Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:02, 28 September 2007

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 7

No program

No, I just copy-and-paste an article (in this case: Helpt) and replace the names. These are the "easy" ones that don't need disambiguation. Markussep 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not good, you mixed Neverin up with Zirzow, but I fixed it. But this is basically it. If you like to help, please go ahead! And take a look at the project page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Germany/Cities. Markussep 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The ones I checked were OK, thanks! After I've checked the next district for ambiguity issues, I'll let you know. Markussep 15:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still checking Müritz, I've come as far as Krukow now (starting from A). You can start there, or wait until I'm done. Markussep 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I check whether there is already an article with the same name, and I check whether there are more municipalities (most likely in Germany, Austria, Switzerland) with the same name. I do the latter using German wikipedia. Markussep 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, go ahead! Markussep 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking the municipalities in Nordvorpommern right now. When I'm done, I'll let you know, so you can fill in the red links. AWB might be a good idea. Markussep 17:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Done with Nordvorpommern and Nordwestmecklenburg! Markussep 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

About AWB, have you tried using {{subst:PAGENAME}}? This inserts the article name. Markussep 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK!Markussep 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Only Nordvorpommern. The manual checks take some time, might take a while. Markussep 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fast! Markussep 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ostvorpommern and others probably tomorrow. I'm finishing my AWB work on the templates. Markussep 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've finished Ostvorpommern, and Parchim up to Lübz. Markussep 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed something about all the AWB edits you made (I didn't check them all, but in all articles I checked it was the case): you used {{PAGENAME}} instead of {{subst:PAGENAME}}. That way, the template is not substituted in the saved version, check "edit this page" for Glewitz, for instance. Please fix this. Markussep 08:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Done with Parchim. Markussep 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Done with Rügen and Uecker-Randow, go ahead. Markussep 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, we're fast! Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is finished, I think I'll continue with Saxony-Anhalt next. I'll let you know when I have a district ready, maybe tomorrow. Markussep 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Saxony-Anhalt

I finished this one quicker than I expected: Altmarkkreis Salzwedel. You can use Benkendorf as a model municipality. Markussep 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anhalt-Bitterfeld and Börde done, you can use Reuden and Born, Saxony-Anhalt as model municipalities. Markussep 12:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Burgenlandkreis done. Markussep 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Harz and Jerichower Land done. Markussep 12:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mansfeld-Südharz and Saalekreis done. Markussep 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stendal and Wittenberg done (User:Phgao got ahead of you on Salzlandkreis). Markussep 20:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein

Now that Saxony-Anhalt is almost done (could you finish Wittenberg?), I'm starting with Schleswig-Holstein. I just checked Dithmarschen, so go ahead... Markussep 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK: for Wittenberg Ragösen, for Ditmarschen Burg, Dithmarschen. Markussep 19:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lauenburg done, model: Basedow, Schleswig-Holstein. Markussep 20:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nordfriesland done, model: Drage, Nordfriesland.Markussep 11:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ostholstein done (small one), model: Dahme, Schleswig-Holstein. Markussep 11:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pinneberg done, model: Bevern, Schleswig-Holstein. Markussep 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Plön done, model: Warnau. Markussep 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rendsburg-Eckernförde done, model: Westensee. Markussep 21:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Schleswig-Flensburg done, model: Treia, Germany. Markussep 12:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

New articles

If you look at User:Agathoclea#cheatsheet you see how I proceed with these articles - cut and paste the articlename into the lead and the interwiki link - preview - follow the interwikilink to the German wikipedia to see if it is correct and bring back the infobox from there in the process. That way you don't need to worry about the category and the coordinates. Agathoclea 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? I don't understand. Wikidudeman 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It should have been: User:Agathoclea#Cheatsheet. There after a few other things you see the template I use for whichever district I am currently working on. All it needs is the name of the place in the lead ie between the boldmarkings and in the interwikilink. It is the interwikilink that then leads you to the german article or to a disambiguation which in turn leads you to the right counterpart. If the latter is the case it needs adjusting. Anything else unclear? Agathoclea 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is English your second language? I can't make out what you're saying. I'm sorry. Wikidudeman 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is any of the terms I use unclear? Agathoclea 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, It's the way they are put together. I'm very unfamiliar with the projects you're talking about so it's difficult for me to interpret what you're saying. Wikidudeman 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry then I can't help - even though German is my mothertounge it is not my main language anymore and I would have even more difficulties to explain things I mainly deal with in English. Agathoclea 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Javascript/Template question

