User talk:Zad68 - Misplaced Pages

This helpful script will show all blocked editors with a strikeout through their username or IP address (both on the watch list and signatures). I find it highly helpful and maybe you might too. Take care and a late congrats on the new role. Calmer Waters 03:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Calmer Waters thanks much! I have the one that makes admin IDs have a blue background but I haven't seen that one. I do have to add a few new scripts to my vector.js and other files to make myself a bit more efficient and less error-prone. (Is there a comprehensive list of these sorts of magic admin scripts somewhere?) Zad68 03:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about a list, but I would heartily recommend User:MastCell/user-rights.js (although I'm admittedly a bit biased). It adds a small bar when you go to a userpage or user talkpage which lists the editor's rights (autoconfirmed, sysop, checkuser, etc), the date of account creation, the # of edits, and whether they're currently blocked. MastCell 03:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sweet. Mind if I take a few also :) I saw a list once but that was years ago. Did find if you get bored, and Calmer Waters 03:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks... feel free to talk about more awesome scripts while I just sit here and take notes. Zad68 03:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	As you said in your block summary, it was persistent sneaky vandalism. Since all that the anon was doing was changing the numbers, it wasn't obvious that it was vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

More on the health effects of salt

Since Salt is a current "Good article" nomination that I'm reviewing, it's understandably being scrutinized to ensure any health claims in the article are reliable. A user has started discussion here, and I would love it if you found time to comment. Many of his comments and edits seem focused on removing material that casts doubt on whether healthy people should reduce their salt intake. On the one hand, he may be responsibly removing silly fad-science claims that have no place in a general article like "salt". On the other hand, he may be removing reliably-sourced information that suggests a conclusion he disagrees with. In all humility, as a layman, I honestly have no way of knowing which it is. Is there any way you could weigh in and help ensure that the brief summary of health benefits in the "salt" article is as reliable and neutral as it can reasonably be? Thanks so much for your time, – Quadell 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Honored you'd ask me, looking now. Zad68 01:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Quadell you were right to ask for another opinion, that section needs work before it can pass GA. Replied there. Zad68 02:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As the nominator of the article Salt at GAN, I thank you for your comments on the "Health effects" section. I have no specific knowledge of medicine and know little of how medical-related articles or sections should be treated on Misplaced Pages. Having removed the previous health effects section in Salt to create a new article Health effects of salt, I have tried to summarize it, mostly keeping the same references (which I largely did not check). Obviously, either the original section was poor or I have made a pretty poor job of summing it up, or both. I could address the points you raise in the GA review about the various sources but the section would likely still be unsatisfactory. Would you consider rewriting the section to the necessary high standard? If you could, it would be very helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth thanks for taking the comments well. I know what it's like to have your GA nominee picked apart! I think the original health content that was there wasn't good. I'll at least give you a running start at getting that section going, give me a bit of time to look at it. Zad68 14:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful feedback. – Quadell 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Quadell no problem, just updated the GA1 with a list of suggested sources as you were leaving me this note. I provided the sources and links to them, why not let the editor have a go at summarizing them. All the info is there, just needs to be summarized. Zad68 16:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth has rewritten the section, based at least partly on your "distilled library of salt study" / cheatsheet. I was wondering what you think now, Zach? – Quadell 12:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Quadell, Cwmhiraeth - At first glance looks much better but just needs a bit of cleanup for WP:MEDMOS, will look at it more closely! Zad68 14:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Quadell, Cwmhiraeth - I'm done, let me know what you think or if you have further anything. Zad68 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with your version, thank you for tidying the section up. What's the problem with the source you have tagged "not in citation given"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Great! Let's continue this at the GA1. Zad68 17:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in improving the Health section of Salt, which Quadell has just passed as a GA. As I mentioned above, I have had little to do with medical topics and the tutorial you gave on improving the section should help when I come across health aspects in other articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, Cwmhiraeth, it was great collaborating with you on it. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions about that sort of content in the future. I may even be able to provide an answer, and (if we're lucky) it may even be right. A big overview article like Salt is especially difficult, because it touches on so many different topics, and each one of those topics can have their own guidelines for sourcing and style. Fine work! Zad68 19:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent AE

Hi, since you recently closed the Tumbleman case, just letting you know that there's loose end in this case -- the Oh boy chicken again (talk · contribs) sock is still active Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman. vzaak (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Vzaak, I'm aware of that editor... That editor has been discussed at the Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman sockpuppet investigation and it's up to the Checkusers and others there to handle it. Zad68 14:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dearest Vzaak -- I *really* resent your off-handedly referring to me as a "sock" that needs to be swept aside, as though this has somehow been conclusively demonstrated. We both know it hasn't been, nor can it be, because I'm not Tumbleman. I'm a guy who's been following Rupert Sheldrake's career for over a decade now. a guy who was compelled to jump in when it became evident that any voice in support of Sheldrake was met with coordinated pseudo-skepticism.

It seems your tack has been moving to rid yourself of people with weird ideas instead of dealing with the ideas themselves. With all due respect, you should give the latter a spin.

