is a redlink. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I should have checked. WP:CREDENTIAL was the page I was aiming for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop playing school maam

I am tired of you patronising self important approach. you should really do your research before making a fool of yourself. I started the article you have been commenting about on my user page, so I should know what the intended content should be and what the title should be. So if another editor moves the article with no discussion of the move, I can the either revert the move or compromise and move the article to a compromise title which is what I have done. From what i can see you have never created or stated an article on Wikipedia, so far I have started 10 articles in the last 3 months, mostly with very little help but now other editors are beginning to contribute. If you can help all well and good if not stay away. dolfrog (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I disagree with dolfrog. I don't get the impression that you're being patronising. Rather, I think your comments and work are very helpful.
Rosmoran (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with dolfrog on this one. She can be patronizing, which is someone who looks down on other people in an offensive manner. There is a difference between mean and nice teachers. Mean teachers can be very helpful but would you rather have a mean teacher to help you? Probably not, you would want the nice teacher who is very helpful. Esthertaffet (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New conversation about issue with the dyslexia articles

Hi, there. I just started a new conversation on the Wikiproject dyslexia talk page about our attempt to provide a worldwide view in these articles. We could use as many people providing feedback as possible. Please read and respond, if you can.


Rosmoran (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Lung cancer staging

Hi, WhatamIdoing. Please read my reply here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

unsigned template

Hi, in this edit you helpfully added unsigned templates to many talk comments. Is there a fast and easy way to do this, or did you have to dig through the talk archive to figure out how to sing them all? Thanks! PDBailey (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did it manually; I'm not aware of a faster way to do it.
The advantage to {{Unsigned2}} is that it takes the date as the first parameter, and the username as the second (compared to just plain {{Unsigned}}, which is the opposite order). Why this matters is that Unsigned2 lets you copy the date stamp and username off the relevant line of the page's history, and stick the vertical bars in, and you're done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot for the help! PDBailey (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jianpi Wan

Hi WhatamIdoing, Thank you for putting up the note in the talk page of Jianpi Wan that the article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine. However, the article has been put up for deletion, and your views on this matter will be much appreciated at (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Completed your request on Template talk:Style.[6] Probably should of spent more time on it. Sections are now collapsible, shoplifted the styles right off of another series I'm working on, WP:PROCESS. I'll probably be gone for a while, if you have any more questions please ask at the template's talk page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You have a really long talk page, here's the code for an automated archiver completed with archives and search; if you're interested, of course. The parameters are set so all threads older than seven days (which is the time it usually takes before it becomes inactive) are automatically archived. It'll stop if there are only four threads left. Copy and paste it here replacing the current archives.[7] Here's the link to the documentation.[8]

|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:WhatamIdoing /Archive %(counter)d


I was curious about this: to my knowledge, a FAC has never and never would be failed for this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's in the style guideline; I've heard other editors assert that they had to comply with it. As you know, I have no particular interest in FA work, so I haven't seen anything directly myself. If I'm wrong, then that's what I get for believing everything I read.  ;-)
Must run, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was wondering; these notions get spread and people believe them. A FAC would not fail only because of that (or MOS issues). At least I'm not aware of any that has. Don't believe everything you read ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. So WP:FACR's "2(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations" does not actually require consistently formatted citations? Perhaps the documentation should be updated to reflect reality, then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they are required as is compliance with MOS. But FACs and FARs don't fail over this alone, as someone is always willing to make those fixes, even if nominators don't. If no one else does it, I do ... I've never known an article to fail over something this silly. But some people promote inaccurate memes about FAC and FAR ... that was my concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing/Med redirects

Sorry that took so long to get resolved. You should be all set. If not, throw a note on my talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Special education

Next time you revert my edit, please see the talk page. I have explained there. I don't understand how you couldn't see it as you posted a comment to the other editor. Esthertaffet (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw your message, but your message did not explain why you added unsourced information, changed existing statements to contradict the sources named to support them, and changed the tone of the section to advocate for the style of education that you personally prefer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you please reply on Talk:Special education? This is where we are supposed to discuss. Esthertaffet (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kheiffets and Nutriveg

