Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:46, 18 December 2007

1. Provide wikilinks to the relevant articles.
2. Refer to policies and guidelines.
3. Feel free to ask questions, I'll do my best to answer them.
4. If you don't read the policies I refer to, don't expect a congenial reply.

Archives

Dec 8, 2006 to Feb 17, 2007 Feb 17, 2007 to June 5, 2007 June 5, 2007 to July 20, 2007 July 20, 2007 to Sept 25, 2007 Sept 26, 2007 to Dec 1, 2007 arbitration

Clean slate

Archived, if I archived a discussion that was ongoing, feel free to pull it out of my archive. Unless you're the anon IP complaining about the fibromyalgia-chemicals conspiracy, about which I don't care. WLU 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Slight change to Dissociative Identity Disorder article

I restored a link you previously removed as I presumed it was removed because it was a bad link (the nami.org link). If you removed it for some other reason, please do let me know. Also, thanks for posting the links on Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder#Possible_source. Thanks, Daniel Santos 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea, here's the edit. Daniel Santos 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to be congenial and let you know that I rolled back a few other changes you made on the DID article. I liked most of what you did, however. :) On the issue of the EEG findings, all three of the studies had a very small test group (between 1 and 2 people). One of the studies was unable to find these differences, and that may be worth mentioning, but I felt that the way you worded it watered down the point, that distinct differences could clearly be observed in some instances. I didn't look at the full article because I'm not signed up with with pubmed.--Daniel Santos 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm looking into the changes now but I don't expect to have much comment as I'm not an expert. WLU 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit heavy?

Wasn't your warning here a bit heavy for a first edit? And I think it was for me to warn, since it was I who reverted. Philip Trueman (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I actually reverted as well, but your revert probably hit a couple seconds later and multiple reverts of the same edit don't show up in the page history. Feel free to drop it to a vand1. WLU (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Looks good, but I doubt if I'll be needing a second archive any time soon-I don't get many talkers on my page.Professor marginalia (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh. It's there if you need it, and you get a pretty picture too. WLU (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the barnstar

That was a cool surprise! Thanks a lot!

I wasn't sure if I should reply here or where you left the message on my page, so I replied in both places. How do people usually do that? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gracias

Just wanted to say thanks for the info. I'm not sure why I though top-posting was the norm when in most other places it's always bottom-posting.Woland37 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rand - ITOE.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rand - ITOE.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I think. I friggin' hate image use. WLU 17:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Half barnstar!!!

Profuse thanks. Half a barnstar is a cool thing to have. Keep up the good editing. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		You are honourably awarded the other half of the barnstar you gave me, in recognition of your work in coming to grips with the emotive and difficult topic of Satanic Ritual Abuse and working with a range of editors to make for a better article. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

grats to both of you :) Daniel Santos (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bragging

Hey, I saw your cute "userboxes", and I'm envious. :) Is there a template for bragging about having an article you wrote survive an attempt at deletion? It was actually another person who turned it into a masterpiece, maybe I can give him some kind of award for it (I sure did appreciate it). Daniel Santos (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For one editor who made an AFD irrelevant by editing until the page passed WP:N, I gave this barnstar. The barnstar page has a variety of templates and barnstars, you can also make your own by creating a template. I can't really explain it 'cause it's complicated and I don't 100% understand it myself, but it's not hard to fiddle with something until you get a version you like. The commons also has barnstars, a greater selection than here.

Note that there's a difference between barnstars and userboxes. Userboxes are self-chosen boxes that users use to say things about themselves. Any can be made, it's not that hard. Barnstars are used to acknowledge excellence and good work, and are given to you by other users (or given to other users by you). They can also be made, if people like it enough it might get on an official page. I'm kinda surprised that there's no 'rescued from deletion' barnstar, I might spend a bit of time looking. WLU (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! :) Also, thanks for reminding me to keep my cool. I'm doing much better on this dispute than with my past disputes. Last year I got pretty nasty and turned out to be wrong, d'oh! I hope we can get things resolved soon and be back to normal editing, you are way beyond me on making an article flow! Daniel Santos (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Flow isn't hard, summarize the results of the reliable sources. I probably won't be editing the page again, it's too frustrating. WLU 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Brainwave

Maybe this is what you were looking for. That page is the guidance for administrators on how to close deletion debates, what constitutes consensus, and so on. Neil ☎ 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Finished with Gigantopithecus

Edit away. Cheers. - Atarr (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. Looks like a legit article now rather than a stub. - Atarr (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out the merge discussion on Talk:Gigantopithecus#Merge. WLU (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason you replaced the pdf link to the paper with a JSTOR link? Since it's the author's page that has the pdf, there's no IP issue here, and not everyone has JSTOR access.