Oh boy chicken again (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, your note regarding this block gets cut off before the link to the discussion where consensus was generated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom thanks, I learned a lot today, including the fact that the blocking form does not help you at all make sure the number of characters you enter will fit in the stored block message. :( Zad68 19:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zad, I've reclosed the AE thread, with your "not an AE block" block clarification in the hat. Whether or not it's an AE block, I guess the fact that it's done means keeping the AE thread open any longer isn't needed. I fully agree with the block, by the way. Oh, and I see you're a newbie admin. Welcome aboard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering how an Editor can go from a week-long block Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#Conspiracy theories - Rupert Sheldrake to an indefinite block overnight. At least there exists an appeals process although I hope it be reviewed by an uninvolved Admnistrator. Liz 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer is that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and once an admin is convinced that an editor is not here to help build an encyclopedia, there is not requirement to fill out a certain number of forms and pass through multiple stages of due process before the editor can be indef blocked. One of the fundamental duties of all admins is to protect the project from harm, so that the hard work we all put into it isn't endangered by people who have other motivations for coming here. I think that the indef block of Tumbleman and his socks are reasonable applications of that duty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I came here specifically to thank Zad68 for helping the project—thanks Zad68! Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:Disappointed

Sure, I'll revert the edits. This was honestly not a malicious attempt...I've refrained from editing medical aspects of the "circumcision" page anymore, as per our discussion. I thought that the foreskin page was different, however- again, I was going by the French version, which has that page as linking to both the medical and sexuality portals.
The aspects I discussed were purely sexual and anatomical; I did not discuss any medical procedures whatsoever. Does pure anatomical information - not an anatomical procedure - fall under WP:MEDRS? (Serious question) I see nothing on the page about "anatomy". Can we not, for example, quote "Gray's Anatomy" (1858)? I know that there a lot of science pages, such as Newton's law of universal gravitation, which use a mix of both new and rather old sources. There are also currently very old sources on the page I edited (eg, Gairdner (1949)), and the only issue on the page seems to be a primary sources template, rather than an outdated sources template. So I didn't think that the WP:MEDRS 5-year rule applied to anatomy pages.
Again, sorry if there was any misunderstanding. I'll revert the edits.
(But just as a head's up, I am going to be editing the brit milah page soon, so please be aware of that. Despite appearances, I'm really not trying to subvert these pages behind your back, which is why I'm telling you this!)
Best --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

MosheA, thank you very much indeed. WP:MEDRS applies to all biomedical content anywhere in any article on Misplaced Pages. Statements about the neurological components and their functions are plainly biomedical content, I'd have a very hard time seeing how they wouldn't be. And even if they weren't, I don't see it could make sense to reach back many decades to over century ago in time for sourcing on something well-studied with up-to-date sourcing available. Why would we would ever be citing Gray's Anatomy 1st Edition (1858) when we have Gray's Anatomy 40th Edition (2008) available, see here. Once again, please stop assuming that content that exists in other articles either here on en.WP or on other-language Wikipedias must be fine and good to import across articles. In most cases, it's not OK to do that. The Foreskin article has a lot of problems and really needs to be gutted and rewritten from scratch. I can see how you might think the edit you made must be fine because it was in line with the quality of what's there already, but adding poor content will only make the problem worse. I might look in at Brit milah to double-check any biomedical content; other editors watching that article might be looking at other aspects of edits made there, just FYI.

Sorry if my tone seems a bit raised here, I care quite a bit about Misplaced Pages's biomedical content, and want to ensure it is accurate, up-to-date and represents the best quality sources accurately. Zad68 16:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much

	Please accept these super-salty pretzels!
	Thanks so much for your advice and research! (I'm glad it was taken with more than a grain of salt.) You really helped bring the article up to GA status, and you helped make sure its quality is up to the highest standards. All the best, – Quadell 18:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

*munch munch*.. Thanks! Ugh, why does my heart feel funny? *munch munch*... Zad68 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin

Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri

WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology

Featured content: That's a lot of pictures

Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes

Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Misplaced Pages, sidebar update, and more

Subtle vandalism

I didn't do much follow up after responding to the ANI post... but I wondered if you'd reached out to User:Thibbs who had dealt with some very similar vandalism to what you were reporting (about 5 months ago or so), and if anything else had come of that. I've been occupied by other things and so I haven't been very involved lately. But the focus on cartoon and music articles seems to be prominent. There's a certain genre of music articles that seem to be targeted but I'll let you discover that on your own and see if it matches with my experience. If you come across anything new in that regards I'd be happy to help, time permitting. I think edit filter is a good approach, but it has some obvious technical limits, so the medium term solution is a good bot to flag these sorts of edits, much in the way cluebot has done for more obvious vandalism. It's obviously a big goal, but one worth pursuing. Shadowjams (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams yes I'd like to see follow-up on that but as I'm not so tremendously experienced with those areas I was hoping to be in more of a "me too, I'll support" rather than a driving role. Zad68 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi Zad. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Misplaced Pages:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole thanks for the even-handed notification about the appeal... I personally have conflicted feelings about it, may comment there if I can clarify my own thoughts about it. Zad68 00:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Zad. Could you tell me what "SDS" stands for. I haven't seen that before. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO sure by that I meant the Standard Discretionary Sanctions we were discussing in the previous subsection. Zad68 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on the promotion

I just saw the vote now; would have voted 'yes' if I saw before. I've seen your name a lot in the vandalism-reversion department. Enjoy the tools. --Jprg1966 00:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Jprg1966 appreciate the support, thanks!! Zad68 14:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman

I just moved the rest of the stuff in User talk:Tumbleman to the Archive, including your final words to him and a pink box. I left a copy of the words and the box on the talk page, but edited the words slightly to remove some potential confusion. (I removed the reference to "above", which isn't there any more.) If you disagree with what I did, feel free to revert it. I'm just trying to tidy things up. Lou Sander (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lou Sander, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I just took a look at the Tumbleman User Talk and I'm fine with how it looks now. Zad68 13:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the loop. Whew! Lou Sander (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Technical failure in page protection