On his never ending commentary he denies that your support for the use of this source is valid; since it was made before he "made his reasoning". If you still agree with the use of this source or otherwise it would be great if you gave your opinion. Thanks a lot.--Garrondo (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I see at RSN, it looks like it will be over before long. Nutriveg may be feeling like s/he's at the bottom of a dog pile right now. I'm glad to see MastCell's comments: he's smart, levelheaded, and not likely to put up with ongoing obstruction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Two points related to Reference sections

Two points: First, while looking into the MZMcBride RfA, I stumbled across some work he did for you related to usage of various forms of reference headers. I see he did an extract for you. Did you summarize the results anywhere? I'd be interested to see the results.

Second, I thought I recognized your name,and yes, we interacted on a discussion of, surprise, surprise, reference section structure. I revisited that page, and see you responded to a comment I made. I don't see my original comment, but apparently I had a concern about the Nitrogen style because of repeats. You responded that it didn't have repeats. I now realize my error. I looked at footnotes 28,29 and 30, and saw identical ISBNs, something I was specifically trying to eliminate. However, after your comment, I looked closer, and see that the reference is some sort of collection of articles, so while they have the same ISBN, they properly have different references. My bad, I thought you were just referencing different pages. Sorry, should have looked more closely. I also see how you handle a reference to a different page of the same book.--SPhilbrickT 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick,
I thought I'd responded earlier, but I see no sign of it, so my apologies if this is a duplicate:
We never really wrote up the ref headers formally. You'll find some of it in this archived discussion and this one, with the working conversation archived here. We stopped working on this sample set with a vague notion of developing a more formal set of statistical questions, which we then failed to do, probably because what we really needed to know was that the overwhelming majority of articles use ==References== for the title of the section where citations are listed, and that a lot of articles do follow the recommended order for appendices, although a lot of them only have a single appendix anyway, so it's impossible to be "out of order".
Another problem (in determining conformance to the recommended order of appendices) was accounting for very rare headings and ambiguous headings (e.g., "Bibliography", which should either be the first or middle section, depending on whether it's "Books written by this person" or "Books cited by Wikipedia editors"), which have to be identified and processed by hand. User talk:WhatamIdoing/Header frequency shows some of the articles (mostly zero-section stubs) that have unusual headers.
If you're interested in this issue, please feel free to take over! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, I looked quickly and see you did quite a bit, so I bookmarked it and will return to it. --SPhilbrickT 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kheifets Review

Hi there, sorry about the very slow delay in responding - work and personal life have pulled me strongly away from Wikipedia in the last few months! I seem to have missed the chance to respond, what was the query out of interest, and which of Leeka's reviews was it (There was a recent one with John Swanson and IIRC David Renew that you might be referring to?) topazg (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and welcome back! I'm not sure where things stand with that discussion, but I believe it was resolved. After a while, most of the discussion seemed to be a frustrating instance of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You can find links to the sources and read the discussion in this archive. Presumably other aspects of the dispute are addressed at Talk:Alzheimer's disease (I'm pretty sure it was the main AD article, not one of the sub-articles).
Thanks again for your interest, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, what a lively discussion :) FWIW, I know Leeka and John quite well and while they undeniably have strong ties with the industry (John's deputy director or equivalent of National Grid in the UK, the primary HVOTL supplier), I have found them both to be very scientific in their approaches. I know they are both concerned at the moment of a possible association not so much with Alzheimer's (though they are aware that the data for that is mounting, particularly after Garcia et al 2008), but with ALS, where the potential societal cost could be very significant. Besides, the COI issue is often cyclic and thrown equally in both directions and is unavoidable. Find a single author in a single field that doesn't have a COI of some kind by simply being interested and learned in the topic enough to do research in that area - expectations and internal convictions included. There was an interesting article in PLoS this year about how financial COIs are only the tip of an iceberg that covers everyone to some degree or another. As with everything in life, one hopes that scientists have the personal integrity to be aware of such things and attempt to control for them as much as possible themselves I think. topazg (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bed management

