User talk:WLU/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Proposed deletion of Arithon

The article Arithon has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DanielRigal (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement!

I really appreciate it. I'm still around, but not editing as much and avoiding those that regularly harass me. I've been meaning to change the template at the top of my user and talk pages. Done now.

Much appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rind et al. controversy article.

Hello, WLU. Mind weighing in on the Proposing some adjustments to the Intro discussion, since it is partly about one of the edits you made? Flyer22 (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been meaning to return to that article...but I don't know if I'll have time. I'll try to get to it but I can't make any promises. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This article has been vexing lately. Thank you tons for engaging on it. I think that Flyer22 has (understandably) stated "I'm outta here", and Legitimus is busy, and I'm busy, and I don't have the expertise to do much (not sure about Flyer22 and Legitimus but maybe them too). Before you came along (thank you again!) I was starting to feel inclined, looking at the totality of the situation, to just be like "You know what? It was basically OK before, and I'm going to restore it to it's pre-Radvo/Truthinwriting state and just insist on that" or something. Obviously not the best thing but possibly preferable I guess. Anyway, if you too end up throwing up your hands or if you wish any other assistance let me know. Herostratus (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please assist me

• Relating Ehsan Mehmood Khan

A goup of IP and others playing WP:Ownership and reverting every time edits and removing tags.Can you take a look at Ehsan Mehmood Khan and talk page and give your review please?.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.189.137 (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for deletion here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, and sorry for not signing.I support your move. Justice007 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	To User:WLU, in appreciation for erudite and measured editing in particularly difficult and fraught areas. Important, and appreciated. Herostratus (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here. Here. Thank you so much. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen,

In a horrifying display of manners, I never said thank-you. Though doubtless your barnstar and praise are unwarranted given my latest round of potty-mouth on the Rind talk page, I appreciate it none the less and will strive to live up to the tacit endorsement given here.

Well that's a doucebag way of saying "merci" if I've ever seen one. Tsk, I'm a terrible editor. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you please post this to Rind et al controversy. Active editors there should discuss and decide this with consensus.

Radvo proposed the AntonyHCole recommendation because of the lack of trust among editors and because the topic is so controversial. Cole's recommendation reads:

• In text about the study and its results, include only, to all intents and purposes, scholarly reviews published in respected peer-reviewed journals. See WP:MEDRS.

• Put the exact words of a proposed edit, alongside any existing text it may be replacing, and citing the WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says precisely what your edit says, but in different words and structure, on this talk page for others to consider. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Radvo would add WLU's proposal to this, but delete WLU's #1 entirely.

WLU offers::

1. WP:BRD is a valid approach. Try making an edit to the main page you think is an improvement. If other editors disagree, they will revert, and explain their reason.
2. Always base your edits to main pages on a direct summary or quote from a reliable source.
3. As much as possible, reference policies and guidelines in your talk page posts. Policies and guidelines govern content and editors, representing broadly acceptable community consensus.
4. Above all, be brief in your talk page posts. Suggest a specific edit, identify the source that verifies it, and if necessary, the policy or guideline that supports the change. However, my personal preference is to try out edits via WP:BRD first, it's much faster and saves a lot of unnecessary discussion.

Radvo's initial reaction to WLU's proposal:

Radvo thinks the history and the delicacy of the topic suggests that WP:BRD will be too chaotic. There is not enough trust in the group. Radvo strongly opposes ULU's# 1. All major edits and redactions must first be posted to and discussed for 2 days on the TALK page. Faster if every one is consulted. Consensus must be worked on.

For the Rind article itself I would go with the [WP:MEDRS] recommendation. For the controversy part, use "reliable standard".

Radvo agrees with WLU's 3 and 4. How about one verticle Wikipedia screen worth of text is the maximum; if I cannot see all the words of my edit in the verticle Wikipedia screen, it is too long. Is that still too much? Radvo (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I frankly don't know what you want or are asking for in this section. From a practical perspective, you rarely get explicit consensus on the talk page before moving it to the main page. The two main criticisms made of your editing were that you posted discussions that were far too long, and linked to sites advocating for pedophilia. This posting is shorter, you haven't linked to the sites again, so I don't see any further issues to discuss until we reach the actual main page. You're proposing a lot of unnecessary restrictions that I won't agree to and I don't see as necessary. As a new editor, you're probably better off simply making the edits you propose then reading the reactions of more experienced editors after the fact. The main issue, ultimately, is that if someone points to a policy or guideline as a reason to make or undo an edit, you should read the policy or guideline and attempt to understand if and how it applies. That's it. There's no reason to propose a whole bunch of new processes when the regular ones work perfectly fine for most editing situations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What's with the talking in third person? N^oformation ^Talk 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I had the same question but was too polite to ask :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the things you recommended, some of it twice. Thank you.

How the editors work together is a matter for all editors to discuss. The heading asks if you would move this discussion to the Rind et al. Controversy Talk page. I wanted it clear who owned what part of the proposals. I did not want to move your recommendation without your permission. Maybe you also wanted to revise your recommendation before introducing it to the other editors.

What I was supporting was the recommendation of AnthonyHCole, who made this suggestion. This is not something I made up. I am accepting the advise of a neutral third party, who made a solid recommendation. I agreed with his idea and his reasoning. I took his advise. You like me to take good advise from others, don't you?

I would like to work on improving the Sources list tomorrow or the next day. Is that okay with you. I have some more references to add. I would like to alphabetize the references list, and maybe use your chart from several years ago to hold all the references.

Cole's recommendation for how we work together reads, in part:

• In text about the study and its results, include only, to all intents and purposes, scholarly reviews published in respected peer-reviewed journals. See WP:MEDRS.

• Put the exact words of a proposed edit, alongside any existing text it may be replacing, and citing the WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says precisely what your edit says, but in different words and structure, on this talk page for others to consider.

I feel very strongly that this is the way to go in that group: Post everything carefully to the TALK page for discussion and consensus building. When discussion is over, take action. And no major redactions of text without prior discussion, too. This method is slow, but gives time for sharing information and group consensus building. Radvo (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't post walls of argument in support of any proposed change. Just propose a change, and quote the WP:MEDRS-compliant source for medical content (WP:RS-compliant source for other content). If your quote from the source doesn't obviously say what your proposed change (in your own words) says, no amount of arguing will convince anyone to support you. Your edit will stand or fall on how well it reflects the reliable source. I can't recall if you've been pointed to this but WP:NPOV is essential reading.

You're learning a unique and difficult discipline here: editing Wikipedia medical articles. Take baby steps. Address one point at a time. Start with an easy one. Be very, very concise and polite. We are all immensely taciturn here. No one's interested in conversation or argument. Mostly we exchange single short paragraphs or clipped sentences, punctuated with a citation or two. Finally, to repeat, don't mount arguments. Most of us won't even bother reading them. Just present a quote from one review, or equally strong source, that unequivocally supports your change. If you can't find one, give up for now, and watch the journals (they're all available online; at least their abstracts are). Maybe the ideal source will turn up. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As an experienced editor, I think BRD is the quickest, easiest and least complicated way to approach editing and see no reason to stray when it comes to my own contributions. Radvo, you are welcome to post your changes on the talk page beforehand, but editing the main page directly has a number of advantages that I'm simply not willing to give up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'm recommending running the edit by the talk page specifically to Radvo, because he's on trainer wheels. Once an editor has mastered editing policy and practice, WP:BRD is the way to go. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Rind et al. controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Illustrious Looshpah

How's it going, vandal? You have a coffee stain and cigarette burn on your page. Aren't you more of a Book of All Knowledge? Even in the old rating system you would be a Coffee Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Pencil, Sticky Note and Bookmark. SlightSmile 19:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's about seven months early, but I'LL TAKE IT! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments at Talk:Pedophilia

Could you not remove my comments in their entirety? My comments were not all "soapboxing." And if I was soapboxing, then so was Jokestress with her claim that the article is owned and corrupted by six editors -- six editors who are doing a fantastic job keeping the real corruptness out of that article. She gets to make wild claims like that and I don't get to respond? Responding on her talk page is not the place (she'd remove or ignore my statements anyway). My comments were a direct response to the criticism she and Cataconia made about the state of the article. Cataconia's claims that were similar to Jokestress's got removed. So why does Jokestress's get to stay? Because hers are shorter? I believe that my comments should be added back, even if censored. You have my permission to redact any part of my comments that are too soapboxy and border too much on personal attacks. I just ask that you don't remove my comments altogether. Combine them under Cataconia's and Jokestress's comments. I was asking solid questions that I believe everyone there wants answers to. 72.159.131.3 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Acrimony and back-and-forth doesn't improve the page. They are very much aimed at a single editor and are very much something to put on his/her talk page (and s/he's now blocked anyway). If Jokestress will ignore your comments, why make them? There's no chance of any comments making a difference to the main page. So why perpetuate the drama? Your section was a single comment made by a single user, so removing it is usually acceptable. A section with multiple comments from multiple users is more controversial to remove. You are free to replace them, I won't remove them again, but I really don't think it'll result in any significant changes to the main page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments were to two editors and anyone who thinks like them. Jokestress didn't ignore my comments on the article talk page. But I believe she would have if the debate were to have continued, and especially at her talk page. Why comment at all? To have my voice heard, to debate points I disagree with, to show support to the editors like you who are criticized by these people. Basically, for the same reasons that you and others kept responding to/debating with Cataconia even though it was pointless. It's drama, but it's also debating. I would have added my comments to the already existing section, but the system I'm editing from wouldn't let me. This is why I asked that you add my comments to that section for me, removing the headers.