Hi, your recent semi-protection of List of ongoing military conflicts has somehow failed (see ). Can you check what is wrong?GreyShark (dibra) 17:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Greyshark09, I didn't apply semi-protection, I applied pending changes. I decided the level of vandalism wasn't enough to warrant semi-protection, but did warrant pending changes. It's only getting about one bad edit a day from non-autoconfirmed users, and that bad edit can just be declined through pending changes. It looks like it's working properly to me. Zad68 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

IPs

Your judgement of IPs were wrong. I responded https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Drmies_recent_edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.46.132 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Block of Tumbleman

Hey, User:Zad68,

I stumbled upon a comment you made to another Admin about your block of Tumbleman and found that you changed the rationale for your block. It leaves me with a couple questions regarding it:

a) Was Tumbleman innocent then of violating AE discretionary sanctions so you didn't block him based on AE/DS but for other reasons? What reasons were they?
b) Did discretionary sanctions only allow for a one year block and the admins preferred an indefinite block so that's why he got a regular admin block rather than an AE/DS block?

My reasons for asking the questions is that I'm beginning to wonder if AE/DS are being selectively applied. If Tumbleman wasn't really banned because of them, than the threat of them might be being misused. I see a couple of Editors have taken to placing warning notices on the Talk Pages of other Editors warning them that if they continue with their editing on sensitive topics, they could be blocked based on AE D/S. It makes me wonder if this warning is being used to intimidate Editors into abandoning their editing projects or if it is a valid concern that holding certain opinions makes one vulnerable to AE/DS. These warnings are only being posted on the Talk Pages of Editors who hold different points of view from the Editors posting the notices.

Thanks for any answers you can provide, Zad68! Liz 15:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz, you must be talking about this conversation I had with EdJohnston? There was no finding of "innocence" or "guilt" at the AE discussion, in its final disposition it was not closed with an AE outcome, but was rather closed as moot after I blocked. This is clear from the closing statement on the collapsed discussion. My block was based on the consensus of the five other admins that looked at Tumbleman's involvement, and determined it was not productive and not likely to become productive. Initially I thought based on the AE experience of the admins involved in the discussion that it should be an AE block, which is what I did, but then something popped up in my head from memory that AE SDS blocks aren't supposed to be indef. I looked again at the SDS description and that turned out to be the case, and I also could not find an example in the past year where an AE enforcement action resulted in an indef block, so that was enough for me to switch the block category from AE to a "regular" admin block. EdJohnston also brought up a point about insufficient AE warning, which also looked to be true, but that wasn't my original basis for changing the block category.

It is possible that AE requests are being misused. However, I don't think the Tumbleman AE request was completely unfounded. I do see discussions on the Sheldrake Talk page that discussed WP:ARBCOM and Discretionary Sanctions and remedies, and Tumbleman was involved in them, but I also don't see a clear statement "This article is under Standard Discretionary Sanctions per Arbitration Remedies" or related warning. Assuming good faith, it's possible that it was just assumed after all that discussion, including discussion of of WP:ARBCOM and sanctions, that everybody knew about it. Therefore, I would not consider that Tumbleman AE request to be frivolous, entirely unfounded, or pure harassment.

It's possible that the AE warnings are being misused, but as this very case points out, the warnings are necessary for AE requests to result in AE actions. Maybe the standard AE warning message itself could be made a little softer and friendlier, like we did with our {{Uw-ewsoft}} message. Zad68 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I was uncertain about posing these questions to you, Zad68, but this is the best possible response I could get! I'm glad you saw my query as a request for information and not as an accusation. I greatly appreciate you taking time to explain the situation to me, from an Admin's point of view.

I realize that a group of Admins had voiced their opposition to Tumbleman's behavior and that opposition doesn't just disappear. He was going to get a block of some duration. My main concern is the use of AE D/S, instead of posing the issue at AN/I. It seems that when disputes are brought to AN/I, the discussion is open and public, anyone can weigh in, either for or against, and the conversation occurs over 3 or 4 days. AE D/S seems to be much more shadowy to me, the proceedings are less visible, fewer Editors know about them or the guidelines for imposing sanctions (what exact behavior warrants a sanction?) and decisions seem to be made in a matter of hours, not days. I also understand now that a warning has to be given before a case brought to AE which I was not aware of before.

I've posted a general question about AE D/S on one of ARBCOM's Talk Pages and I hope an arbitrator responds. ARBCOM has so many rules that guide their proceedings but the imposition of AE D/S seems less than clear to me. Thank you for your help in understanding the process better! Liz 17:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem Liz. ANI and AE are different tools for different problems, and have different parameters.

ANI can be a sledge hammer. At ANI, anybody can be brought for any reason, there's lengthy discussion, and if there's a community consensus for a sanction, it gets applied. The sanction can be anything, including an indef block or a complete site ban. The only way it can be overturned is with a future community consensus. I think theoretically ARBCOM can overturn a community consensus block but I'm not sure that happens in practice.

AE is supposed to be a scalpel, and it's designed to address problems in only the most conflict-prone areas of Misplaced Pages. Only editors working on content under ARBCOM sanctions can be brought, and that's got to be significantly less than 0.1% of the available content. It's faster than ANI because only one admin is required to make a decision, although often several weigh in before action is taken. Sanctions are limited. AE isn't any more "shadowy" because all discussions take place in the open and anyone can comment, but comments from those other than the closing admins are advisory in nature; closure is by admin discretion and not community consensus. AE serves a very valuable purpose by limiting the consumption of Misplaced Pages's finite conflict-resolution resources by those who are the most expert and prodigious at consuming those resources. Keep in mind that the establishment of AE and its discretionary sanctions are an expression of community consensus. AE has the power that it has because the Misplaced Pages community willed it to be so, and it continues to exist as it does because the Misplaced Pages community finds that it solves more problems than it causes. I'd think editors who have tried to do significant content development work in line with Misplaced Pages's content guidelines in the areas AE covers appreciate it. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than the alternative...