I replied on my talk page. – ABCD✉ 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar's RfA

Here's a pragmatic question for you: do you want to keep defending your opposition to Dreadstar's RfA if it results in Dreadstar becoming an admin? I think your vote rationale, and your comments on both support and oppose votes, come across to many as being exaggerated and nitpicky. This is unfortunate, because there are good reasons to oppose.

The more you try to defend your reasons, the more people will rally to support Dreadstar because they disagree with you. I tell you this because I'm in the somewhat unusual position of disagreeing with some of your reasons but agreeing with your vote.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many reasons to oppose, Mine included. What specific part of my opposition do you see as "nitpicky"? Wikidudeman 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One exaggerated part is to say he has a "constant assumption of bad faith" -- anyone who looks at his contributions outside the paranormal will find that he is very good at AGF most of the time, but there have been particular incidents in paranormal topics where he played a part in escalating the hostility. These incidents are bad, but they can't be described as "constant".

The nitpicky parts are criticizing him for not editing enough when he was in the hospital, for using admin coaching, and for asking politely about his 3RR block when it was in fact a confusing enough situation to ask about. To be fair, I don't think you've revisited these points in your replies, so they're not really a problem. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

168.254.226.175

User talk:168.254.226.175 is vandalising again. You gave him/her a warning last time. Perhaps another block is necessary? --Midnightdreary 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Congratulations! Here's your {{featured article}} star to add to the bottom of the article. — BillC 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

feel free to move this to userspace...

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		I, VanTucky, award you, Wikidudman, this Paranormal Barnstar for your hard work in getting Parapsychology to FA status. Congrats! VanTucky 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikidudeman 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your tireless patience

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded for your tireless patience and dedication in bringing Parapsychology to Featured Article status, after many editors (myself included) had given up or become wiki-cynical. Great job! Nealparr 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology FA status? F-ing awesome! w00t! I actually wrote substantial parts of it from scratch! Shame Misplaced Pages doesn't pay their writers : ) But this is one of those things people are talking about when they say it's not about the money, it's the satisfaction of a job well done. Well done. --Nealparr 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you. Wikidudeman 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Gratz, I came by for the same reason. Well done! KillerChihuahua 17:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know

... most of the "pimp"-containing accounts that I'm blocking now are old, abandoned accounts that should have been blocked months ago (if not years). They're just being blocked to keep them from being revived someday (and because the term 'pimp' is unacceptable). DS 19:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm just making sure that they know and others know. Though the usernames could always be totally deleted. Wikidudeman 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Spamming the newpages

FYI, you seem to be spamming the newpages feed :-D. Maybe a bot would be better ;) Spryde 16:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Keep it up and get it done quickly ;)