Also, you've replaced all the references to the essay on the author's page with references to the article, and moved the essay to the external links section. I don't see the reason for this, and moreover some of the morphology stuff isn't in the paper at all (which is really focussed on where and when). - Atarr (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I blame doing too many things at once. The reference was generated by a citation generator, and the PDF is preferred. I'll change it. I'm not sure about the second point, I may have used the wrong references, so feel free to change them. I'm going to tweak the article in just a second. WLU (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait for you to finish and then sort out the references. I also found some stuff in a reference on the blackli page that I'm going to add in. - Atarr (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'm pretty much done. The changes aren't big, basically just to the citation templates. You may want to consider using them (WP:CIT) as they are pretty easy to fill. Also, this page lets you generate them automatically, and this one does if you give it a pubmed or ISBN. Handy! WLU (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm done for now, too. I'll take a look at those citation templates in a bit. I am glad you were around to clean up what I did. I'll put my two cents in on the merge talk. - Atarr (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's cool, I'm glad you were around to point out where my cleaning up actually messed things up. Feel free to ask me about citation templates or any other wiki stuff, it's fun to help when I can. WLU (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Biacuplasty

WLU I did empty my user page. Regarding biacuplasty page, I might have some minor editing but at first glance good work at making it within the Wiki spirit. I will post my suggestions in the discussion page later tomorrow--Lucdesaulniers (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Note that if you're in conflict of interest, you should not be editing the page at all, and can be blocked for violations. WLU 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol being discussed at WP:BLP/N

You've edited this article, so you might be interested. You are welcome to add your own comments to the noticeboard discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work, good posts. I'm sorry I wasn't more helpful there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've more experience with Nraden, so it's easier for me to summarize. You helped out immensely by pointing me towards MEDMOS/RS and clarifying the issues for me. Much obliged. Nraden and I seem to have an friendly animosity thing happening, so I think we can manage the page now. I'll try to re-visit the content in the near future. WLU (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa

Thank you for your excellent work on salvaging disc biacuplasty; I was so sure that it was irredeemable CoI/spam. DS (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

De nada, methinks if the creator had remained the sole contributor, it would have been. WLU (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep getting undone

I've attempted to add Child Abuse Prevention Services to the Child Abuse article three times. The last editor told me I could insert program names but had to edit out any promotional language. I believe I've done that. Please help me and explain why now this not for profit is being rejected for inclusion? Thank you. 18:37, 10 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Child abuse‎ (→Child abuse prevention organizations - add child abuse prevention serivces)

possitive feedback

I pointed a newbie to your essay. he liked it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah! May I ask who, so I can dig for more feedback? WLU (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, User:Ankithreya. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gracias. WLU (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Help is what is being offered in your page!

Hey, It was good that i was directed to your page (generic sandbox). Found it a lot useful in looking at the things to do and don't for newbies!. I've started to welcome newusers though i'm just a fortnight old here. It would be great if you can add a section on "To care & not to care". As a newbie i didnt really know what a bot was or what a sock puppet was. It would be great to have stuffs like vandalism, sock puppetry and advertising in the "care" sections and other hi-fi things such as bots and rfa in the "not to care" section especially for the newusers

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

--Ankithreya! 15:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i meant to say, a page or a section on "useful right now" and useful later" will be great!. :-)--Ankithreya! 05:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind the next time I'm editing the essay. WLU (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nraden and I

Excuse me. I'm being personally attacked by this person, and it bothers me. You have been personally attacked by this person, and I know it's bothered you. It is, as you say, "fucking annoying".

He is asserting, as fact, things about me that are absolutely false. I'm glad you don't care, but at the same time, you're not the target in this instance.