Pinging EdJohnston and MastCell to check my work... Zad68 18:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent analysis, Zad68! I guess I'll get directly to my concern and it's about the pseudoscience DS. I would think, in my limited knowledge, that the sanctions would target disruptive behavior on those articles that are judged to be "pseudoscience".

I am not advocating that any nonscientific views are presented to be factually true but I think, when you are talking about, for example, astrology, you first need to explain, "this is what astrology is based on" and then later say that there is no scientific basis to believe it is accurate. Describing some phenomena or belief system neutrally is not the same as saying it is true. But I see AE/DS being used against those who are neutral or sympathetic to these topics but not against disruption caused by those who are skeptical. I think that AE DS should focus on disruptive behavior (like edit warring or 3Rs), not against ideas or belief systems.

Just advocating this equal treatment and focus on conduct, not beliefs, has made some Editors targets and, therefore, they have received warnings about the content of their editing. I'm fully aware that the weight of WPs Admins might be against this position. But it's this concern that generated my questions.

Again, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Liz 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I agree with you the adjudications should be made without preference to any particular POV. Are you saying that you believe the proportion of WP:ARB/PS adjudications against pro-pseudoscience editors is higher than those against anti-? Assuming good faith, it's possible the adjudications are being made fairly and in accordance with the actual evidence, but for whatever reason pro-pseudoscience editors are just less willing to go to AE than the anti-, or that the reality is that pro- editors behave poorly more often than the anti-. Regarding the article content, what you describe—"This is what astrology claims.... Science says this about those claims..."—is exactly how I'd hope those articles are developed. I haven't really done any editing in pseudoscience areas like Sheldrake to know, really. Zad68 19:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that this is my perception of WP:ARB/PS. I don't think there is anyone who self-identifies as, "Yes, I'm pro-pseudoscience, rah!" It's a label applied to people who hold alternative beliefs or are sympathetic to them because clearly people who believe in, say, astrology do not believe it is pseudoscientific (but I would also argue that they don't think it is scientific either).

I think you are correct that those who are sympathetic or neutral to these areas are far less likely to go to AE and file a complaint and that is partially because some of them are quite new to editing at Misplaced Pages. And while I have engaged in some conversation on Talk Pages, I have not edited any of these articles myself, either. But, I think if I say any more on this matter, someone will pop in, saying I'm accusing someone of something and demanding I produce diffs. This is why I was trying to depersonalize this subject and talk about it in an abstract way, about rules and procedure rather than specific articles and Editors.

Thanks again, this has been a very fruitful conversation. Liz 19:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you blocked a disruptive editor who was being a WP:ENERGYSAPPER. Like all these things, blocking someone is never the most friendliest thing to do, but sometimes it's the most appropriate when users display basic WP:COMPETENCE issues with inability to comprehend policies and guidelines (WP:FRINGE) and have a bizarre understanding of science. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney yes I think that's what the WP:SOUP comment at the AE discussion was hitting on. Zad68 19:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community

Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish

Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Misplaced Pages

Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more

In the media: The decline of Misplaced Pages; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Misplaced Pages

WikiProject report: Elements of the world

Please deal with this case with caution

User:Tristan.andrade.136, a user who you blocked indefinitely, seems to be engaging in sockpuppetry with the account User:Tristan.136. However, I would ask that you please deal with this case carefully, as it seems to me this user is unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies despite the warnings I left at the former account's talk page. Indeed, I highly doubt this user is even aware of the very existence of policy prohibiting block evasion via multiple accounts. Also, this user left a message at the former account's user talk page that seems to request unblocking without using the correct template.

As someone who thinks the Misplaced Pages community can be far too strict at times, I really don't want to see yet another user treated too harshly. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dogmaticeclectic, thanks for the note. I didn't see the "I'm sorry" message and he didn't use an unblock request template. I blocked the Tristan.136 account and unblocked the Tristan.andrade.136 account and left (what I hope are) messages friendly enough for a 10-year-old. Let me know if you think anything else needs to be done. Appreciate you keeping an eye on this young editor. Zad68 15:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Misplaced Pages Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Misplaced Pages Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Misplaced Pages Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Misplaced Pages Librarian

Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious

arbitration
Thank you, "level-headed editor with experience working on high-profile and controversial topics", for quality articles on medical topics, such as Low back pain and Circumcision (the "most stressful but also the most educational thing"), for pictured Rules of content (wood and jellybeans), for believing in BRD, for "closer inspection" of your own view, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt thank you very much, this is a delightful surprise! Zad68 14:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hey there, you've recently warned me on edit warring. Thanks. Thought I would point out for your benefit that User:Roscelese has reverted the same edit five times. You seem to have missed that, so I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. I'm sure it escaped your attention for reasons entirely unrelated to your personal views on LGBT parenting. 136.159.142.129 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, it's entirely unrelated to any personal views I might or might not have. I know without a doubt that Roscelese is familiar with Misplaced Pages's rules regarding edit-warring; she's been blocked for it several times before. I reviewed Roscelese's edit history at the article and although it hasn't been great, it does not break the WP:3RR "bright line rule". As I am involved in the content at that article I cannot take any administrator action there. As your contribution history as an IP is less than one hour in total, and limited to just one article, I was unsure you're aware of the 3RR rule, which is why I left the warning with the links. The article is protected now, so use the Talk page. Zad68 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If you saw edit-warring, Zad, you should have warned both editors, not just the IP. The protection of the article is also prejudicial against the IP because it allows a well-known POV-pusher to enforce her preferred version of the article while the IP is blocked from editing the article. Not fair, favoring one side over the other. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Help in cleaning up a protected talk page archive