I was thinking a bot would not leave a trail. See User_talk:Emijrp how he was "caught" using a bot. He was quickly approved and I never saw his name (or the bots) user pages ever again. His bot might be useful to you. Spryde 16:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Missed that part. Anyway, keep up the good (yet tedious) work! Spryde 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you are creating articles at that speed with AWB, you should get a bot account.  * Aillema 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how to work bots. Wikidudeman 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You work it like you work AWB :) All a bot flag does is stops you flooding recent changes.  * Aillema 19:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't know where to start. And still, I think that even bot edits show up on the newpage log. Perhaps you could show me where to start as far as operating a bot goes. Wikidudeman 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's get this straight from the start: you would still edit like you do now. The only difference is, you'll have an account (e.g Wikidudemanbot) which you'll work from, and this will be flagged as a bot by a bureaucrat. You personally won't have to do a thing, except log into your bot account instead of your normal one. The process is described on WP:BOTS. You'd need to request a flag, but once it is flagged it won't spam recent changes (I don't know about newpages, but all the same...)  * Aillema 20:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what a bot is. Isn't a "bot" automated? When I use AWB I am the one personally making the edits one at a time and overlooking each one prior to making them. I see no purpose in creating a separate account to make AWB edits with and labeling that a "bot account" when it's not actually a bot at all. Wikidudeman 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, a bot is not always automated. The purpose of flagging a bot account is to stop it flooding :)  * Aillema 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOTS says "Robots or bots are automatic processes that interact with Misplaced Pages as though they were human editors." As mentioned above, I believe that even bot newpage creations show up, as User_talk:Emijrp's bot was recently banned for flooding newpages because he exceeded his limit of pages per minute. Wikidudeman 20:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a good read of the whole page. Bots can and are run manually. I even know users who do... anyway, with AWB, a certain number of edits per minute requires you to get a flag.  * Aillema 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The "manually assisted" part means that the bot is automatically "turned on" by the human operator and thereafter runs automatically making edits. None of my AWB edits are automatic, they're all manual. Do you have links for that? Specifying the specific number of edits requiring that editors get a flag. Wikidudeman 20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Guide. I'm off now, good luck with it :)  * Aillema 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroids

Hi - would you be interested in leaving a note at WT:CLINMED (the Clinical Medicine Wikiproject) soliciting feedback for the anabolic steroids article? It's a pretty solid group of editors, and you may get more diverse viewpoints than just mine that way. But I won't leave a note there unless it's OK with you. If you'd prefer not to, that's fine. MastCell 17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would actually prefer not to at this time. I think we're making good improvments on the article as is and I would prefer we do so at a slow pace opposed to having newer editors hash up old topics already resolved. Perhaps we could leave a note or two on the talk pages of some of the projects most active members though after we resolve what we're currently discussing in the article and we both see no problems with it. Wikidudeman 17:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I'll hold off. MastCell 17:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you did I would try to find time to review it carefully. It is very good, but I'm sure there are a few improvements that could be made in response to a FA-level review. I certainly wouldn't vote against it. Tim Vickers 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Dearest Wikidudeman,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.

re: your question User talk:Jeniislame

The template in question is {{usernameblocked}}. There isn't any point in using it however unless you're an admin and can block the user with the username issue. If you want to report a user with a questionable username you can bring them to either Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention or Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names. If you want to voice your concern to another user about their username you can use the following talk page template: {{subst:UsernameConcern}} to try and start a discussion about it. I hope that answers your question. Cheers. Dina 03:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Anomalous phenomena

Hey WDM, you did such a great job of pushing parapsychology through to GA and FA status, I was wondering if you'd review another article that I worked on and make recommendations on it. Like a year or two ago anomalous phenomena was the controversial paranormal article of the time and suffered many edit wars, so I rewrote it, drawing quite a bit from the falsification article. It's been sitting there for some time unedited, so it's stable, and (I think) pretty well-written. It probably needs some work, so let me know what you think. Is it GA worthy, potentially FA worthy? --Nealparr 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Any article is FA worthy. That article shouldn't be difficult to push to GA status. I'll add it to my list and we can work on getting it to GA status. Wikidudeman 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --Nealparr 05:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

That wasn't a comment on you. I'm just collecting useful or fun things on that page. I unfortunately thought I'd need that link. Actually what I thought is that if you kept up the good work I'd support your next RfA, but also put that up for others to review. As I said, you keep being NPOV for a year, I'll support you. That edit was far from NPOV, but not enough to tip a balance. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, You link to an edit of mine (which you greatly misinterpreted BTW) and then have a big sign beside it which says "POV, connect the dots". Don't claim it's a "useful or fun thing" when you do such things. Wikidudeman 04:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's in my userspace. If you just look at the page history, you'll notice that I'm just collecting things, and that just happened to go at the bottom. Now I just put a {{clear}} there so it isn't seemingly connected any more. But it wasn't there for public consumption, or I'd have made sure it didn't look like that. In fact, I didn't even view the page after saving it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good you've clarified that. Wikidudeman 04:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