It goes without saying that I'm very pleased that Cataconia was blocked. Thank you for your efforts in dealing with him and for not removing my comments again. 72.159.131.3 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've got a request of my own then - remove the section heading and simply make it a part of the previous section. It'll make it part of the dialogue and ensure it won't be deleted again. The only other comments I have are that obviously, we're not a discussion forum, and ultimately once an editor like C is blocked (either from editing or by consensus) there's no point in feeding the trolls since they can't change the main page anyway. Of course, I'm a huge hypocrite since I often descend into debates in an effort to change minds (I like to pretend I'm just "explaining the policies and guidelines") and I totally understand why you want your comment to stand. So take my comments with a grain of salt and feel free to just ignore 'em. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd thought about removing the headers, but it seemed like I couldn't at the time. Now I see that it is posxible with the system I'm using, so I'll be doing that soon. Someone else will have to fix the gaps that will be left behind. And about responding once someone is blocked, Cataconia wasn't blocked at the time I commented, and I didn't know he was already blocked when I restored the material, but I still would've wanted the material restored.

Anyway, thanks for being understanding and accomodating. Sadly, it appears that Cataconia has a chance of being unblocked. 72.159.131.3 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if s/he doesn't take advantage of the block by behaving like a real editor, any subsequent block for the same reason results in it being much less likely of ever being unblocked. So either they get better, or they lose the ability to edit genuine-permanently. Win-win. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that I didn't leave any unnecessary gaps behind, since I moved my comnents all the way up against the headers before removing the headers.

Thanks for the reassurance about Cataconia. 72.159.131.3 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Pottinger's cats

The Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say it is "common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject..". I'd have deleted Pottinger's cats's rant on Talk:Megavitamin therapy but you and NoInformation have responded so I'm asking if you would mind if I deleted it along with your responses. I believe this editor is simply using our talk pages as a free web page to post his personal beliefs. Colin°^Talk 08:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Responses from me were out of courtesy more than anything. Occasionally someone comes here with an agenda but can learn to settle in to the way we do things, I'm not sure if this is one of those cases. Considering ample warning that talk pages are not for rants or general discussion, and the subsequent ignoring of this advice, I'm not opposed to removal. However, archiving might be an alternative, at the very least to demonstrate to others who may share similar agendas that there is a right and a wrong way of changing things. N^oformation ^Talk 09:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

PC's contributions are worthless conspiracy mongering, and should probably be dealt with on his/her talk page. I have no issue with the whole section being deleted, including my responses.

Noformation, when have you ever seen an agenda-driven editor learn from someone else's mistakes? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with editors being courteous. Encourage it even. But the article-talk page discussions don't seem to be either changing the editor's mind nor stemming the flow of nonsense. I think retaining the material, even archived, is just free publishing. Colin°^Talk 16:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think archiving will help anyone. WP:DENY seems to apply for civil POV-pushers too. Particularly those who keep insisting that the article is wrong without understanding any of the sources or policies that indicate how intellectually bankrupt CAM is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind we're NOT dealing with a newbie. This might need more content, so keep your eyes open. An SPI might be appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty consumed on the DID page right now, if something extremely relevant requiring a comment comes up, I would appreciate a head's-up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Shirley Ardell Mason, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Needed your assistance

Hi,WLU,I need your assistance relating article Muhammad Iqbal,please take a look at article and its talk page,it seems to me that edtitor Omer123hussain's editings are not justifing the rules of wikipedia?.I try to explain to him in edit summary,but he is experienced as he claims to be,while he do not want to understand what the meaning of knighthood is, and repeadedly placing the templete cn and asking source for holiday in Pakistan,while link itself is source.Now I see everywhere templetes cn are decorated.He also does not going to accept reliable sources.In this stage for me is very terrible and difficult to expand and improve the article.You know the rules,please access and assess the edits and work.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the problem with the knighthood is the whole "Sir Muhammad", though it's implied by the knighthood, it's also peacocky and looks odd. I would in fact support removing it.

Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; you can't link to another wikipedia page and say "that's the source". You need to go to the linked page itself and pull the reference from there. In fact, the Public holidays in Pakistan page doesn't have any sources and the single external link doesn't appear to include his birthday. I can't see any problem with Omer123's edits. He has tagged sources that appear unreliable (they're websites of unknown reliability). In many cases the websites are redundant to obviously reliable sources like books.

My suggestion to you would be removing the sources and accompanying tags where they aren't needed (i.e. if you've got 3 sources and 2 are tagged as unreliable, delete the tags and the 2 unreliable sources) and in an ideal case replace them with reliable sources. You might try searching Google Books, as there do appear to be several discussing him, i.e. [1], [2]. I would suggest looking into common alternative spellings that may be used. You may also use non-English sources, so try searching using whatever search engines use arabic scripts - but I wouuld restrict your sources in this case to unquestionably reliable ones like scholarly books. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ok,and thanks very much to assisting me,and please watch and correct me where I am wrong,so that article can be expanded and improved.Justice007 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know when you've finished your edits and I'll provide comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder discussion

Have no fear. I wouldn't get near it with a ten foot pole. I don't care who's right. From the very little I saw of it, it looked like one of those melee combats in the video game Fate where thirty enemies attack you at once and you die of confusion. I think it might be a good idea to call in arbitration if you haven't.

I had no idea that a consensus of editors could be involved in developing an article. Isn't that a kind of POV? --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration is waaaaaaaayyyy too early. It's a very last step in dispute resolution, ARBCOM wouldn't even consider it at this point. That's part of the reason why this is pissing me off - disputes should be source-based, not opinion based. The process is always 1) find source 2) decide if source is reliable 3) decide on weight 4) decide on summary 5) integrate sources with the page. Notice that there is no step "decide if source agrees with your own feelings on the subject".

That's...not quite what consensus is. Consensus arrives when multiple editors decide on a specific version of the page that is agreed to represent the status of the relevant scholarly or expert community. A more nuanced reading of WP:NPOV would probably be beneficial (which sounds reeeeeeally condescending, but NPOV is probably the most difficult of our core content policies to grasp, as well as being the hardest to achieve). It again goes back to sources - the appropriate weight given to the page is not determined by editors. The ideal situation would have all editors read all material on the subject and magically decide how much weight to give each position based on how much weight it's given in the sources. That's not possible, so instead we "measure" weight by adding sources essentially on the basis of number; if there are six review articles on one side and three on the other, the former gets the most text. Other considerations like reliability and authority of the publication venue also come into play - Oxford University Press gets more weight than Prometheus Books.

Consensus arrives when editors, with a common understanding of the policies and guidelines, agree that the number of sources used and their summary and detail within the page fairly represents the scholarly consensus. In practice, so long as everyone agrees to the ground rules it actually happens pretty quickly. For instance, on DID, I object to the iatrogenic material being removed from both body and lead. I don't object to it being portrayed as a minority opinion, but it must be present. I don't have any personal feelings on the matter, I don't know if DID is iatrogenically- or abuse-induced, I just know that in the sources it's not agreed that there is a single cause. Compare HIV/AIDS - in 1980 barely anything was known. A couple years later there were disputes over what caused it - virus, bacteria, drugs abuse, allergy to semen or blood? A few more years and it was settled - most people agreed it was viral in origin, though there were dissenters. A decade later and the dissenters are either convinced - or denialists, and moved out of the page. Right now DID is in the "disputes" stage therefore each hypothetical etiology should be discussed.

In practice, if I can keep finding reliable sources to integrate into the page, I keep adding them. If other editors can't find "competing" sources, mine de facto becomes more heavily weighted. If the only sources the "other side" finds are low-quality or scarce, then again de facto that indicates more weight should go to "my" side.