Re: "I wonder whether File:Bed_Management_cycle_outline.svg could be re-formatted as a vertical illustration? It's hard to make it wide enough to be legible without being so wide that it will cover nearly the entire screen for people using small monitors. (No rush, no obligation, but if you think it's a good idea, then please feel free to do it sometime.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)"

I can do it, but I don't think it will help much, because any vertical format will be thumbnailed down to nothing anyway! - Pointillist (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead illustration (and this is the only one in the article) is commonly set to 300px wide. I figure a vertical arrangement might improve the legibility by about a quarter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the default setting for thumbnails is 180px and there is a drive to eliminate explicit pixel widths anyway because it messes up the experience for iPhone etc users. It is easy for us desktop users (in my case 1600*1200 on a large screen) to underestimate the need for smaller versions and I am happy to try making a vertical layout just for the learning experience. More news when I have it. Pointillist (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Lead images are specifically exempted at MOS:IMAGES#Images (bullet point most of the way down). It looks like they're pushing for an alternate way of doing that, however ("upright=1.7" instead of "300px"). I'll have to go learn the new system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point about "upright" ratios, but I'll have to try it on my iPhone family and friends before I'm fully convinced.... - Pointillist (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


I thought that your contribution to the NC discussion was valuable, thank you for taking the time to do that. I find it frustrating that it will buried by less productive comments, exhuming contentious positions long buried by sensible solutions and waving hatchets that had been ... er, buried. Oh! I seem to have buried the salient points in a mish-mash of simile and metaphor. Anyway ...

If you come to realise that your assessment of another contributor was incorrect, which, given the excellence of their contributions and the communities acknowledgement of that, I think is very likely, I hope that you will not be discouraged from joining the discussion of content. Regards, cygnis insignis 08:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Actually, I dislike dealing with heavily-trafficked policy pages: I'd rather read one comment on ten unrelated pages than ten comments on one.
The only conclusions I'm drawing about contributors is that two of them would rather argue on the talk page than fix the problem in the policy. This dispute should have been resolved by now -- and doubtless would be, if the supporters were willing to put their oft-repeated talk-page assertions in the policy instead of telling Xandar that he should assume that the policy means what it doesn't say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Hello

Thanks :) I've been hectic as hell over the past few months and I suspect the coming two are going to be equally hectic, but after that I should find a bit more time to contribute. I managed to do quite a bit yesterday, so not all is lost. Hope you're well, see you around :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict

A little while ago I had an edit conflict on WT:NC, but the conflict page didn't show me any cause of the conflict. It was very odd. So I saved over the top. I have just now discovered that I conflicted with one of your edits, and my subsequent save deleted your post. My apologies for that; I'm going to restore it now. As I said, I think it was a diff error rather than human error, maybe associated with the software update (see the note at the top of the page). Hesperian 01:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[9] Hesperian 01:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it -- and for being curious enough about the error to look into it. I probably wouldn't have noticed its disappearance, but someone else might have, and I'm sure that neither you nor I want to see any other "focused on the contributor" accusations on that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


You are mentioned in an arbcom request for modification. Fortunately such requests should not be as prolonged or as indepth as the main arbcom as it is just a request for an ammendment. Unfortunately scuro's latest comment on wiki med collaboration project has made me feel that it is time to bring this to the attention of the arbcom.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_ADHD Other issues can be mediated but this one I feel is one that needs arbcom intervention.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of a NEW request to amend ArbCom case

A new request for amendment of the ADHD remedies has just been filed. This one asks for additions to Remedy 3) Scuro placed under mentorship. This notification is being added to the talk pages of scuro, Literaturegeek, Jmh649, Unionhawk and WhatamIdoing. - Hordaland (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey WAID we are currently having a discussion about weather this paper is an appropriate reference to be used on the ADHD page. Wondering if you could comment? Jadad AR, Booker L, Gauld M; et al. (1999). "The treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: an annotated bibliography and critical appraisal of published systematic reviews and metaanalyses". Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie. 44 (10): 1025–35. PMID 10637682.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) [10]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Safe sex