Putting this here so as to leave the FA page as is:

Martin says he's in a "position" to get several articles to FA status? This is a point that I would definitely take issue. Moving on from that blusterous assertion, he says he is going to do all that he can to PREVENT articles from reaching FA status? What does this mean exactly? It sounds sort of like a threat to hijack the wikipedia process to make a point, clearly in violation of WP:POINT. I certainly hope he isn't serious. Wikidudeman 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll see about FA status- I'm not completely up on how the process works. As far as opposing an article becomming FA because of how it would be treated once it became FA, it's like telling a beauty queen not to go out and accept her crown because the stage is rigged to spray her with mud. When the mud is a perversion of NPOV, that is quite acceptable, because WP runs on NPOV. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by my "last change" and vandalism. I have never been on, or edited, the band Om's page....as I don't know who they are. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you are talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.19.59 (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Except minus the stage and mud. Wikidudeman 13:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That was thoroughly explained- and you are the one who proposed mud for the future, remember? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I "proposed mud"? Wikidudeman 00:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Wikidudeman. I'm not sending out a ream of "thank you" spam for my RfA (although it did pass). I'm here to do two things; 1) Thank you for your support and your "defence" in the oppose section of my RfA. 2) Apologise for clearly misjudging you during your RfA. I sincerely promise to learn from your comments, and would be proud to offer support or indeed a nomination at your next RfA. Very Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  11:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

My sincerest thanks, Wikidudeman. You are an honorable and just person, and I am thrilled that you gave me such an offer. I promise to do my best to never betray the trust you put into me with your great offer. I've added my name to the recall list as promised. Thanks again! Dreadstar † 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar RfA

Wikidudeman,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!

I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing borrowing someone else's card design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your giving me the opportunity to gain your trust and hopefully, eventually, your support....very impressive, I must say.. Dreadstar † 09:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Don't take it personally, but I reverted the picture move. It's not obvious unless you're on a smaller screen, but if you put a picture on both sides of the article body, when the browser is made narrower the text gets squeezed out from between them and is rendered unreadable. Very annoying! Maury 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's part of the format on Misplaced Pages, To put pictures on both sides. Though it's not that big of a deal. Many FA's do it that way. You could think about spacing them out down the article though. Wikidudeman 18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref tool

Thanks so much for the invitation! That is an awesome tool, I just gave it a try - it's brilliant! Saves time and typing. Thanks man, I really sppreciate your engaging me like this. I've admired your efforts and success in bringing articles to GA and FA status..very nice work.. Dreadstar † 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, thanks. I'm not a fan of redlinks, that's for sure..! :) Dreadstar † 17:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WDM - your talk page is on my watchlist and I wikistalked 'cause I love new tools. Were you aware of this one? All you need is a pubmed nubmer and it generates the rest for you. I find it quite handy, though it does pretty much the same thing as the two tools you mention on Dreadstar's talk page. WLU 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've had that for months. I even have it added to my bookmarks page where while I'm on a pubmed page I just click the bookmark and it automatically loads the reference for me. See User:Wouterstomp/Bookmarklet for how to do it. Though I need to use it more for ISBNs since I use it mainly for Pubmed citations. Wikidudeman 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you really want new tools then check this out: User:Wikidudeman/Hodgepodge. It's a script which is a huge combo of all sorts of helpful tools for just about everything. Wikidudeman 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got script envy - since I edit on explorer at work and safari at home, I can't use any of the Firefox-based tools :( I'm assuming this bars me from Hodgepodge... I do notice that I can use the bookmarklet tool with IE, huzzah! Thanks for the link. WLU 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the scripts in the Hodgepodge might work, It's worth a try. Though, Why not just download Firefox? It's small in size and is easy to work. Wikidudeman 18:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

w00t! Pubmed bookmark works.

As I mentioned above, IE is my work computer and the diabolical IT department refuses to let me have firefox. I used FF on my home computer when it was a PC, now I've got a mac and I don't think they've got a FF for mac yet. Too bad, 'cause Safari sucks.