Hi! Please remove the repeating (and vandalized) section "#Napoleon Dagalea 2" of WT:Tambayan Philippines/Archive20. (It occured when a troll removed an entire section and two constructive editors (trying to revert the troll) readded it separately . It also got vandalized later.) Thanks···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 03:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yessir, getting my mop out now... Zad68 03:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done I think. Cleaned up the vandalism in the archive and blocked MiszaBot Xll as an account clearly created for no good purpose. I also put a NOINDEX template on the archive page, which should achieve the purpose the vandalism was attempting to do. Check it out, let me know if anything else needs fixing. Zad68 03:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my language was not clear. I meant to say there are two copies of a section (#Napoleon Dagalea and #Napoleon_Dagalea_2). Also this edit was not vandalism. I am sorry for the confusion···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 03:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I will look at it again and fix it tomorrow. Zad68 03:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I should also be trouted for creating this unnecessary confusion.···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 04:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Vanischenu I think I got it fixed now. Zad68 18:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone is stalking me...

Who is John254 and why did someone name me as them? I can assure you I am unrelated to them. Someone is, on a multiple accounts accusing me of them. First an IP 174.241.112.39 address accused me, and then OSTheRobot did as well. But I live in Brunswick County, and I find it extremely unlikely they live near me. I would have replied to OSTheRobot, but they did it on Flyer22 page, so I didn't reply back. Also, I have a notification another IP said the same thing. I can give my IP address to show you I am unrelated. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 16:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dark Mistress, after I took a quick look, the behavior evidence does not at all suggest to me you and those accounts are related. I will drop OSTheRobot a note asking them to take it to SPI or stop making the accusation. Zad68 16:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

70.35.187.240 is my IP address. And he claims now that I make automatic editing??? If you actually look at my edits, I haven't ever made an automatic edit, nor do I know how. I'm not sure, but I have a feeling it is ether a meat puppet or a sock puppet - ether way is likely, but I have a feeling it is an recruited editor... and I don't mean to accuse anyone, it just seems that way. I do think that it is a very strong possibility it is a sock puppet - there first edit was a user talk page edit - I suggest someone look into this. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 17:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dark Mistress at this point there is nothing more you need to do. They've been warned twice now to ~~put up or shut up~~ provide diffs at SPI or stop making the accusations. If the accusations continue, you should open up an ANI discussion about them. Otherwise, why not move on to some article editing. Zad68 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder predominantly inattentive

Oh, my. What a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia after all that time I put in reviewing the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder article content this makes me very sad, thanks(???) for pointing me to it. Zad68 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I just had an unfortunate tour through the train wreck that is the rest of our ADHD content, after I encountered a COI editor adding his/her own research unnecessarily to multiple articles. Gosh it's a wreck out there. I continue to believe that no content is better than bad content in the medical realm, as we have an entire walled garden of articles that allow POV and COI editors to promote their pet theories. We had the same in the entire suite of autism-related articles until Eubulides cleaned them up in 2008 and 9, but keeping those clean has been a constant maintenance chore. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Amen sister. I was having this conversation with someone else the other day, there are just certain articles or areas that do not weather well on Misplaced Pages. An article is either FA/GA, or it's actively being brought there, or it's as good as garbage. I'd rather have medical articles carry no content than bad content, and per WP:MEDRS you can make a case for that. This is one of my "rules of content": the best defense against bad content is good content, and in fact it's probably the only defense. Once an article is FA/GA, it's easier to maintain. If an article is in a particularly controversial area, the overall effort to keep it maintained is substantially higher. I now understand why we have so many FAs on obscure mushroom species--once it's FA, nobody will ever edit it again. Zad68 17:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I struggle not to be green with envy over editors who work in content areas where they can churn out cookie-cutter articles that never get touched again once they clear FAC, while I/we come here just wanting to write new content, but spend hours, days, weeks just trying to keep a couple of medical FAs clean. It sometimes seems insurmountable, and then I see articles that have been essentially untouched since passing FA/GA ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Amphetamine

I'm still hellbent on promoting amphetamine to FA. You still haven't given me your advice/opinion on potential article improvements for FA though Zad.

Seppi333 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Seppi333 you're right, I owe you... I want to help, plan on doing so. Zad68 14:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I clicked on it ... that hatnote at the top is all wrong. Link to dab pages, the rest belong in hatnotes at the top of sections or linked within the article. Also, solid prose review at WP:FAC is no longer the norm, but you've got an awful lot of however, moreover, therefore etc going on, which can be a tipoff to pedestrian prose (have a look at the links about the overuse of however at the top of my userpage-- most of the time when you use those words they are unnecessary and redundant). Also, the lead should be digestible to the average reader, who is typically a layperson ... there's an awful lot of terminology in your lead that will require a layperson to click out to know what you're talking about.