A good page, after a lengthy dispute, will result in multiple groups of editors who are willing to defend even edits they disagree with, or revert edits they agree with, if they are giving too much weight to one side. The problem here is the "other side" isn't working from the same set of rules that I am - Tom thinks he gets to decide what's on the page based on what he personally believes. You don't get to ignore sources and policies that way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for explaining what consensus is! And I think instead of arbitration I should have said mediation. --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello WLU. I don't like to argue. Will you be nice please and let all those on the DID page work on it. I think at heart you are a good person that just does not know hold to let hold of something you feel belongs to you, but please - just this once - try. :) ~ty (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never prevented others from editing the page - only pointed out when those edits are not in line with the P&G. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not true Sir. You only allow the edits that agree with your pov. You reverted ALL Tom Cloyds edits and cite reasons that you feel justify this, but no one else is agreeing with that except your sidekick Dreamguy, who agrees with all you have been doing there. ~ty (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bull. Shit. Your comment is pure confirmation bias. I know what I'm doing, I edit quickly and I justify my edits - as well as my reverts. I admit my mistakes. I correct them. I try to help other editors when I see points worth keeping or making. I had a recent fruitful discussion, and spent a considerable amount of time trying to resolve an issue with Forgotten Faces, despite disageeing with him/her personally. It was calm, civil, and resulted in an obvious improvement to the page and removal of a misrepresentation of a source. I've added numerous potential sources to the talk page, including several that I personally disagree with, and added numerous reliable sources, including an expansion of the overly-brief treatment section.

But please, feel free to keep blaming everything on me. Keep claiming that I do nothing but worsen the page and obstruct on the talk page. Do your best to ensure I'm the villain of your piece and diagnose me with pathologies that justify my black cloak and moustache. I don't care. My goal is to improve the page by finding, summarizing and integrating reliable sources. I'm fucking good at it. I enjoy doing it. And I'm going to keep doing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping the swearing on your own talk page. I really do appreciate that! ~ty (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you do us both a favour. Suggest, or make, a sourced change to the DID article. Then ask me what I think of it. Not because I own the page, simply because I am an experienced editor and might have something interesting to say. Your claims against me are largely diff-free and address very few specifics regarding the edits I've made to main space. Consider this a trust and consensus building exercise. I'm happy to do the reverse, if you would like me to justify any specific action I take on the page, I will happily do so with reference to policies and guidelines, admitting when it's simply a matter of taste or personal judgement when it's not. To date our actual editing together has been almost nothing, it's solely been talk page postings. This would change that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In many ways I think we both understand DID the same way. If you are not really a "false memory type" then perhaps we can teach each other some things and come to an agreement. I really don't want to present an extreme POV, I just want people to see the facts about dissociative identity disorder and not a bunch of false memory politics.~ty (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't give a shit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Do I detect anger again? I do care. DID is important to me. ~ty (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

ISSTD

Hi WLU. I believe I am almost done with the text for the ISSTD article. Can you let me know if anything I messed up anything or am including anything I shouldn't or just basic errors like that? I'm still trying to find sources for more about the 90s repressed/false memory stuff, if I can't I'm just going to remove that for now. Thanks again for all of your help. Forgotten Faces (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh one other thing, there's one reference that I use in three places that references different page numbers. I wrote notes on the article page itself, can you show me how to get it to show different page numbers or just change it yourself and I'll see how you did it? Thanks! It's reference 5 (right now) Chu, JA (2011). Rebuilding Shattered Lives. Forgotten Faces (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done some basic fixes. I'd say you can leave the note that they were involved in the recovered/repressed memories controversy without including details, no need to take it out.

Regards the Chu reference, I fixed it in two steps. Hacking actually has the same problem if you'd like to take a crack at it. You move the full reference to the "References" section and use the following code:

<ref name = authorpage>[[#Author|Author]], 20XX, p. [book link ##].</ref>

==References==

• <cite id = Author>{{cite book}}

Obviously fill out the information and cite book template properly. It's a bit complicated so I actually check an example I set up years ago at satanic ritual abuse to make sure I code it right. Have a go and I'll check to see what's wrong if it goes pear-shaped (or let me know you'd rather I do it and I'll fix it for you). To get the right google books page number, the unique book identifier is everything in front of the first &pg=P part. To link to a specific page number, use &pg=PA## if it's the main section, &pg=PR## if it's the introduction or whatever (i.e. book numbering is Roman rather than numerals, page xii becomes &pg=PR11 while page 23 is still &pg=PA23). You don't need the stuff after the page number, it'll automatically redirect to the appropriate link. I like to include it because it's slightly neater. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, the article looks better. I'll try my luck at the citations later today when I have more time and finish up the info on presidents, and then we're basically done I think. Am I missing anything else besides adding it to categories and such? :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be notable enough to avoid deletion. If you want to polish it, add the infobox I mentioned on your talk page and see if you can find an appropriate footer template. May not be one though. A stub notice wouldn't be bad either - good luck with that, stubs are a pain in the ass.

I hate categories, you're getting no help from me there. I'd suggest stealing them from articles on similar topics (i.e. dissociation on one hand, medical/scholarly organizations on the other) and let someone else sort them out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I went through like half an hour of trying to understand what I was doing only to find the other pages in the Hacking reference were artifacts from previous edits... so I read it more in depth and made a new reference in the article in a different place. I was already almost done and wanted to see if I could do it/get feedback from you... so it ended up making the article better in another way, too. I'm pretty stubborn I guess. I think I did it correctly but let me know. Thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You've used <ref name = Hacking/> three times, once to refer to page 113 and twice to refer to page 52 - but only the first one shows up. You don't need a ref name template for 113 (it's only used once, you only need ref name when you re-use a reference) and you can either leave 52 as <ref name = Hacking> or change it to <ref name = Hacking52> to be more specific. Remember, the "real" ref name tag needs to be <ref name = refname>Actual citation information</ref> while all subsequent references are just <ref name = refname/> with the forward slash to close the tag. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I don't know how I didn't see that before I replied, oops. Anyway, I think I've fixed everything, thanks for your patience, let me know. :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if everything is working correctly I am going to submit it if you think it's good enough for now. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I say go for it, you'll get some more feedback too. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Just submitted it. Forgotten Faces (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lemme know if you need any further help, that page or others. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been quite a learning experience. I appreciate your help, and I will definitely let you know if I have more questions. Thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Sodium hyaluronate

Hello Sir. I am the main author of the article Sodium hyaluronate. Last year 2011 You noted successfully that: "(cur | prev) 14:27, 4 July 2011‎ WLU (talk | contribs)‎ (24,777 bytes) (reads like it was written by someone who spoke English as a second language. Fixes)". Really it is thouth!!! I am Greek, and English is my 2nd language. Please if you have the time, correct my English in this article. Best regards. Dr. Harry Gouvas, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Greece Harrygouvas (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I very much doubt I will have time to address much beyond technical fixes and specific questions. If you have any, I'll do my best to address them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tavris, w/o a "t" at the end.

With this edit, you misspelled the last name of Social Psychologist WP:Carol Tavris by adding a "t" to the end of her last name. The WP:Link does not work now as originally intended. In the same paragraph, you twice correctly spelled the last name of Carol Tavris. I assume good faith and that, at your convenience, you will correct the small mistake you introduced with your edit, so interested readers at the Rind et al. controversy can conveniently link to Carol Tavris. --Radvo (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

adoptmeadoptmeadoptme!

please adopt me!--ethen bowen 00:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethen12 (talk • contribs)

Sure, what kind of help were you looking for? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

i'm looking for help with my two articles that i'm writing. the links are below.

• user:ethen12/How to install windows 7
• user:ethen12/computers and what they are

--ethen bowen 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Both appear to be inappropriate for wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a how to manual; if this topic interests you, I would suggest WikiHow. The second is redundant to computer. If you find the current article to be written at too high a level, you might consider Simple English Wikipedia.

When linking to pages on wikipedia, you just need to use two sets of square brackets [[like this]] which renders like this in most cases (it's red because it's not a real page, it turns blue when an actual page exists). You appear to have tried using a redirect. Redirects help ensure we have only one page per topic, and we don't duplicate pages based on alternative spellings, different names and the like (for instance, Equus zebra, the species name, redirects to Mountain Zebra, the wikipedia name). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI

There is an ANI discussion going on about Ethan12, and you are invited to take part. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

DDNOS

Hi WLU. I am working on the dissociative disorder not otherwise specified article. I see that some articles quote the entire DSM criteria in the article for mental illnesses - but have seen on the DID page that that is copyright infringement. Is this correct? It seems hard to describe the diagnosis in depth without quoting it directly. I can read around and look for examples, but DDNOS isn't like DID where there are only a few set presentations and you can name the defining features easily (amnesia and alters). Let me know the best route, thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You may want to just roll that page into dissociation, particularly if it's going to be short, with a redirect to the specific section.