I checked those 20 edits and that version contemplates those changes. It's not 20 edits, the article has been edited and reverted for long time. The article was already reverted to an earlier version, and I started from there, but suddenly Simon deleted all those edits and restored a later version, arguing vandalism.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (along with Mish) for taking over as targets for Nutriveg's mischief on Safe sex. This was not what I intended when I asked for assistance: I thought that a bit of expertise and a few good sources would sweep away our silly dispute and both our mistakes. I had not then started to doubt this user's good faith and I hadn't even guessed they might be a clever troll. Sorry!

I noticed the words I'm about to lose patience in your announcement of the straw poll. I think all discussion with this person is pointless - they have no POV, only a fictional, flexible position adopted to create an argument. You are used to dealing with editors (friendly or hostile) focussed on content: this character is focussed on you. I don't think they even want to harm any articles (or care if they do harm them), the point is watching you dance on the end of their string. Maybe the straw poll will start to build a consensus of good faith editors whatever their (genuine) POVs: we can help each other over the bridge and isolate the troll underneath. --Simon Speed (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Trolls happen, but I'm not sure that I am willing to apply that label yet, although I certainly see why a reasonable editor might. I'm not convinced that Nutriveg is doing it purposefully, because the behavior could be adequately explained by a variety of other reasons (e.g., general ignorance of the topic or the rejection of ambiguity and the inability to process different, but equally 'authoritative' opinions that is common to Asperger's).
I am hopeful that we will get several responses during the next day. It never seems very important when such notes are posted, but this is one of the ways that "the community" can solve disputes merely by showing up. What some might characterize as "drive-by responses" really help a lot. Three responses is better than two, but eight or ten responses is even better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


I think there is grammar error in this addition you made to Wikipedia:Noticeboards: "Compared to the average content or user WP:Requests for comment, messages posted to a relevant noticeboard are frequently less complex and receive quicker responses." I don't know how to fix it because I'm not sure what your intent is. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi UncleDouggie,

Thanks for your comment. The grammar is correct, but apparently the point isn't clear. There are two kinds of RfCs: those that are about the content of a page (e.g., WP:Requests for comment/Policies or WP:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology) and those that are about user behavior (WP:Requests for comment/User). The average RFC -- regardless of whether it's a content RFC or a user RFC -- is begun by an editor that needs a more complex response, and is willing to wait for it. Simpler and more urgent problems -- again, regardless of whether the issue is content or user behavior -- tend to be posted at noticeboards.

So editors with a problem typically make choices like this:

I need a quick response I need a thorough analysis
I have a simple problem Noticeboard (either)
I have a complicated problem (either) Request for comments

The purpose is to encourage editors not to start RFCs over simple and urgent matters -- and not to expect a noticeboard to bring them a dozen thoughtful responses.

Grammatically, the sentence runs "Compared to the average {content or user} RFC...", not "the average content RFC, or any and all user RFCs". I'd be happy to have a less confusing way to communicate this information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I get it now. How about just "Compared to the average WP:Requests for comment..?" Since you're not making a distinction between content or user RFCs, I don't see that the complex sentence structure adds very much. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Would you like to make the change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and perhaps 'typical' would be a better word choice than 'average'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I got a little carried away once I started editing it. I tried to make it more concise without just stirring up the ingredients. Thanks for doing the major expansion to begin with. The page really needed it. UncleDouggie (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Even better! Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


I completely understand and I'm sorry for that inconvenience since I was unaware I couldn't edit a poll proposal, since polls usually have a previous time for discussing options and changes. But in the way you deleted my proposed change, I hope you understand that proposal and do it yourself, for the sake of clarity instead of using ambiguous words as options.--Nutriveg (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was shocked myself