Now, to a much bigger concern. Since you have outright inaccurate, poorly sourced, outdated, and WRONG information about the use of psychostimulants in the presence of tics or Tourette syndrome, I am concerned about the integrity of the article and its sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Sandy! I'll make the changes asap. Can you elaborate on your tics/tourette's point though? I really have no clue what's wrong with it. I know it was originally sourced from the 2013 adderall Rx info though. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry for being snappy, but that tic/Ritalin issue is such a biggie that I was quite disappointed to see it parroted in our drug article, when that info is well and solidly debunked. I can't point you to the best sources for this, because I don't have journal access, but what I can do is summarize it for you in my own words, and tell you where to start looking for sources. Basically, the whole notion that stimulants increased tics was part of and furthered by the whole Scientology anti-psychiatry BS. It has since been amply demonstrated in numerous well-controlled studies that stimulants do not increase tics, but the warning still stands in the (older and FDA) drug literature, even though it's outdated and thoroughly disproven. This matter is even mentioned in the full version of DSM5, and you can find some of the studies at Treatment of Tourette syndrome (which is a bit outdated now-- there are much better and newer reviews that say the same thing, and I've even encountered reviews that mention the Scientology conspiracy factor, but re-locating them for you would be a challenge). Go to the Tourette syndrome article and look in External links for a blog by Roger Freeman ... he once mentioned (during the Scientology BS) that US physicians might be afraid of being sued by them, but he wasn't (he's Canadian), and he was happy to speak the truth. But you can now find same in DSM5 and in newer reviews-- but back in the late 90s, he was the only one speaking up. Don't use old literature to source that text-- it needs to be updated, and if you can find the sources, you can even cover the controversy (which should be covered in the ADHD controversy article, but is not). To do this right, you are going to need journal access, so I can't be of much help ... I only have the TS reviews which all cover this issue, but you will have to cover it from the drug sources, because you will have to find the secondary reviews that explain how that faulty text came to be in the drug literature. I've seen it numerous times, I know it exists in reviews, but it will be hard to impossible for me to relocate, since I don't have journal access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Separately, I just took a tour through GA attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to make sure we don't have that outdated info there. I fixed a few minor things, found that ADHD needs to be updated for DSM5, and that tic comorbidity is not even mentioned, which doesn't set the stage well for the fact that MANY people still believe the outdated treatment info about stimulants causing tics. ADHD is the most common comorbid in TS, but I don't know the inverse, that is, the comorbidity rates for tics in ADHD; someone might locate and add that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help support adding that Sandy Zad68 16:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a PhD student at a state research university, so I have access to numerous journals/databases. I don't know much about tourette's or how it relates to tics, but I'm fairly certain that dopaminergic stimulants do have the potential to exacerbate/induce (just) stereotyped movements (technically, stereotypy, but I suppose it could be called a motor tic). I'll see what I can find on tourettes/tics and stims with a lit search though. Seppi333 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Re exacerbations in tics or stereotypies, nope :) (By the way, the aforementioned Freeman blog was one of the earliest good descriptions of how to distinguish tics from stereotypies-- before there was anything else in print-- now there is lots of good info, including the new DSM5.) I just re-read my copy of the relevant pages of the DSM5, and do not find the reasoning explained there (so I saw it one of my many journal articles, which I would have to go through to relocate), but the substance-induced business that was previously in the DSM now mentions cocaine as the example. There is, as far as I know, no recent secondary review on tics and stimulants that does not debunk the older notion that stimulants exacerbated tics, and this is important, because kids are not getting treated for ADHD (which is more impairing than tics) because of faulty info that has endured thanks to Scientology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) Eh, I don't really want to argue it, but if you ask any long-term (lets say, 10+ years) amphetamine user, I'd wager they'd tell you some combination of bruxism, motor tics/stereotypic movements, and/or psychomotor agitation are the most frequent, bothersome/noticeable, or annoying side effects they experience while using the drug. I don't know how to explain side effects that present like those in one long-term user if they aren't those related medical phenomena.Seppi333 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but that is a different issue than the ole refrain from prescribing stimulants because of the fear (spread by Scientology) that they will lead to Tourette's or tics. I will try to send sources your way as I re-read through my files, but no promises on how quickly I can do that (my tips above will point you to some sources, but there are better and newer ones available). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

After a fairly thorough (but not exhaustive) search with MEDRS filters for tics & ADHD stims, this is what I found before I got tired of looking. PMID 21491404 PMID 19625978. Amphetamine seems to be the only ADHD drug that may exacerbate them. That's not that surprising though, since it's the only ADHD drug that effluxes dopamine (in addition to inhibiting the transporter) in the nigrostriatal pathway. Seppi333 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the starting places I gave you above, from the recent papers on my desk right now, here is some of what I have (I have more):

PMID 23224240 (2013) "Finally, the use of stimulant medication as an example of a substance-induced movement disorder has been consistently removed from ‘‘Chronic Tic Disorders’’, ‘‘Provisional Tic Disorders’’ and ‘‘Tourette’s Disorder’’, due to lack of evidence."
PMID 21386676 (2011, I don't have an online copy of this, only hard copy, so pardon typos as I pound this out): "Psychostimulants, although generally considered the fastest acting and most effective treatment for AHD in isolation, are often not prescribed in individuals with Tourette syndrome because of an FDA warning listing tics or a family history of Tourette syndrome as a contraindication. This was based on a series of case reports published in the 1980s and 1990s highlighting the emergence or exacerbation of tics with psychostimulant use. However, a recent meta-analysis of four trials involving 193 children with ADHD and tics found methyphenidate was effective in reducing ADHD symptoms (effect size=0.8) and had neutral-to-beneficial effects on tic symptoms (effect size=0.3)"
PMID 21378617 (2011): " ... the use of stimulants does not necessarily increase tics significantly or from a clinical point of view and may be used judiciously in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in youngsters with Tourette syndrome. Both the short-acting form (e.g. Ritalin) and the long-acting or sustained release forms (e.g. Concerta, Equasym, Medikinet XL) of methylphenidate are used.
PMID 22064610 (2011, typos mine): "As previously mentioned (my note-- this is mentioned in every TS review article), psychiatric comorbidities often pose a bigger problem than tics for people with Tourette syndrome. The stimulant drug methylphenidate ... (list of others) ... can improve ADHD in people with Tourette syndrome. Initial concerns that stimulant drugs could worsen tics and other features of Tourette syndrome have been refuted by the results of further studies.