I hate copyright questions. I'll point you to WP:COPYRIGHT and suggest using brief quotes and summaries. Copyright is not on the ideas expressed, only the specific expression of the idea (i.e. the exact words). If you're still curious or can't see any way to do this, I would suggest asking one of two editors: User:SandyGeorgia (who is incredibly friendly and helpful and deserves to be the boss of wikipedia) or User:WhatamIdoing who is much closer to my own behaviour in tolerance of fools vis-a-vis relative weight (but far, far more expert than I and also deserving to be the boss of wikipedia). SG will bend over backwards to help and probably provide a blizzard of incredibly helpful suggestions and edits for the page itself, WAID will probably give you a scrupulously correct answer but may not respond with the same depth.

Sandy or WAID, if you're page-stalking, I want you to know that if I were forced into a Sophie's Choice over which one of you to save from falling into the volcano, I'd throw myself in instead. FSM bless ya both. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I definitely don't think it should be in the dissociation article - it is the most diagnosed dissociative disorder according to many sources I am now reading and most people don't know it exists (I think they are trying to fix this in the DSM-5 (going to research today), NOS should not be the most common). I'm also planning on making it a medium-sized article if I can. I believe personally that DDNOS is very common - and not controversial almost at all. I even spoke to Debbie Nathan about it once and she believes it's real. I know a ton about it (not that it matters) as I thought I had DDNOS for a long time when I was in denial about DID. Thanks again for the suggestions! Forgotten Faces (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You talked to Debbie Nathan? Awesome.

Your best bet, as always, is to go with the sources. DDNOS may be the most common, but it's still a wastebasket diagnosis of anything that doesn't quite meet up with the actual criteria. If it didn't exist as an article before December, 2011 that suggests there may not be much interest which makes writing a page harder.

As usual, feel free to ask me any questions (though pointing you to SG and WAID effectively renders me moot as a source of advice). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I did, she sent me Sybil Exposed when I expressed interest in debating some points with her. Unfortunately I found that part disappointing and her arguments were fairly primitive when I took away the Sybil context and agreed she very well could have been a not real multiple (for whatever reason). I agree it is a wastebasket diagnosis but they are trying to change that in the next DSM. I don't think I will have any trouble showing the diagnosis is popular and referenced a lot in literature. Thanks again, I think I can word it ok (started to work on it) but I'll ask for any help if I need it. :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I must disagree DDNOS-1 is not a waste basket DX. It is a disorder and DX in it's own right. It is a disorder that is similar to DID, but is not as defined in some important areas. The category exists to differentiate those things.~ty (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What I mean by wastebasket is if someone has mixed dissociative symptoms they get lumped in there instead of a more specific category that would describe each presentation of DDNOS (and given its own name). It's like Pervasive Developmental Disorder NOS - basically means developmental problems but we don't know why and the presentation is unusual. Ideally a NOS diagnosis is used early to give some idea of psychopathology (like DDNOS is often diagnosed before DID as a precaution/until there is more information) and for really unique cases. Forgotten Faces (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I know you did not mean it badly. I too wish it had a different title. That was my first DX, so I know it quite well. Then as I read more I started to understand why it is grouped as it is. Still - I would like it to have it's own name as well. My reply was more directed at WLU's statement: "DDNOS may be the most common, but it's still a wastebasket diagnosis of anything that doesn't quite meet up with the actual criteria." I hope you are having a sunny day FF! :)~ty (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the DSM-5 will call it "unspecified dissociative disorder" - not that that is any better. They should really re-name Depersonalization Disorder to Depersonalization and Derealization D/o (or similar) - that would at least fix one type of DDNOS. It is not so easy to differentiate depersonalization from derealization in the first place and is largely perspective (indeed, this is a perceptual disorder). Getting off topic though! Sorry WLU, will take it somewhere else. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

DID history source

Hi WLU - I'm not doubting you at all but was wondering if you have access to Kihlstrom article in full? I would like to read it just for my own knowledge and possible future use. Thanks Forgotten Faces (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Err, feel free to delete this; I have access to it after all. Oops. Forgotten Faces (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, there's no way to e-mail an attachment direct from wikipedia, I just sent you an e-mail, if you reply I'll reply back and attach the document. I'm happy to provide any sources I have access to, feel free to ask. Sometimes you can be lucky and get copies off of google scholar too. There's also WP:LIB.

The error was introduced in this edit, not sure what happened. If you've got a copy of Sadock & Sadock 2002, would you mind checking against the original wording ("Six years following the publication of Sybil, the diagnosis of multiple personality disorder appeared in the DSM III.")? I'd also like to check PMID 7788115, as that seems to be the source for the statement "As media coverage spiked, diagnoses climbed. There were 200 reported cases of DID as of 1980, and 20,000 from 1980 to 1990" but that'll have to wait for a bit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard posting

Should this not be posted to the article talk page as well? —danhash (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[3] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed it. Apologies for interfering with your archiving. —danhash (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it's not a big deal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Justice Resource Institute

For some reason there seems to be an interest in changing the Wiki site for JRI to be almost exclusively about one of our programs, the Trauma Center. There is commentary from Joe Spinazzola the ED of the Trauma Center, requesting that whoever is doing this please stop. I would ask the same. The Trauma Center is a wonderful program, deserving of its own Wiki page, as is Bessel van der Kolk, its founder.

But people searching for other JRI information--residential schools, group homes, home based services, AIDS services, etc, ought to be able to find that information on the JRI Wiki page, too.

I have briefly addressed this in my latest update, adding links to the Trauma Center at JRI--Andy.pond0 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)--Andy.pond0 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

If I can be helpful, email me at --Andy.pond0 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)<e-mail redacted> Thanks new to the Wiki editing game, hope I have not violated protocol.

Wikipedia is limited in its content by what can be verified in reliable sources. The large blocks of text added to the page were not sourced, and thus could be removed per WP:PROVEIT. Someone removed some sourced information about a sex offender treatment program that was cancelled in 2003, which is inappropriate. In addition, wikipedia has a specific style that must be used, including for the lead. And finally, the large, unsourced list of personnel contained a lot of training titles, which per WP:CREDENTIAL isn't proper. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw this here and thought I could offer uncontroversial advice but if there's some undercurrent I'm not aware of, I'll leave it to you, or fill me in if you wish. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Naw, to me it looks the usual - a COI account is writing a press release on wikipedia instead of an article. In this edit I moved the page because it was discussing a non-notable (as far as I could tell - no sources) subsection of the JRI. The JRI overall was the best I could manage. The biggest problem is sources, I couldn't find much on google books. I'm not really interested in updating it more than I already have, I've found enough sources to suggest it's notable but don't really want to dig on the webpage to expand it further. Numerous accounts have kept trying to add more information they thought was important, but without sources and out of compliance with the MOS and other P&G. That's about it as far as undercurrents go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'm very relaxed about org articles, and happy to have them explain themselves, provided they're not hiding village poisonings and mafia connections, or egregiously tarting themselves up. I emailed Andy about 6 hours ago, emphasising the importance of secondary sources for the stability of the article and trustworthiness of the claims. He, or others in JRI, will have a better idea of where to find them than anyone else. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya, if they can point to sources that'd be very helpful. I'm completely uninterested in trolling through their website to find citations but if they/you want to do it, by all means. I don't remember if I looked on google news or just google, so if you want to expand the page you might try there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have no intention of writing or sourcing the article for them but am very willing to help with advice and suggestions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good on ya then, if you're willing to review their edits as well then there's no issue as far as I'm concerned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll keep an eye on them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Weird edit comment

"I've reviewed every single edit made and all are quite solid in my opinion" ?!?!?

Are you kidding? You do understand that you aren't the ultimate judge of what consensus is, right? Just because you present yourself as some sort of middle ground it doesn't mean whatever you decide goes should automatically immediately happen to the article. If I think we need to discuss these changes, and I bring up on the talk page reasons why I think the version you reverted to had problems, do you not think it's worth discussing first?

Apply some common sense here and show some basic respect. Now that the problem editors are banned we should have a more fruitful conversation. Certainly some of the changes will be approved if they get a fair hearing. Certain other ones I oppose quite strongly, and just ignoring me isn't any better than what Tylas and TomCloyd were doing. DreamGuy (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, I just left a note on your talk page - should have done so earlier. I'd prefer to do this in one location, and talk:DID seems a good place. Agreed? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	You've helped me learn really fast, and I really look forward to continued collaboration on the DID article. :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

At a loose end?

I notice this uni course hasn't appointed an online ambassador (whatever that is) for this semester. Interested? March 5 to June 1, 20 students--Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I somehow feel either I or the course are being gently mocked. Now you're on my ENEMIES LIST!!!!