I was shocked myself - but this is the case. For example, while I was under a gastroenterology clinic for Crohns, and taking immunosuppresants, having had one same-sex sexual contact in five years with another woman (who had had no other sexual contact in five years), and having tested clear of STIs prior to that contact, I was was referred to a GUM clinic because of a possible GUI (I was found to be free of STIs, and advised to use aqueous solution instead of soap when washing). When I raised this with a professor of sexual and medical sociology, I was informed that was the correct procedure, because that is what these clinics are meant for - genital-urinary medicine. Clinics that deal with STIs are called GUM clinics for a reason, and they are specialists dealing with GUIs, which include as UTIs and STIs however they are contracted - regardless of whether they are sexually transmitted or not. The situation you allude to, that women will be treated immediately by their general practitioner, may indicate a certain prejudice in the way heterosexual women are treated as opposed to LGBT people, but the situation is that they should be being referred to a GUM clinic, as it is not at all clear that a GP is knoweldgeable enough to distinguish between what would be an STI and a GUI contracted some other way. I'm not clear where your examples of cancer patients come into that, as the teams involved would have their own specialists for GUIs related to their treatment (who will no doubt be drawn from the GUI team anyway). Mish (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
UTIs are common (the #1 most common bacterial infection, the #2 most common of any kind of infection), and they are typically uncomplicated, to the point that they're considered benign. (See PMID 12113866.) Most UTIs are treated by primary care physicians -- or even physician assistants and nurse practitioners. The diagnosis frankly isn't that complicated (simple urine culture), and first-line treatment is trivial ("Here, have a Z-pack"). They are only rarely referred to specialists, and then typically only after the symptoms persisted after a negative culture (presumably your case) or first-line treatments have failed (infection might be resistant to the usual antibiotics).
In your case, you say that you had a serious and related health condition, and that you didn't actually have a UTI. It's not exactly surprising that they wanted a specialist to have a look at the issue in this instance. The gastroenterologist wouldn't have wanted to deal with it simply because it was out of his/her specialty area. You really must not generalize from your personal experience.
However, to give you a better basis for that comparison: Almost 5% of uncircumcised boys will have a UTI during their first year of life. About 5% of girls will have at least one UTI by age 6. In a place with very low rates of circumcision, if everyone with a UTI was referred to a GUM clinic, they would see one baby boy and one little girl for every two adult women. This means that a full 50% of patients would be no older than age 6, which would certainly be noticeable to anyone sitting in the waiting room Have you ever seen any infants or young children being checked into a GUM clinic? And if not, what does this missing 50% of patients tell you about your conclusion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I never saw any children at the Crohn's clinic, nor at orthopedics - does that mean that children don't get treated for Crohn's etc.? No! It means they get treated by paedeatricians. And that is why you don't see them at GUM clinics, because they don't deal with paediatric cases. Mish (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
And yet, somehow, these kids manage to get treated for UTIs, despite never being referred to a GUM clinic. Since they're clearly not being sent to GUM clinics, then we should not say that everyone does, or even that everyone should, see a GUM specialist for a routine UTI, because we clearly don't, and probably shouldn't, waste a specialist's time with trivial UTIs. It would be like sending every single person with influenza off to a pulmonologist: a waste of resources that ought to be directed towards complicated cases.
Crohn's is a poor comparison: the disease is rare among young children, and it's also rare in general. That means that you could trivially have a waiting room filled with patients at a gastro clinic and not have any Crohn's patients at all in it.
From my personal experience, I could name half a dozen women offhand who have specifically told me that they had a UTI (especially in connection with pregnancy). Every one of them that was diagnosed and treated by her regular provider. In fact, I'm not sure I could name a single woman with a probable UTI that was ever referred to a GUM specialist. Perhaps it's a difference between LGB and non-LGB care; perhaps not. But for a primary provider to refer a woman to a GUM clinic instead of doing the simple diagnosis and treatment work would be considered highly unusual. Perhaps if you know anyone that does primary care work, you'll ask him/her how many UTIs s/he sees in a typical month, and what percentage are referred to a GUM clinic instead of being treated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparing apples with apples