I think I've shown a lot of restraint, thank you, and I don't agree with or very much appreciate the characterization that we are merely "sniping at each other". If I felt free to personally attack him the way he does me, it wouldn't just be fucking annoying for you. Debv (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. If you've a problem with the personal attacks he's making at you, report it. The policy in question is WP:NPA. I'm building an encyclopedia, not sorting out children in a sandbox, and I'm equally annoyed at both of you for taking up my time and attention. I don't usually bother reading anything not directly aimed at improving wikipedia. WLU (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to mediate or intervene. I expressed my willingness to disengage on your advice, and what I got, and continue to get from you, are insults. If you're frustrated, I would ask that you please find a move civil way to express it. If there is something specific that you want, what is it? Do you want me never to respond to these personal attacks? Debv (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. WLU (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but you may be disappointed. Debv (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you attack in return, eventually you'll be blocked, and vice versa. This is why COI don't get to edit, because your actions aren't about improving the page, it's about grinding an axe or fluffing a product. It's personal, it's not about the information. It's not hard to edit a page based on reliable sources, but COI, axes and fluffing make it hard. I won't be disappointed, 'cause I don't care. I'm just pissed that this is taking up this much of my time. I don't know what you or Nraden want of me, I can't help. Further, I don't know why the discussion is lingering on BLP/N. All issues seem to have been resolved. WLU (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There are lingering issues. Sandy agreed that we can add a description of the protocol: "No one has said you can't describe what the protocol is according to self-published sources; we agreed above that you can do that as long as its correctly attributed. " That's what I did in the first place on the talk page then added the links as you asked. We have to edit the article, and, as you know, I can't do that myself. I've included a description, I've added a discussion of one of the underlying concepts behind it, quoted and attributed to an MD. There is also something visual about the WP, which is the shape of the curves. Any suggestions how we introfuce that? I will follow the guidelines precisely, and I won't object to any sourced criticisms provided they are reliable and not written in a way to exaggerate their impact. But I would appreciate it if we can get this done soon. I wrote those other three paragrpahs weeks ago and they still aren't edited and posted. Neil Raden (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>And I did say I would get to it. I should have time tomorrow next week, feel free to remind/nag me if I don't get to it by Wednesday. WLU (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Talmudic names

Hi, I'm not sure how to do this complaining thing, but basically, I just finished making that article easier for someone unfamiliar with Jewish texts to read. Then you've decided to cut out all of my changes. Why? If you read the paragraph carefully, it makes full sense, and gives some insight into ancient Hebrew views on names. Why do you view it as 'bizzare'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.45.146 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a pretty competent reader, and I had no idea what it was trying to say. Also, someone was engaging in original research, and there were no real sources for much of the information. If you're interested, I could go back through the text and be a bit more specific, but I'd suggest you read up on at least the policy nutshells to see what you can and can't add. WLU (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vertebral fusion

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Vertebral fusion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Vertebral fusion. Vassyana (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiAsianTravel was commented out once and erased once by WLU even after hold request

WikiAsianTravel was commented out by WLU twice after I reverted and put it back on List_of_wikis#Travel.

We should leave it for other editors to look at and see if they interested in building the article. Igor Berger (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The list of wikis page, at the top, says that it is a list of notable wikis. I've been removing redlinks there for months now, why should this one stay? WLU (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Look I am just trying to help the project out, it is a WikiMediaFoundation project, but go look at them, they are running Adsense...comoe on...there must be some leway for our own projects, no? This is why I asked to leave it for a while and see if someone can help out! I have my hands full with a whole bunch of stuff for anti Spam...just a curtesy call....but if you want tto be strict there is nothing I can do. I do not want to arguee for the sake of argueing, or waste time escalating an issue. Igor Berger (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no leeway for wikimedia projects. From what I've read of Jimbo's comments, he wouldn't support exceptions just because it's a wikimedia project. There is no reason for a redlinked page to be on that page, it invites further spam. Create the article, then add it to the page. WLU (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WLU okay, lets see if anyone internaly would be interested in doing the article, maybe we should wait a bit, if you think so. But would be nice to get some people to help this one out. My actual desire to help, is that as a traveler and an expat in Asia for 17 years, it is a first travel platform that I have seen that is trying to give back to the countries that it talks about. So instead of just turist going and taking from the area, this project is trying to give authority to travel information, as pertenet to the state of events in the industry. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