Naw, seriously, I don't even know what that is. If they just ask you for coding help, I could do that. If they're asking you for subject-help, I'm too far from an expert to suggest anything but "read both sides". Sage wisdom from Harriet A. Hall - always read the sources, then read who disagrees with your sources, then decide who you agree with. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's run by this guy. If you're at all interested he could probably fill you in on what's expected. Or there's this one. Jan. 18 - May 2, 15 students.. But there doesn't seem to be much happening there. I just thought if they're going to be dealing with someone here it might as well be someone who is smart, knows his way around the place and has a passing acquaintance with the topic. But it could be crap, of course. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Left a note on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Acupuncture". Thank you. --Famousdog (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks be to ye, noble knight!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Think you could probably do with one of these for your efforts in the ongoing User:Dickmojo business. Keep your chin up. Famousdog (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! In to my collection of pretty treasures it goes! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD/PROD notifications

Hi WLU. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I use popups, not Twinkle. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Section: User:Dickmojo on Acunpuncture   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing biographies during content disputes

Hi there-- I have some concerns that you began negatively editing the biography about me here during a content dispute at the paraphilia article.[4] The negative content you added has also been added by an editor with whom you often collaborate and agree [5][6][7], though it was later removed by others per WP:UNDUE and other guidelines. The same editor removed my academic credentials using a different account [8] and removed my primary occupation, among other negative changes,[9] despite that information being easily sourced (e.g. [10]). In the interest of transparency, can you elaborate on that edit, its timing, and how that material came to your attention? My bio has been edited in a manner I consider punitive by other editors who have disagreed with me here or elsewhere. Many have been blocked. In the interest of NPOV, I have published a couple of responses I'd like to bring to your attention that I believe merit inclusion if we are to have such a one-sided attack included:

• James, Andrea (2008) Fair comment, foul play. National Women's Studies Association conference. (the author of the paper you added unsuccessfully appealed to the NWSA president to suppress this entire panel.)
• James, Andrea (2006). A defining moment in our history: Examining disease models of gender identity. Gender Medicine, 3:56 ISSN 15508579

Also in the interest of transparency, would you be willing to discuss your personal and/or professional connection to sex and sexuality issues? While you are under no obligation to do so, I find that most people who share your point of view have connections to the topic, and that some have a significant conflict of interest, like the WP:SPA editor with whom you have been working. I agree with your statements about transparency in general and back-channel communication in particular, especially if there is a professional connection to a topic. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a very brief, neutral summary of an extremely lengthy article discussing a significant controversy of which Andrea James was a part. My actual text included no analysis, only noting that an article existed and addressed her role in the publication and criticism of the TMWWBQ. It was not done at the behest or request of James Cantor; I believe I added Drege's article to several wikipedia pages on the same day because it was unarguably reliable, unarguably relevant, and had the added advantage of being free and full-access. I don't consider it "negative editing" to point out a significant, reliable source that discusses a topic. I was unaware of James Cantor's earlier addition of the information, I merely saw a gap that seemed to require filling. I don't consider this single sentence fragment to be undue weight. Though I do not have time to read James' responses to the Drege article, I will attempt to do so in the near future; based on how I normally handle issues like this, I will probably include a similarly brief and neutral statement indicating Andrea James has replied on her website without significantly summarizing any content.

I am deliberately separating the article's subject (Andrea James) from you as an editor (Jokestress (talk · contribs)) as editors are not reliable sources.

I have no personal or professional connection to sex or sexuality issues, it is one of many topics that I edit because I see sources lacking, citation templates and citation information missing and I am interested in the topic.

If you have any issue with the brief, neutral summary included on the Andrea James page, I suggest bringing it up at either WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't believe the timing of your edit is merely coincidental, but I'm hoping we can resolve this without involving others. Your response to the appropriateness of the diffs I provided above will be a good indicator of your intent re NPOV. I'll wait a bit to see what additional edit(s) you make before next steps. Jokestress (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't feel the need to defend my edit according to NPOV. Neutrality is not determined by who made the edit, it is determined by it's content. I see no issue with the content, and no reason to link this to any other editor's motivation. If it is necessary to discuss my motivation - there's not much to say. Blanchard, his typology theory and TMWWBQ are all linked by their common relationship to Drege. I made a series of edits to the pages because it's a wiki and there are a lot of interesting links. As an editor, if I click on a link, see incomplete citations and see gaps where I know there are citations that could be used to verify information - I fill those gaps.

I can't prove to you that I'm not motivated by transphobia or an inappropriate relationship with James Cantor. I can only address the specifics of each edit I've made, and those I am happy to discuss. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you have demonstrated any "transphobia," and I don't believe off-wiki communication is indication of an "inappropriate relationship." The timing of your edit raises a question of neutrality, though, and I agree there is a lot of interesting information not given due weight on Wikipedia. I've supplied some above. As I said, I'll wait to see in this instance what actions you take now that you have been made aware of the concerns I have about the timing and how your edit appears to me. Your response will determine my response; until then I am assuming good faith while expressing my concern. Jokestress (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not planning on taking any further action beyond possibly pointing to the two documents linked above. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel you've had enough time to respond, so I've posted at the NPOV noticeboard.[11] Jokestress (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Yes, I know one get both blocked or banned for TE, but unless you have some really good proof of someone being guilty of it, making these kind of accusations is just not helpful. I'm sorry they give you such a hard time on the acupuncture page. You're doing a very good job, there. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Aquatic ape hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elaine Morgan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why title change in acupuncture talk page?

You've turned it from a descriptive title into an almost meaningless title. --Mindjuicer (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It should be restored. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It gives essentially the same content (link to the article) but there's now a lot more room in the edit summary bar to write things. But change it back, I don't really care. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Username

Hello. Your username suggests you have an official connection with Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada. Your idiosyncratic communication style and edit patterns also suggest a connection with this school and the province in which it is located. I am happy to provide diffs off-wiki if you wish. I have concerns that your username suggests you are an official representative of that institution, and as such, it may violate our username policy. Accounts that purport to represent an entire group or company are not permitted. Can you expand on how you are personally or professionally connected with this school, and if you are connected, will you consider changing your username? I prefer to conduct these discussions on-wiki, but I am happy to take this off-wiki in the interest of your privacy. Jokestress (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My user name is actually my initials, I have never represented myself as having any relationship to that institution, and I don't know if I've ever even edited the Wilfrid Laurier page. Also, be aware that this sort of comment really looks like a combination of outing and a mild, barely even a hint of a threat, that you might try to figure out my real-life identity and do something about it. I'm willing to assume good faith that this is not the intent of the post, but frankly when you completely fail to provide any diffs suggesting any sort of actually problematic edits (particularly when I've never, ever intimated on any level that I in any way represent the actual institution), it's a little hard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As I said, I am happy to provide diffs off-wiki. Also as I said, I didn't include them because they do include identifying information. However, since you say your connection to WLU is merely a coincidence, I will take you at your word and consider this resolved. Jokestress (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion may interest you

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Giving MEDRS teeth, similar to BLP. Also, the discussion Sandy links to at the end of her opening comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI on Kuliukas

I've filed an ANI report on Kuliukas. Please feel free to expand or clarify if you wish. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Signed and awaiting your comment. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently drafting, you're slowing me down :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Story

What's the deal with you and User:Bittergrey? Is s/he actually involved in the BLP dispute or just wikistalking you? Something that needs to be dealt with at AN/I? It seems personal and obsessive. I also checked his tp archives and found a lot of strange responses to what seem to be innocuous posts from you (e.g. about being the "better wikipedian"). N^oformation ^Talk 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey is a he as far as I know.

The history of it all starts here, but the real guts of it are found at talk:paraphilic infantilism and it's archives (starting at archive 3). Other flashpoints are here (note that the paraphilic infantilism discussion started before outsaurus.com), here and if you really, really want a headache, you can read this, this, this and this, all ongoing simultaneously, and the latter three on the same page.

So there's a bit of wikistalking (on both sides) but Bittergrey has a habit of continuously bringing up my motivation, any past action he considers in any way questionable (to an absurd degree) and completely failing to ever recognize past consensus or editor improvements (for instance, note the dates of some of the edits brought up here, and my comment here. I keep getting annoyed and starting lists of all the accusations, but I hate (and often find unproductive) RFC/U, WQA, AN, ANI and related editor-assessing venues. I basically haven't been cheesed off enough to climb the mountain that is trying to resolve stuff like this. Doesn't help that I can't stop beating dead horses. As you can see if you read the RSN/FTN discussion, there's a lot, a LOT, of repetition - on BG's part because...I don't know why, and on my part because he keeps repeating the same essentially incorrect information. If someone points out that I'm wrong, I feel the need to both admit it (i.e. [12]) and let it drop. Despite repeating the same point many, many times (such as "the DSM does not discuss paraphilic infantilism, there is a pretty clear consensus on the topic" see here and here) he keeps citing it as if it did (i.e. [13]).