In the Treatment section of the OAS article, you've introduced the word "apples" in brackets twice, seemingly comparing apples with apples, literally. Was that intentional? —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 22:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. By "brackets", do you mean "parentheses"? If so, I didn't introduce those words (although I should have cleaned them up). Mal d 1 is the most common protein involved in apple allergies, so the first belongs there, but I have no idea what the second is supposed to communicate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did mean "parentheses". Like many people, I incorrectly use the terms interchangeably. I had thought it was you that introduced the must have been due to a paragraph split or join or something of that nature where a paragraph appears to be newly-added at a glance, but actually isn't new text at all. I'll go back and look more thoroughly and contact the original author if it isn't too old or added by an anonymous editor. Thanks for the reply! —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem; I'd just gone looking initially for [[apple]], and I couldn't find any instance that seemed relevant.
I've left you a note on the talk page about that sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi ... I'm not sure if I'm supposed to comment below your vote, and just wanted to communicate w/you quickly on a point you made. There have been at least two bots (one by the most active reviser on Wikipedia) that have been changing dates input from editors from non-YYYY-MM-DD format to the YYYY-MM-DD format. So the number that you are looking at are poisoned -- they include articles where the many inputting editors did not prefer YYYY-MM-DD format, but the two bots changed the reference.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some sample diffs? Because I was told over a year ago, in an endless discussion about autoformatting, that doing exactly that by bot was completely impossible.
Even if so, it's still an outsize difference. One editor, even using automated methods, is not going to change 99% of the articles -- and that's what we have: 99% using yyyy-mm-dd, and just 1% using dd-mm-yyyy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was going to point you to a few spots where I've made these points, but have cut and past below to make it easier for you to follow.

I've run repeatedly into at least two bots repeatedly that have been energetically changing references from other date formats to the YYYY-MM-DD format (despite the fact that, arguably, the YYYY-MM-DD format has always been forbidden by the MOS). At Sam Fuld for example I saw two bots changing dates to YYYY-MM-DD format just this month (both SmackBot (a Richard Farmbrough bot) and YoBot ... see [11] and [12]).

I've not run into any bots that I can recall that are changing the YYYY-MM-DD date formats to other date formats. Thus an active bot (e.g., the one by wikipedia's most active editor, Richard Farmbrough, has been changing articles where editors chose a style other than YYYY-MM-DD to that format -- his bot User:SmackBot has made over 2.4 million edits) would tend to severely skew the above readings of how "popular" that format is on Wikipedia. It both suppressed the many editors who used a non-YYYY-MM-DD format, and suggests the existence of a great many non-existent editors in favor of that format.

Google searches yield decidely different results (as shown below). I would submit that the YYYY-xx-xx is as confusing to the masses (who, like me as of a month ago, had no idea that there is no YYYY-DD-MM format) as is the MM/DD/YYYY format, and that format is obviously far less common (as demonstrated below).

  1. "1/1/09" appears 91.9 million and 6,340 times in googles web and news searches.
  2. "Jan. 1, 2009" appears 43.7 million and 177 times.
  3. "January 1, 2009" appears 20.5 million and 111,000 times.
  4. 2009-01-01 appears 15.5 million times in a google search (note: no doubt some percentage of these are the Wiki articles with the dates revised by bots, as discussed above), and 685 times.
  5. "01/01/2009" appears 13 million and 1,840 times.
  6. 1 January 2009" appears 11.5 million and 2,870 times.
  7. "01/01/09" appears 5.9 million and 537 times.

Thus, day/month/year and month/day/year formats (which people are so quick to eradicate) in the above sample show up 110.8 million times, months written out show up 75.2 million times, and the YYYY-MM-DD format shows up 15.5 million times (and it would appear that some percentage of that may be in Wikipedia articles, changed by a bot from a prior different format). This effect is even more dramatic in news articles. (note: "1 Jan. 2009" yields many false positives, as where the phrases issue, volume, and the like precede the "Jan.", but probably account for tens of millions of references as well).