Also, Roger Freeman was blogging about the Scientology issue, and the distinction between tics and stims, years before there were journal articles period much less reviews ... good read:

*Tourette's Syndrome: minimizing confusion—a blog by Roger Freeman, MD, clinical head of the Neuropsychiatry Clinic, British Columbia's Children's Hospital, professional advisory board member of the Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada, and former member of the Tourette Syndrome Association Medical Advisory Board.

I'll stop there-- I've got dozens more of same. This has been established now for TS treatment for at least ten years, and is covered in any recent review article on TS and associated comorbidities. Significantly, when ADHD is present along with TS, it accounts for basically the entire neuropsychological profile and difficulties, hence the importance of knowing how to treat the ADHD in the presence of tics. If you need even more sources, pls let me know, cuz I've got scores of same.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Harm OCD

But I'm really here to ask Zad if he can contribute his expertise to an AFD at Harm OCD, since I suck at AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do, I have to run out for a bit but will be on later. Zad68 16:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated! The article links one commercial source, and I found one or two similar non-reliable mentions in my search, but nothing that indicates we should have an article. But you are better at that stuff than I am, and I am dismal at AFD. A problem is that the word "harm" often comes up on OCD searches, but not "harm OCD", so that has to be teased out. I think that new editor wants to cover territory that is already covered at intrusive thoughts. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if the PROD works first. No sense in working harder than we have to. If the tag gets removed we'll move to Plan B. Zad68 19:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Also Plan A.5 (before Plan B) might be a redirect. Did the editor just split that content out to a new article because they felt it needed to be removed from the main article but didn't have the heart just to delete it? If so then the PROD should work. We'll find out I guess. Zad68 19:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. First I put a speedy delete, which was apparently the wrong thing to do, and I wasn't sure if prod was the right thing to do. And then I considered redirect to OCD, but a) wasn't sure if we should redirect something that isn't notable, and b) wasn't sure if we would redirect to OCD or Intrusive thoughts. And I still don't know! I seriously Do Not Do AFD ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not speedy-able. The criteria for speedy are pretty narrow. Unless it's obvious nonsense/vandalism/unintelligible, a BLP attack, or is a person/group of people or music with no indication of importance, it's not speedy-able (ignoring a tiny few other technical things). I think we have good chances with PROD. I'll watch and shepherd. Zad68 20:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, ImADork. Well, if you will shepherd, I will stay out, so no COI. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Progress, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a good direction. Zad68 03:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever noticed that researchers trying to push their own theories into Misplaced Pages take up a huge amount of our time? Another one at pathodysmorphia, non-notable, COI researcher pushing her own new theory into multiple articles, took a good part of my day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Peter Huttenlocher

Could you please have a look at Peter Huttenlocher? I've cobbled it together from a few obituaries, but know nothing of what he actually did, so those parts have been poorly glossed. There are some very good sources there, especially the Nature one, so adding something should be straightforward enough. Many thanks. James 12345 00:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Jamesx12345, I'm honored you thought to ask me. I'll take a look! Appreciate it... Zad68 03:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Traffic report: 200 miles in 200 years

In the media: Rand Paul plagiarizes Misplaced Pages?

News and notes: Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?

Featured content: Wrestling with featured content

Recent research: User influence on site policies: Misplaced Pages vs. Facebook vs. Youtube

WikiProject report: Special: Lessons from the dead and dying

LGBT Parenting

The page's watchers won't let me eliminate primary sources or add more recent primary sources relating to school outcomes ( no secondary sources cited in this section). Please comment. Thanks! jj (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your skilled use of the flame-thrower and the mop, and for finding time to still perform the valuable non-admin assistance you've been known for. Glad to have you on the team. – Quadell 20:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Quadell! So far my brief time with the mop has definitely been challenging and rewarding... sometimes more one than the other :-/ Zad68 21:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Commas

Not trying to cause problems, just a serious question. WP:MOSNUM says "may" or "may not". Why if I chose "may not", is that wrong? It just appears odd to me to have 6000 BC and 6,000 years in the same article. To be completely honest, this seems like a poke in the eye. My original edit was to make the comma use consistent, but my error was to change the dates instead of the numbers. I am now completely confused given that there appears to be no rime nor reason in the application of any guideline on this article. Is that why I found myself to have fallen down the rabbit hole? That is an actual honest question. Maybe "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" after all? VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

VMS Mosaic, no problem, that's a reasonable question. The answer is: they should be inconsistent, intentionally, for clarity. It's easy to confuse "6000 years ago" with "6000 BC". In academic writing, a four-digit year isn't written with a comma, but a number used as a value in a date calculation (or other value use, as opposed to a nominal use) is written with a comma. So, "6,000 years ago" for clarity, to emphasize that the 6,000 isn't naming a year but is a value used in a calculation applied to the current year. Zad68 13:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, given that it is very jarring to the eye (but maybe that is just me given that the reason I do what I do here is that even the smallest detail out of place jumps out at me), I see your point. But to expect an editor to know something which is not in the MOS is a little problematic. I'm going to guess that getting the MOS to reflect this is a battle not worth fighting. You might not believe it, but I've turned tail and ran from many more potential fights, than the fights I've been in. I've actually waited several years on certain articles for some other editor(s) to come along to make the spelling almost consistent so that I could go in to finish the job without starting a fight. Yes, all you have to do is wait and someone will eventually change the spelling. It's just that when I get attacked first, I don't take it well.