Yes, quite personal and obsessive. I can't say it's only one-way either, but I don't think the lion's share of the fault lies with me. A thumbnail's sketch can be found on my user page (search for "shiny dollar"). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think an interaction ban would be beneficial? I appreciate that you can admit fault in the matter but from what I've read (so far) I haven't seen you do anything egregiously rude or bad; at least on his talk page you've been as civil as can be expected. An RFC/U might also be an option. Honestly I probably have a shorter fuse than most editors when it comes to snarky and condescending responses, but at the end of the day I guess we have to remember that we're all just talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe :). N^oformation ^Talk 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Chimps and humans are apes, not monkeys :P My favourite comeback to creationists.

Personally? I think wikipedia would be flat-out best served if he were site-banned. Beneath the dispute between he and I is an unwillingness to compromise on articles, intolerance of dissenting POV, POV-pushing and willfull misrepresentation of sources. Another layer to that is the endless incivility that gets turned on anyone who disagrees with him. And I do mean "anyone" - look at his treatment of James Cantor (which has perpetuated for years) and WhatamIdoing, both of whom do not deserve it. Witness his treatment of FiachraByrne on talk:paraphilic infantilism. An interaction ban would help me, but wikipedia still has to deal with pointless drama. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I just wanted to say thanks for the great cleanup you have recently done at Omega-3 fatty acid. The thoughtful trimming was certainly needed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC) -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! If I make the time for it, I plan on going through more of the references and trimming further the primary sources and undue promotion. There's a lot of dubious information that's been there for years now (I know, I've been trying to figure out when it was added and gave up at 2006)! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

MOS:DAB

Hi, I noticed your work at Anya. Please note that MOS:DABNAME means that anthroponymy and disambiguation pages should be kept separate. It might be worth creating a separate page Anya (disambiguation), although that is pretty marginal, as the only other meanings are eponymous media/works which could be listed as fictional characters or "Usage in media" on a name page. Dictionary definitions for foreign languages should probably not be listed, see WP:DICDEF, unless they explain the meaning of given names in other languages. Fancy a little more work on the same page?

Please consider joining WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy if you like this sort of work! – Fayenatic L (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

meatpuppetry or sock puppetry

There appears to be a number of editors on the Aquatic apes page which suggest possible meatpuppetry or sock puppetry. New or recently active SPA accounts on the page such as User:Yloopx and User:Chakazul IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural history of the buttocks#Buttocks fetishism/Buttocks eroticism

Open to commenting on the above? 31.193.138.200 (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick note!

Good morning sweetie. I am just popping in for now. I just got a new computer and only have part of it together. I still need my files, email and other things transfered to this one from the one that broke. I just thought I'd let you know I am still alive and kicking.  :) I don't know when I'll be back in full swing. I just got a lot of sadness the last time I was active here and have enjoyed less drama I guess. You take care and I'll let you know when my email is back and working. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad you're, if not back then at least OK! Just make sure you're not transferring anything nasty from your old computer to new. The nice thing about a break is it tends to reduce the drama. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what's taking so long to get everything to my computer is getting it checked out to make sure the files are clean and so forth. I am checking in and it's funny AN/i is the same crap it was when I left. Some of the same people there too. It's kind of strange to see to be honest. I hope to get my email back by the end of the month. I hate that part the most. You take care of yourself. Talk to you soon. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing on Wikipedia draft

Hi WLU, long time no talk :)

I just finished a massive draft on our own very topical subject of paid editing on Wikipedia. I would love your careful eyes to check it for neutrality, formatting, organization, reference detail, etc. I hope you can take a quick look. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I responded to your comments at the talk page. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Doula

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thanks for your quick resolution of the problems at Doula by fixing it to look like an article! (Check typo in edit notice: should be conceived.) Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar and the typo correction! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. BitterGrey (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Journal access

Hi WLU. Are you aware of Wikipedia:HighBeam? Sign-up page is Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. And Raul has just opened Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that. I signed up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sanford, Florida

Sorry to bother you WLU, but when you can, please take a look at Sanford, Florida, recent edits. One editor has included information on a recent problem in Sanford involving the overprescription of opioid drugs by a CVS pharmacy that was sanctioned by the DEA. However, I'm not quite sure if this information should be included in a section on the '21st Century' of Sanford. (As a reference point, one of the most infamous crimes in Florida history---the Gainesville murders---has not been included in the Wiki '20th century' section for Gainesville). Additionally, the editor has left out other historic/notable events reflecting Sanford's '21st century.' Thus, I'm not quite sure how to proceed here. ThanksRonsword (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I could use a break. In the next couple days. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WLU. Also, I know you're a very busy editor, but there appears to be a real issue with the article 23andMe. It's about a company that does genetic testing, and unless I'm mistaken, it's one, long, advertisment, including the company's pricing structure and recent price trends. Please check out when you can? Thanks.Ronsword (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done with 23andMe, will try to get to the other in the next couple days. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking and the edits. Nicely done.Ronsword (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably going to be too busy to work on the Sanford page, but feel free to bring it up in a week or two. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello WLU. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice edits on 23andMe

Much better! --PaulWicks (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A dare.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BitterGrey (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Abdullah Jalghoom research on Quran

Thanks for your help on the Quran article. I originally came to the same conclusion you did and nominated the article for deletion. One of the original authors deleted my nomination. I've never been involved in the article deletion process and would appreciate your advice on how to move the process forward if the same thing happens again. Polyquest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC).

If the community decides not to delete it, then you shouldn't nominate it again (a result of "no consensus" is more questionable). However, last times it was nominated for deletion (I don't know which one was you, but I hope it was the anonymous account; if not, you should read WP:SOCK) it was as a proposed deletion (PROD), which only results in deletion if nobody contests it. In both cases, the PROD was contested, so the page was not deleted. I used an WP:AFD debate, which is a different process. See the policy on deletion for information on the differences between them.

I would suggest reading the deletion policy (and the list of arguments to avoid, as well as notability criteria and specific notability for books) then !voting (!voting instead of voting because it must be a reasoned argument, not a simple vote) at the deletion discussion. In general, for a page to avoid deletion it must be demonstrated notable, which means there must be independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic. If no, or an inadequate number of sources exist, then one can !vote to delete due to a lack of notability as demonstrated by a lack of reliable sources.

If the page is deleted (and I consider that highly likely given the lack of sources discussing the topic) then the page will disappear. If someone recreates it, you can use criteria for speedy deletion number G4 (specifically the template {{db-g4}}) and it should be deleted again. If you're confused, feel free to come talk to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The anonymous IP was me, I forgot to log in. I didn't realize there were two separate tracks for deletion. Thank you for the information and the links (I'll study them). Wikipedia's bureaucratic process has grown rather complex, if it wasn't for helpful Wikipedians like you it would be entirely overwhelming for newcomers. Polyquest (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It all makes sense after two or three years :)

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have, I'll do my best to answer them. I enjoy helping out new editors. You may find this essay interesting, possibly even useful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There is one thing I'd like your advice about. I noticed that the same IP's that authored the Jalghoom article are inserting the information into the Quran and miracles article. Is the placement of the materiel in that article appropriate? It seems like it fails on the grounds of reliable sources. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective, the Quran and miracles article doesn't have much traffic. Polyquest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC).

I would say it is using an unreliable source and in addition is placing undue weight on a fringe theory. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watch-list. I guess when dealing with anonymous IP's fixed on inserting this kind of materiel the only solution is too revert. Polyquest (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Since IP addresses can wander, it makes it difficult to ensure the person making edits is appropriately engaged. However, if an IP address or several IP addresses keep making inappropriate edits, you can always try requesting page protection. Accounts are simpler since they can be blocked if necessary. In both cases, you should become familiar with the appropriate policy before requesting either and it is always best practice to warn the account and engage on the talk page when practical. POV-pushing is often hard to deal with permanently. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. When you recently edited Common Eland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WLU. Thank you. BitterGrey (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Did aquatic apes eat crocodiles, or vice versa?

Interesting article you linked to on Jimbo's page. Evidently our early hominin ancestors were eating crocodile. Now, judging by the size of the bone they illustrate (a phalanx) they seem to have been feasting on one which was probably as large as they were. Now, pure OR this, but somehow I think that any 'aquatic ape' meeting a crocodile that big would get non-aquatic rather rapidly if it had any sense (on a personal level, I mean, not on in evolutionary terms ;-) ). I suspect that they either hunted crocs on land, or more likely scavenged them. When consuming aquatic animals, one has to also consider that they may sometimes wish to consume you. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just finished skimming a SciAm article on the earliest hominin skull yesterday. Nary a mention of aquatic apes.

Would the ape get non-aquatic, or would they simply infuse the near aquatic environment with a generous dose of urea? Followed shortly by an equally involuntary (though for different reasons) donation of hematocrit?