Could I use popups and Hodgepodge, or is it an either/or thing? WLU 18:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hodgepodge has popups included. Wikidudeman 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For MAC try this link. Wikidudeman 18:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tried it, once I cleared my cache, it didn't seem to do anything - resembles my pre-popups days. Sigh. Looks like I'll still have Twinkle-envy for a while now. Thanks for the suggestion though. Let me know if you ever manage to get it to work for IE. WLU 14:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you try downloading Firefox for MAC? Wikidudeman 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted monobook to HP, and I lost popups. I'm going to leave it until tomorrow and see if that makes a difference. I'll let you know. WLU 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence of Homeopath

We're giving information not about worldwide prevalence, but about the few countries we found information for, with some very odd gaps. One really wonders whether the prevalence section is practical, or if we should just briefly mention it in the course of talking about Legal Trends. Adam Cuerden 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca RfA thank you spam

Wikidudeman, thank you for your support during my RfA, especially after the concerns that were brought up by other editors. I'll keep all of the comments in mind in the coming months, and will try again later. In the mean time, if you see me doing something stupid, please let me know. See you around. --barneca (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Creating articles with AWB

I have replied to your question here. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Flexitags

Looks like I got it to work, just include flexitags2.js instead of flexitags.js in your monobook.js and you should be in good shape. The parseTag call now recurses, so you can use any of the special strings as much as you want. Lil' Dice 02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to EVP

I'm inviting you to offer your perspective on each section as we've set it up in talk. I think your input considering the work done on Parapyschology would help EVP out significantly. Right now we are working on the lead or opening. My thoughts are to bring consensus for the article top - down (starting with the opening as that sumarizes the article and topic). If you know of any editors who helped with the Parapyschology article who might help out here, I would encourage their participation as well. --Northmeister 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand your reasoning. I'm not asking to ignore the rest of the article. By focusing on the summary, we can get a consensus built summarization of how we feel the article should flow. Everyone can offer their perspective based on what we already have and rewrite the summary accordingly or with improvements based on what information they feel is not properly covered there. With that summary we can then formalize the TOC and tackle each section accordingly referencing the Summary. One might liken it to a synopsis to a book. We all have impressions on how the article should look and can add our observations accordingly. If we can agree on what the article is in summary, we can move forward on the detail per the summary. Your participation does not exclude editing other parts of the article for improvement. --Northmeister 13:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol

Know anything about bioidentical hormone replacement therapy? How about the Wiley Protocol? Wanna do me a favour and have a look at the latter page? I may be starting to lose my objectivity. WLU 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, What's the actual problem? Wikidudeman 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I had thought you would know... anabolic steroids + homeopathy = the Wiley Protocol? Anyway, the husband of the creator of the Wiley Protocol is barred from editing the page, and keeps pushing for his edits. I believe they are unjustified, and my interpretation of policy is reasonable. He does not. I'm kinda losing my objectivity 'cause I keep getting accused of bias, conflict of interest, censorship and probably causing 9/11 somewhere. It irritates me, making me less likely to support or accede to his requests, I'd just like a third opinion on the situation to make sure I'm not being vindictive. It's mostly on Talk:Wiley Protocol if you don't mind a bit of reading, basically from the second 150 doctors entry, on. If it's too time consuming and you're not interested, don't bother. WLU 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Homeopathy

That's fine. I'll give it until 10/02/2007. Dr. Cash 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mercy Akide

If you look at the article properly yourself, you would know it is littered with MOV content. All I did was to clear it up, and make it more friendly to the average user. Don't throw warnings around like confetti. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowzeewee (talk • contribs)

Your edits weren't improvements. Wikidudeman 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearing up MOV isn't an improvement? Then what is? Should the MOV content just be left as it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowzeewee (talk • contribs)

What does "MOV" stand for? Wikidudeman 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it stands for "My Own View". What I was doing is just making it more like the average Misplaced Pages page for a footballer, without one-sided descriptions like "a star was born" and "outsmarting", and all the glitzy, glittery biasness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowzeewee (talk • contribs)

From what I saw, It was quite unencyclopedic and somewhat odd. "outsmarting the boys at the nearby Prisons field"? What does that even mean? Wikidudeman 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly, my friend! That was what I saw written in the article, and changed away. You reverted it back.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowzeewee (talk • contribs)

I see. I thought that it was something that you had added. My mistake. Wikidudeman 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowzeewee (talk • contribs)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When........