With a reliable source, that may be a reason for the page to pass WP:N. With just your statement, that doesn't help the page. The quickest way to have the page created, would be to create it yourself. I'm not going to, and given my experience, the wikipedia community isn't exactly quick on the draw for stuff like this. If you find them more convincing, you may want to bring this up with some admins. User:FisherQueen is a good one, and quite active in WP:AFD, WP:PROD and WP:SD discussions. I also trust User:Isotope23. But pick any, and see what they say. WLU (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Great thanks for the input, I am still learning the ropes here. Lt's sleep on it and see what fans out. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I appreciate your reasonableness as well. Thanks. WLU (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Archaeowiki.org

Thanks for your message regarding links I included from Archaeowiki.org.... Well-intentioned, I'm sure, but if you try to edit that site, you'll notice that it is not publicly-editable.... The author has obviously put a complete restriction on outside edits. I guess this makes the site as good any other information site that one might include amongst external links.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.90.117 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As a further note, WP:EL states that the external link should contain something beyond what would be on the page if it were a featured article. The archeowiki links that you added contained no significant amounts of information beyond what would be included in a featured article. A better choice would be taking the information contained in the sources and integrate this with the wikipedia pages. If the archeowiki page doesn't contain sources, it not a WP:reliable source and should not be an external link. Either way, archeowiki does not look like an appropriate external link. WLU (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Help needed to start an article

Can you please help me with how to make an article in WikiPedia to get WikiAsianTravel notable? I am rather new to this community and don't know exactly where to start. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachyms (talk • contribs) 05:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Coconut healing oil

Hi there! I saw your edits to this relatively new article and I concur with some of your thoughts in the edit summaries. It's nicely formatted, but it seems like a POV essay with non-reliable sources, copyright violations, and a bit of WP:COI since the editor that wrote it also included a reference to an event that involved him (ref #24). I also asked several other editors to review it. You can see their comments here. I was going to be bold and just redirect, but I'd like a bit more input. Do you think any of the article can be salvaged? Appreciate your input. Cheers, Rkitko 15:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out and finally redirecting. I was just about to since I found that the remainder of the article was posted by the same user elsewhere, so it really represented an essay. Cheers, Rkitko 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lovely, but methinks we won't be hearing the last from the editor. WLU (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Covert incest

You are mistaken. This was written by someone else and removed by someone so I added it back in. I can site numerous books including Silently Seduced and Emotional Incest Syndrome and countless others, but they are already referenced. Also, previously the page was LITTERED with references but was removed by other Misplaced Pages admins becomes it was deemed to be too cluttering. Now, we can go back and reference every single sentence if you want, but I think people get the idea that they are referenced. I just wished we could agree on what is too little or too much references, instead of going back and force removing stuff.

Forest Path (Forest Path) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed links to Kuliukas "he's a guy with a web site"

On the page about the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" I noticed you removed all the links to me, justifying that with the real put down "he's a guy with a web site". I am a bit puzzled. Ok. I admit I have do a web site (a few actually) but then so do many academics. Is having a web site against wikipedia policy somehow? Look, I don't know who you are or on what authority you made the decision to edit but I want to say a few words in my defence:

1) I never put the references to me up there in the first place. It was a postgrad student at UCL. So those references were not by me trying to promote my ideas, someone else thought that was worth while. My angle on this idea is that is has been mislabelled (it does not promote an 'aquatic ape' so why call it that?), misunderstood (how many people can cite a paragraph where it is defined in the literature?) and thus misrepresented (most people tend to sneer about it even when they don't know what it is.) My attempt to rename it and finally define it is long overdue and the person that put the links in to me obviously agreed. If we cannot even say what it is, how can we even debate it?

2) I think most people who are interested in this idea on human evolution, who have searched the web (you know the media we are backing with Misplaced Pages) will have come across stuff I've written, including my web site. If they did a little reading they'd see that I'm one of a very few proponents of the so-called AAH who has actually gone to the trouble to return to academia to study this thing. I have a masters degree (with distinction) from UCL, London, in the subject and I'm currently doing a PhD on a similar topic. I have a paper published in the literature and another one that is currently going through peer review.

I'd be grateful if you'd write to me to justify your editing of this page. I think it is a real mess and has definitely got worse recently thanks, in part, to your interventions.

You can e-mail me at akuliukas@anhb.uwa.edu.au if you like.

Algis Kuliukas