Anyway, it's a tough page to deal with because of the combination of plausible idea, dilute version (both referring to "humans ate fish" theories) and popular appeal. Having written most of the very lengthy for/against lists, I've been all over the map on this one. Still not sure what the right answer is. Meh, maybe we'll get more long-term editors interested, which can only be a good thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Common Eland

Hi WLU, thanks for all those edits you made in the article Common Eland. I think the article should be named Common eland, but there is a redirect that is a problem.--Sainsf <^> (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've not had a chance to go over some of the sections yet (and obviously have been working mostly from the Pappas, 2002 paper as it's by far the most reliable source on the page), but feel free to contribute further or ask questions if you're not sure about some things.

That there is an existing page is a problem, I don't believe you can do a simple copy-paste because it messes up the page history. Instead you have to list the page on requested moves for an admin to take care of. I can do it if you'd like, or if you want the practice it's not too complicated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I would list the article there.--Sainsf <^> (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Actioaid

Ref your edit comment on [14], quite. Don't suppose you have the energy to do the same with some of the other unreadable sections? --BozMo talk 06:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list of things I'd like to do but am unlikely to do. It's a long list, but cutting down is easier than building up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work on Perth

Thanks for your contributions to The Perth Group. You changed my mind. SpectraValor (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Always comes down to the sources, and the page needed a rewrite anyway. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism

Please watch out for the 3 reverts rule. I think this long-standing edit war between you and BitterGrey should be brought before a third party. So, have you already tried dispute resolution for the article? I have also informed BitterGrey of this opportunity. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I just did my third revert. We haven't tried dispute resolution. You're welcome to give it a go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

At 3RR again...

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. BitterGrey (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Common eland

Hi again, WLU! The page has been moved successfully to Common eland. I am no end obliged for your great work in the article. To increase it from a stub to this stage has taken a long time. Do not you think it is ready to be a GA nominee?--Sainsf <^> (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you're asking the wrong guy as I'm not familiar with the GA/FA criteria and have never tried to get an article to pass either one. There are still several sections that I haven't gone through yet, and several of the sources are still dubious in my mind (I dislike using websites unless they're unarguably reliable, and even zoos and museums are more prone to errors than books - that's why I've placed so much emphasis on the Pappas 2002 article).

I don't think you've much to lose by nominating it - if nothing else you'll get feedback and suggestions for improvements - but my personal opinion as an editor is that the page still needs work. I mean to keep having a go at it, but I've already done most of the fun stuff and it's now the hard slog, lots of reading on an unfamiliar subject work that I don't enjoy. I'll try to do more this weekend.

Sorry, GA/FA nominations is one area where I can't help (along with complex coding, policy development and BLP articles). Everything else, I've probably got at least an opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paraphilic infantilism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Already re-warned[15], but thanks anyway.BitterGrey (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies regarding SPI

I really bungled that SPI. I was trying to clear the backlog, and moved ten times too fast. I'm going back now to review other cases, this really upsets me that I botched this so bad. The accounts aren't related upon further inspection, and for some reason, I don't think I ever went back through your edit history. Somehow, with multiple tabs open I must have confused this case and another. Sincere apologies. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest you archive that SPI so BG doesn't continue to use it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND venue? SÆdon^talk 19:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Given my involvement, that may be looked upon dimly. Please feel free to be bold if you'd like, but I think I'll just let that whither. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant for NF to close it. SÆdon^talk 19:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if he's monitoring, you might be better off dropping him a line on his page directly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited Where the Lilies Bloom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William A. Graham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol

You promised to have another go at this 2 1/5 years ago. I made a few comments on the Talk page Neil Raden (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley". Thank you. --Neil Raden (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC) in a new section on each user's talk page.

Since you love to disparage Wiley's lack of qualifications (after 15 years) how about Odd Dahl (1899-1994), a Norwegian adventurer who had no formal scientific training but later made great contributions to research on atomic energy. He read physics while a member of Roald Amundsen's expedition to the Arctic. During the 1930s, Odd Dahl joined the staff of the Carnegie Institution in Washington as a member of the team developing the Van de Graff generator and later led Norway's atomic energy program. Wise up, lots of credentialed peoples are idiots. Being non-credentialed and notable is quite an achievement except to small-minded editors Neil Raden (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality as a main sexual orientation

WLU, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Gulf War Syndrome

If you have time, I'd appreciate your input over at Gulf War syndrome. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, because I'm not already involved in a bunch of partisan pages stuffed with nutters :) No promises... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have time, it would be useful to get more editors involved in the Gulf War Syndrome page again. It's just me and the ip editor having an edit war at the moment. He/she has asked Doc James to come in again, and if you could also take a look it would be useful. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to offer my assistance as far as editing, writing, documentation and verification of the Gulf War syndrome wiki. I spoke with Doc James last year about it as well and at the time he stated my input is welcome. I have been a bit busy, and personally the entire topic is a bit overwhelming. I was not only at Khamisiyah for the entire operation, I served as Executive Director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc, from 1996-97. I testified before the Presidential Advisory Committee on Persian Gulf Veterans Health as noted in the References, www.gulflink.osd.mil/gwvi/app-h Also, I testified before House Veterans Affairs Committee, Health and Benefits on three occasions, commdocs.house.gov/committees/vets/hvr061997.000/hvr061997_0x commdocs.house.gov/committees/vets/hvr021197.000/hvr021197_0x I also served as advisor to the Kansas Veterans Commission and worked on the study titled: Prevalence and Patterns of Gulf War Illness in Kansas Veterans: Association of Symptoms with Characteristics of Person, Place, and Time of Military Service aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/152/10/992 I continue to be quite active in advising, advocating and monitoring past, current and future research and am considered by many to be an expert, have been quoted in Associated Press, Washington Post, NY Times, CBS Evening News as well and many other sources. Gulfvet91 (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)gulfvet91

Discussion we had on my talk page in January

I finally answered your question... --Bluejay Young (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WLU. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 19:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 19:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC) && 19:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Pierre Charles Alexandre Louis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Organ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Child pornography article

What do you make of this edit? Like I told Herostratus, "I've already replied on the talk page. Judging by the user's 'first' edit, and ones soon after it, I don't believe that this user is new to Wikipedia. I also don't know if I yet have any reason to be suspicious of him on child/underage teenager sexual abuse topics, but you know how these type of things begin. He's made a valid point about not all child pornography being sexual abuse, but you and I know that the sources are not usually talking about postpubescents or teenagers who sext each other or any of the examples he mentioned." Flyer22 (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to look into this later on today. The point he removed was muddled and badly written, but given the referencing I would suggest rewording rather than removal. Have to look into it more before I give another opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. When you recently edited Snow pea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Howdy

So, have you washed your hands of DID? Should others be scrutinising the recent rewrite? (Just trying to prioritise my time.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The DID page needs a comprehensive rewrite, the recent changes (bordering on a 1000 or so I believe, in the past several weeks) introduce lower-quality sources, at least two copyright violations, consistently water-down, minimize, dismiss and distort the iatrogenic position and has a lot of manual of style issues. However, Tylas has consistently indicated that she is unwilling to consider my input, will revert my changes, refuses to become familiar with policy and will edit war to achieve these goals. I simply don't have the time or energy to deal with this myself right now, and I can't work with someone who utterly refuses to respect policy in favour of their own version of what they think the page should say. I need assistance from other experienced editors, or the page and talk page will degenerate into pointless edit wars. I don't believe Tylas will bother listening to anyone until, probably, she is blocked for edit warring.

So yes, considerable scrutiny is required. I'm maintaining a draft of the last "good" version that I plan on updating with new sources (I've requested several reprints from authors) and what worthwhile changes Tylas has added, but I haven't made the time yet. Real life is busy for me right now and I don't have the reading time I need to do a proper job. I will provide input and edits if other editors are willing to put in the time and effort it would take to work on the page and correct inappropriate actions, but I can't do it on my own. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As a lurker in the area, I asked for input at WT:MED yesterday, no one's responded yet. The article rewrite is, in my opinion, an unmitigated disaster. You might want to know that she's accusing you of off-wiki canvassing, which is rich with irony given the history of the article. Skinwalker (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me. By the FSM I hope this attracts attention from experienced editors who are willing to put in the time to ensure the P&G are followed. I genuinely think there is a place for the trauma-based model, but I don't think that position should involve having a boot on the neck of the iatrogenesis hypothesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please assist me.

Hi, WLU, how are you, I don't see you much active here, may be busy in real life. I need your assistance for this. I know a bit, but some times I confuse, adding the names with out an article on wiki page (WP:redlink) in the WP lists is legitimate or not?, while some red links have reliable sources. Previously I have removed many red links from multiple lists along with sources. I want to be sure that I was right in this regard, and would continue to do that?. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally detest redlinks and don't like having them on pages. The easy way to get rid of redlinks is to simply delete them from the page. If someone keeps re-adding them to the page, start a new section on the talk page and discuss. But ultimately, removing redlinks is perfectly reasonable.

The harder way or thing to do is to check each red link and see if the person is notable enough to have their own wikipedia page. See WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE for the criteria. If they are, I would suggest creating the article in question so the link is no longer red.