Is This going to turn blue??. 'Cummon I need to atone for misjudging you before by offering some full on support. Pedro :  Chat  12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when. It could be a few months. I'm too busy right now. However you could help me out on some projects. Wikidudeman 13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me know how I can help my man. Pedro :  Chat  14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting - nope. Resolving disputes - Good, I think (hope!) See Talk:Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for one I'm involved in at the moment. Pedro :  Chat  14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok(I'll reply here from now on), Check out Talk:Race and ancient Egypt. See if you can familiarize yourself with the dispute and add some input. If you have any questions about it just ask. Wikidudeman 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

There is a difference between not listening to my reasons than me not providing one. What you are doing by blindly reverting me for no reason is allowing white nationalist fringe theories expoused by non-specialists to have equal weight of mainstream Egyptologists and archaeologists who have treated such dynastic race views as nonsense. Wording it in your own way is original research, it needs to reflect mainstream perception and mainstream sources. I cited Frank Yurco and Robert Morkot, who are among the countless others who have treated the old theories of a "dynastic race" as a foot note in racist pseudo-science. Please see wikipedia reliable sources and look up who these people are. Afrocentric and Eurocentric views are irrelevant to mainstream science.Taharqa 17:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing the section in a POV manner is not "giving weight" to anyone or anything. Letting the facts speak for themselves and only adding what is "said" opposed to 'what is' is ideal for such theories. The current version of that section is badly written, POV and lacks reliable sources. Wikidudeman 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of edit warring. By blindly reverting people continuously with out discussion is considered edit warring. I don't hold you in bad faith, but you do seem a bit hostile. I'm willing to discuss any concerns and I just wish that you'd chill out and try to cooperate, since as stated, I'm willing to discuss any concerns.... Be patient. You accused me of "controlling the article", which is absurd. The only thing that I seek is neutrality and accuracy, that's it.. I won't fault you for that, as it was a personal attack, I understand your frustration, but try and be sensible, because two editors who are clashing is never good for a productive experience on wikipedia..

As to your new comment, you claimed that it doesn't cite reliable sources. At first it did not, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't true as long as you assume good faith and ask for sources. I provided extremely reliable sources who represent the focal point of the field in Yurco (especially) and Morkot. Which is why, as alluded to above, I wish you'd try and be a bit rational.. Such comments are dishonest unless you don't know who these researchers are, in which case you may not be too familiar with the subject, but your contributions are still valuable and I only wish that you practice patience and honesty..Taharqa 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You did accuse me of edit warring. The "warning" you left on my talk page said "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Race and ancient Egypt." Reverting without any edit summary or explanation of why you made the edit would be called "blindly reverting". Now let's please try to improve the article by working together, The first step is answering the question I left on it's talk page. Wikidudeman 17:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're all cooperating, it isn't a big deal. If I was wrong in that this wasn't your intent, I apologize. As you said, that was an automatic warning message for 3rr anyways and no so much me directly accusing you of ill-intent. Excellent responding of the Cleo section btw, it was a bit scattered and I appreciate your contributions. I'm responding to your concerns on the discussion page now. Hopefully others will aswell.Taharqa 17:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And please refrain from removing cited material, like the 2005 king tut rendering.. Discuss your problem. Also, giving undue weight to a topic that isn't a part of that section is undue weight. Too much weight given to pov, keep it simple. Hawass spoke and the afrocentrists spoke.. That is neutral.. I was trying to respond to the discussion page, but you won't be patient. Please be patient as that truly can be considered edit warring (as you've already removed it once and have violated the e revert policy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Taharqa 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)