I think that the popularity of the YYYY-MM-DD format is therefore exagerated.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't frankly care what proportion of non-Wikipedia sites use which format. The question is "what's being used on Wikipedia", not "what's being used anywhere on the web?".
If editors objected to Smackbot converting the highly ambiguous xx/xx/yyyy to yyyy-mm-dd (for |accessdate= parameters, since that seems to be its primary activity), then (1) there would have been substantial outcry on the bot's talk page and (2) they would have reverted the changes to these articles. Every experienced editor knows where the undo button is. The fact that these changes are not being reverted indicates that editors do accept them. Furthermore, there's a really strong body of evidence that Wikipedia editors firmly reject the ambiguous xx/xx/yyyy format, so changing that to any other format -- whether it's yyyy-mm-dd or dd Month yyyy or anything else that isn't ambiguous -- is clearly an improvement to the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I hear you, but I guess I have a different view. I do care what's on the web -- it is a better indicator of what readers of English articles that have not been changed by bots look at, and what articles that have not been written by bots say. Some experienced editors here were surprised and and some upset (if you look at the communications with Richard) that the bot was changing dates to that unapproved format. As an experienced editor, I must say I rarely change SmackBot because I assume the most experienced Wiki author has probably cleared his activity somewhere (and when I do do it with an explanation, the bot just changes it back). I'm an experienced editor, and though I've disagreed w/many bot edits, I've never used the undo button. And while I've now notified both bot editors, neither has agreed to stop that activity. And I would note that until last week, the evidence that the YYYY-MM-DD format was only approved in tables and long lists (and not in text) was in the guidance, but there was not mention of mm/dd/yyyy being verboten -- and as the evidence shows, that is the most popular format on the web even today. Finally, for the people who never heard of ISO (most of the world I submit), we simply don't know that the Brits go MM-DD in one format but DD-MM in another format. That's also counterintunitive.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Two thoughts:
  1. You must be American.
  2. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines derive from community consensus, which is best determined by figuring out what editors are already doing on Wikipedia. They do not derive from what non-editors at non-Wikipedia websites are doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. As to your first thought, that is true (hopefully that does not deprive me of a voice). But I have lived abroad, been to 40 countries, and done business in most of them. As to your second thought, as I said you can't tell from the existing state of play what editors at Wikipedia prefer (let alone, more importantly perhaps, what readers at Wikipedia prefere) because the active bots have been changing date format other than YYYY-MM-DD (which were signs of preferring a different format) to the ISO format. Finally, I thought that we should care what real world readers prefer and find least ambiguous, not what techie's prefer (and, if they are techies with a knowledge of ISO, what techies do not find ambiguous).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The reason I made my first assumption is because my fellow Americans tend to be remarkably unfamiliar with the rest of the world.
ISO isn't a "techie" thing. A4 paper -- something that practically every educated non-American in the world has had frequent and direct contact with -- is defined by the relevant ISO standard. The English Wikipedia's URL derives from an ISO standard (the one that defines "en" as English and "de" as German and so forth). There's an ISO standard for addressing letters. There's an ISO standard for metric units and abbreviations. These are things that touch the lives of millions of people every day, and every child educated in Europe will learn what ISO does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
To paraphrase Micky Rivers, "most people don't even know how to spell ISO". (longer story which I will share if you are interested). As to the content of what you are saying, that's like saying "Four-stroke reciprocating internal combustion isn't a techie thing. Cars--which practically every user of Wikipedia in the world have ridden in -- use it." I've lived overseas and frequently and directly used A4 paper, blissfully without any knowledge of an organization called ISO, or its specific requirements for A4 paper. In any event, Americans do likely form some not-insignificant portion of the users of Wikipedia, and I doubt strongly that anywhere close to 1% of them could tell you that there is a thing called ISO which doesn't allow YYYY-DD-MM usage. And that's an ambiguity we can easily avoid IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You seemed to be using "techie" in the computer sense; in that sense, internal combustion engines aren't "a techie thing".
Outside of paper geeks, I don't necessarily expect non-Americans to know that all A system papers have the proportions of 1:√2; I do expect them to know that A4 half the size of A3, and that there's an organization (ISO, in this case) that defines the sizes so that A4 is the same all over the world.
Outside of the US, international standards agencies are a commonly understood and well-accepted fact of life. My German sister-in-law was telling me last month what some of the EU's technical requirements for cucumbers are. She has no possible professional reason to know this, but we were eating Armenian cucumbers, and she was surprised by the name, because the EU standards prohibit selling anything that curly under the name "cucumber" anywhere in Europe. Perhaps you'd like to poll your non-American contacts and see how many of them recognize ISO. You might find it enlightening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha. Now I get it! Now, we all know that the Germans (and German Swiss) know all the rules! As well as who is violating them! Whereas the Italians would be a different story, for example. And the cucumbers issue is similar to the French and champagne. Interesting though. Yep, I've been polling the Americans I know. Woeful. Virtually all have grad degrees, and they're woefully ignorant here. Btw, looking at your user page I see (and share with you) the outrage about people who don't know or follow rules (grammar, in this case). But it is precisely this ignorance that you have noticed that pervades all manner of issues. I'm just trying to protect the ignorant masses. (At no cost). What's so wrong about that?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Your ethnic stereotypes are both wrong and offensive.
I don't happen to think that people need to be protected from their "ignorance". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No insult intended. Rather than point you to German business etiquette guides that harp on this, or my own experiences in my six weeks in Germany and that of my family who lives there, I'll drop it.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)



