User talk:WLU

Memory, Trauma treatment and the Law

I've a copy of Hammond, D. Corydon; Brown, Daniel P.; Scheflin, Alan W. (1998). Memory, trauma treatment, and the law. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0393702545. for two weeks via the magic of Interlibrary Loan (wikipedia owes me $2 and that's not counting overdue fees). If anyone would like verification of how this source is represented on any of the pages, please let me know in the next two weeks. WLU (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

arbitration

/RFC

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

UV/Lupus

That one looks like it is verifiable. Are those sources OK? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not too sure how this all works, but i'd like to know who keeps removing my info on UVA1 phototherapy...

UVA1 Phototherapy - An effective "off-label" treatment which is slowly but steadily gaining acceptance uses ultraviolet UVA1 radiation - long UVA wave lengths that do not promote sunburn and which actually block inflammatory immune factors by promoting apoptosis (cell death) in T cells. Several studies, both in the U.S. and Europe, have shown that UVA1 phototherapy lowers disease activity in SLE.

i mean, how many peer reviewed research references do you want? my name is anthony debartolo, i have SLE & i use UVA1 quite effectively...i published a book in 2004, "lupus underground" that explains this method...i can understand removing refers to my book, but not the method... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the real culprit is me. I have responded on my talkpage. JFW | T@lk 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the policies on undue weight, the concern may be that too much emphasis is given to an uncommon treatment. Per WP:MEDRS, the references must be from extremely high-quality sources. Thanks Wolff, I'll have a gander if you don't mind to see if I have an opinion. WLU (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom stuff

Hi - I'm not ignoring you - but I have been really busy. Perhaps next week I'll follow-up on things.Heliocybe (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverfield

The idea is that the sections are there, even if empty, to indicate that the sections should be filled as they are necessary. As to the other issue, do what you feel best. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

Thank you very much! Felix Felix Basinger (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. WLU (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds

Weeds is not automatically paired with 'widow's' - see Ye Sacred Muses and, doubtlesss, other examples of that era. Have reverted. Linuxlad (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Weed' (singular) is legit if rather dated 'Modern English' (ie Shakespeare and his kind) for a piece of cloth. See say Chambers 20th C. Just because it is often coupled with widow, does not make that automatic. In Byrd's lament it's the Muses, presumably unwidowable, who are in 'mourning weeds'. As a word it's probably got more life left than a TV show! (I for one had never heard of the (American?) show, but have known the 'archaic' usage from (English) childhood!) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The show is good, if you like ribald humour. Closer to Benny Hill and Keeping Up Appearances than Blackadder from my knolwedge of British humour. Let's see what the WT:DAB discussion says. WLU (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern tick-associated rash illness

Hi there, did I use the correct ICD codes in the infobox? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, but to my chagrin I can't be certain. If it's an emerging illness then I don't know if they'd have an ICD code. The best I can say is I can't see anything wrong with it, my apologies. WLU (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex boy

Thanks for your recent copyedit in Alex Constantine. I've just added my comment in talk page. —Cesar Tort 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]