In any case, someone really should consider fixing the mixed spelling in salt. Having a huge blow up over the spelling, then leaving it mixed after ward, strikes me as very odd. It tells me that this was a power struggle more than anything, so from the very beginning someone like me never had a chance, right or wrong. Well, time to get back to work. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

VMS Mosaic, someone will fix, hopefully Cwmhiraeth will come back to the article, I think she'd be a better choice as she has a native's grasp of British English. On another note, for your own general understanding of what goes in to the evaluation of a GA candidate, you should read both Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria and Misplaced Pages:What the Good article criteria are not. Zad68 13:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You know, it would have been better if I hadn't read the "are not" article because now my head hurts. Section one couldn't be more clear that the spelling should not have been changed based on the GA editor's own preference (I was told the exact opposite during the dispute). Even if I was wrongly "Demanding compliance with your(my) favorite MoS pages", I was still right. So please don't suggest I read anything else which is only going to raise my already too high blood pressure. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

My notifications informed me that my name had been mentioned here. I have removed the article "Salt" from my watchlist because I did no want to be involved in ongoing discussion on the talk page, seeing my role in Misplaced Pages more as a content creator and article improver. My punctuation is not perfect and I don't mind others changing it where I have got it wrong or been inconsistent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry this whole mess happened. Like you, all I ever wanted was to be left alone to do what I do which is mainly spelling, typos, punctuation and vandalism. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I could write a lengthy response here, I think I'll just agree with two things VMS said: I am sorry this whole mess happened, and it's time to put this behind us. Zad68 03:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-11-04

Redback spider

Hi. The Redback spider articled is at FAC. It includes medical aspects of the spider bite. I recall your editing of the "Salt" article and I think a similar sort of analysis is needed in the "Bites to humans" section in the spider article. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Snowmanradio, my time has been a bit more limited than usual lately but I'll try to get to it. Zad68 03:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that we are getting it done, so may be preferable to reserve your editing time for an Wiki article that has a higher priority. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom drove off another

Now Tom Hulse has caused Chiswick Chap to unwatch the page, that's two now. Now I totally understand those internet blogs I've read about wikipedia being dysfunctional and its editor base massively declining for several years. See my posting there made just now. HalfGig talk 12:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Will look... Looking at the larger picture there's no consensus to move. I fully appreciate the frustration at this sort of thing, believe me! Misplaced Pages's open editing model has strengths and weaknesses, it's easy to view the attempts at attrition of established content as a weakness. Zad68 14:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Chiswick Chap might look again after a few news cycle changes. I too get very frustrated when someone's claiming some kind of "victory" while not making sense, and using arguments that remind me of those used by the self-proclaimed sovereign citizens. How does one engage with someone who seems to be playing some kind of game? It feels like trolling and/or a pissing contest, and not much to do with article improvement.

Viewing past incidents on WP has shown me that making comments like this could have severe consequences, so this is the only time I'll be making them. Hamamelis (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Violation of editing policy

Please note that I think your edit here was a clear violation of our WP:Editing policy. Please do not ignore wp:preserve. If we ignore our editing policy, we only do so at our own peril. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't agree, where does that source talk about electronic cigarettes? Zad68 11:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm...... what are you talking about? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Huggle 3

Hey Zad68! I am Petrb, one of core developers of Huggle, the antivandalism tool, which you are beta testing (according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers). I am happy to announce that Huggle 3 is ready for some testing. You can read more about it at WP:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta. Please keep in mind that this is a development version and it is not ready for regular use. That means you must:

Watch your contribs - when anything happens you didn't want, fix it and report a bug
Frequently checkout source code and build latest version, we change it a lot

If you find any problem with a feature that is supposed to work perfectly, please let us know. Some features are not ready yet, it is listed in known problems on Huggle3 beta page, you don't need to report these - we know it! So, that's it. Have fun testing and please let us know about any problems, either using bugzilla @ http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or #huggle . Please respond to my talk page, I am not going to watch your talk page. Thank you Petrb (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Huggle 3

Watch your contribs - when anything happens you didn't want, fix it and report a bug
Frequently checkout source code and build latest version, we change it a lot

International Coalition for Genital Integrity

I don't want to interfere with your attempts to assist User:DavidHGrateful, but with respect to the article, I would delete it as G12 rather than leave it in its present state.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 actually I did exactly that as my original action... but then undid my action because I'm so involved in this content area, so I tagged it with the copyvio instead. But, if you agree that it's a G12, please fire away. Zad68 16:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that but you immediately restored it, and I didn't want to step on your toes. I've deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. B! (Or Ms.) I had wanted to just tag it as G12. I used Twinkle to do that like I've always done before. But I forgot I was an admin and that when I use Twinkle to tag a CSD, it'll actually finish the job! So I undid and used the copyvio template instead. Thanks for the outside assistance. Zad68 17:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I wish I could forget I'm an admin sometimes, Zach. Enjoy it while it lasts. (I'm male.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, the nicest thing about giving up the admin tools has been not having to remember to check that "tag only, don't delete" box in Twinkle for CSDs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper darnit now that you mention it, I'm looking back over that fence I just climbed over and I do have to say that, standing over here, that grass does look more green that I gave it credit for. Zad68 22:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, now, Zach, just because Writ Keeper was ~~stupid~~ ~~smart~~ ~~stupid~~ ~~whatever~~ enough to temporarily resign doesn't mean you should entertain any such notion. A good admin is hard to find.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Child's Right to Genital Integrity/Autonomy Movement

Hi Zach,

Thank-you for your kind welcome and introducing me Misplaced Pages's guidelines. You are right, I have chosen a contentious subject. It is a subject that deserves to be represented neutrally on this cultural interface.

I would like to develop a page here to describe the subject above. Do you have any advice for me?

DavidHGrateful (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)