Thanks for your comments and various tidies to my messes, much appreciated. Regards your invitation at User talk:Renaldialysis, did you review their user page? I've seen far worse edits, but they did add to peritoneal dialysis a bucket of unsourced information as well as a patient care website, sponsored by Baxter International. There's a lot of NOT and MED concerns in their contributions to that particular page as well. Looks well-intentioned with perhaps more than a soupçon of promotion. Still, if they can be kept away from inserting Baxter products on related pages, it's certainly not terrible to have another presumably knowledgeable editor. The existence of three accounts however, slightly more worrisome. The other two are inert. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The COI is why I think the editor needs to be connected to WPMED. Reading the doctor's mess will inform the editor about Wikipedia's SOPs, and making a few friends there may help the editor understand that what might otherwise be perceived as "attacks" on Baxer's self-promotion are both impartially delivered and done by knowledgeable editors. The statement on the editor's user page even suggests that someone in that company has a clue. I'd suggest it as a model for other companies.
Keeping another knowledgeable editor active on Wikipedia is a worthwhile endeavor. I'd certainly have run screaming away years ago if it weren't for the sanity at WPMED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

List formatting

Just FYI, inserting blank lines between bulleted items (e.g., here) breaks the list formatting. You produced eight separate single-item lists with this change, when we ought to have one single list. This broken formatting is a problem for readers who rely on screen readers per WP:ACCESS. Apparently the screen readers, rather than just reading the text, stop and say something like, "A list of one item" before reading the text. I'm sure you can easily imagine how annoying it must be. Please correct the formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the blank lines. Needless to say, I was unaware of this issue, and I sincerely thank you for bringing it to my attention. —David Levy 19:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for fixing it. Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

Have you given any thought to that... nomination proposal? ;) I'd gladly co-nom. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Correcting punctuation

Hello WhatamIdoing,

Please don't correct editors' punctuation on talk pages, as you did here. Please see Wikipedia:TALK#Others.27_comments, which states "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." Firsfron of Ronchester 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a talk-page comment: it was a notice at the top of a talk page. I am perfectly willing to apologize to User:Hersfold if he's offended, but I boldly made the change because my experience of him is that the self-described Grammar Nazi would be more offended by the continued existence of the error than by its correction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Stay Off My Talk Page

Simple as that.DarlieB (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have interpreted my effort to explain standard procedures for confirming a real-life identity as evidence of a "fetishistic life". Perhaps you didn't actually read my message completely; I specifically said that I thought CTJF83's continued denial was not reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it doesn't much matter, since you've been blocked again for edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Support organizations

Hi WhatamIdoing. Views welcome on this. Thanks. Hildebrand the Editor (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)