If you can't find enough information to pass the notability criteria, it would seem perfectly acceptable to remove the red link. If you still get people reverting your removals, engage on the talk page. If the person does not engage, it gets complicated. If it's an anonymous IP address that keeps doing it, I would suggest page protection. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Got it and lot of thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/WLU

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Asthma. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.Hydra Rain (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello WLU, I saw your survey responses. Can you email me on nusa.faric.11[at]ucl.ac.uk to arrange the interview or so I can send you the interview questions which you can complete in your own time and send it back to me. Thanks and thank you for your interest in my study! Nuša Hydra Rain (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You should have my e-mail address, so feel free to send them to me. Alternately, you can use e-mail user link and paste the questions into the resulting text box. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please consider this message my electronic signature indicating consent to participate in this study and adhere to the conditions found in the participant statement on the consent form. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

COIN

COIN only needs one user name and one article in the heading to address multiple user names and multiple articles in the discussion. I picked those[16] because they seemed to be the primary ones. You can add more articles, but at this point we should take things one step at a time so that the effort doesn't get overwhelmed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Iodine deficiency and breast issues

Hi, somewhere along the other edits you have all mention of this. Regarding the fibrocystic condition and other benign BC I am fairly convinced that there is a real case here. The evidence is old and may appear underpowered by recent standards. From older publications, the times when iodine deficiency was endemic in Germany it seems plausible - although impossible to prove as usually only thyroid problems as surrogate and not evidence for iodine deficiency were reported. There are several plausible mechanisms of action (compensatory rise of TSH with direct effect on the mammary gland and/or TRH mediated hyperprolactinemia). Both iodine and levothyroxine treatments have been shown effective against benign breast disease although the level of evidence leaves much to be desired. I have not looked into iodine and breast cancer risk since a few years, did you? Richiez (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That is one area where I think there may be a link, but a brief search of fairly mainstream websites didn't turn up anything. Pubmed has several links discussing it, but several are in complementary and alternative medicine journals, which are notorious for overselling the effectiveness of vitamins and minerals (such as "if deficiency is bad and adequate intake is good, more must be magic"), few were in English from respected institutions, and all also appeared to be speculative. Searching emedicine didn't turn up any specific articles, nor did pubmed health. If iodine were generally recognized as having a strong preventive link to breast cancer, I would expect to see something on those sources - and I don't.

However, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that it's speculative. I don't object to the information being present in the page, and I don't even really object to Venturi's papers being used - but I would expect to see a (short) discussion framed in terms of it being a speculative link that hasn't been conclusively proven or is part of any prevention or treatment programs. If you have the knowledge and confidence that you think you can write such a link in a neutral manner, please go ahead! I would be happy to have a look at it once you are done if you would like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned it has been a few years since I looked at Iodine and breast cancer, and in this heavily researched area of medicine if there is no news it probably means the link is dead. Its different with the benign breast diseases where there was marginal research at best since 1996 and perhaps even since the "fibrocystic disease is not a disease" statement in 1980 or so. For benign breast diseases I do largely rely on ancient sources such as PMID 2040409 and a series of Italian investigations from around that time. Thinking it is perhaps not important enough for the iodine article, but I would hate if that knowledge would get completely lost. Richiez (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For your edits to Venowave. As you probably saw here,[17] I wondered if it was notable. Do you think the sources are secondary enough to be considered independent? The CTVNews is the only one I saw that might be independent/secondary. I don't think notability is established by the article. Biosthmors (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't thought about it too much, but my inclination would be to fold it into, or possibly just redirect, to sequential compression device the same way you would redirect a brand name of a drug to a generic name. But again, I haven't given it much thought. If this were a unique device, yes - keep it on that page. Since it doesn't seem to be, redirection should be acceptable and really the only mention of Venowave on sequential compression device would be if it had some sort of unique feature that set it apart from its peers (i.e. law suit). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a non-independent review article so I figure I'm at a stopping point for now but I still don't see how it is notable without independent coverage. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest merging the page (by which I mean the references) into sequential compression device page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this is best, but did you see a reliable source that says it is a sequential compression device? Biosthmors (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this page that says "The Venowave is a unique cordless and tubeless sequential compression calf pump that uses a patented wave-form motion to increase circulation. This user friendly device, pumps blood from the lower leg, so that patients can comfortably wear the Venowave for hours at a time while still maintaining an active lifestyle."

A device webpage isn't adequate to make medical claims, but it is fine for self-identifying what kind of device it actually is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That works! =) So how would the references be used in the sequential compression device article if no content goes over? Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with WP:MEDMOS for drugs and medical devices, but I believe the practice is to discuss the generic device without mentioning specific brands. I believe an exception would be made for perhaps the lead, where the generic name is the page name and common alternative names are mentioned at some point in the article. Basically, all evidence is for the generic device, there's rarely to never a reason to mention a specific device unless there has been some sort of head-to-head comparison and there is a MEDRS available to point out the difference (generally it'd need to be a secondary source for that matter). It's quite possible that nothing moves over from the Venowave page, depending on the page contents - it just becomes a redirect. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Works for me I'll turn it into a redirect. Aside from not being able to find a secondary and independent MEDRS, I did a Proquest database search and came up with 0 hits. Biosthmors (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey's RFC

Which bit do I add my comments or endorsements to? I don't know if my brief futile interaction with Bittergrey counts as "trying and failing to resolve the dispute" or is minimal enough to be an "outside view". Colin°^Talk 10:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've little experience with RFC/U so this is a best guess. BG will see you as too involved to provide an outside view, I see your interactions as characteristic and therefore providing corroboration of my experience, "trying to resolve the dispute" may be the more appropriate of the two. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at this again and still can't figure out how to use the page. I suspect my interaction with Bittergrey, though apparently typical, is too short to indicate a pattern of behaviour in itself. I'm sure others will have more substantial issues to raise. I hope this procedure achieves something useful without too much pain. If you think I can usefully contribute, let me know. Perhaps someone watchlisting this page knows how to use RFC/U. Colin°^Talk 15:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's meant to be informal so I don't know if it's possible to screw it up. Pick the option you are more comfortable with and go with it, we can sort it out later if need be. Part of the issue (from my perspective) is that every comment that disagrees with BG's opinion, no matter how mainstream, is treated as "involved" or the user is too prejudiced to give an honest opinion. If that was your experience, then there's merit in noting that. For that matter, one of the guidance pages said it was permissible to say "I agree with part X but not part Y". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WLU. You have new messages at Saedon's talk page.
Message added 10:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sædon^talk 10:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Body integrity identity disorder

Thank you for your edits to Body integrity identity disorder. Unfortunately I reverted your changes because they lost some of the reference quoting that I had carefully added. I see your motivation in your edits but I view the value of precise references to be more important. You also made some changes that were obviously beneficial. I had reincorporated them. Some of the changes you made to the references I don't understand. Why were you using just an initial for first names? I really hope this isn't some guideline somewhere that I'm unaware of. If so, could you link to it? Hopefully we can agree on some of your other changes too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Quinn (talk • contribs) 08:34, August 8, 2012‎

Are the texts that the quotes are appended to contested, as in does someone think the summary of the source is inaccurate? That's pretty much the only reason I've ever seen quotes used, and you lose the ability to use the <ref name = > tag, which can be confusing. The only reason I use first initial only is because SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) does it, and I think she's just tops (her reasoning is, I believe, that pubmed sources only use initials and it thus harmonizes references overall since it's difficult to track down first names from pubmed). If you've re-integrated the substantive changes (and it looks like you have), then I don't have much to add (beyond you've retained a capitalization of body dysmorphic disorder that leads to a redirect, and per WP:ALSO I would suggest trimming the see also list to remove BDD, GID and OCD - the latter two because they don't seem so tightly linked ot BIID as to warrant a mention in ALSO, the former because it's already used in the page). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, WLU. The article I am quoting is not contested but needn't be for the use of quotes in references. The more accurate and specific references are, the better. Unfortunately, currently the referencing system for using multiple refs with quotes all from the same article is somewhat lacking and leads to redundancy. There are many ways to hack things such that the redundancy is eliminated but currently that always comes with some trade-off issue. (I consider the new References Tooltips feature to be a major improvement and any solution should work perfectly with it.) I'll still thinking about possible solutions and if I get the energy, I may discuss this case at the cite style talk (although I find interaction there quite unenjoyable). Regarding the use of only initials for first names in references, I encourage you to reconsider this practice. Some of the refs you applied it to at BIID were to articles on websites. The practice is clearly bad for that because without the first name, it may be extremely hard to identify the author in the future. You also applied it to books which is also not good. Why? For one, it's loss of information. Information should not be removed without good cause. But again the most important reason is that information is sometimes key to the relocatabilty of the source. Search engines typically throw away one letter searches and often times the last name alone is very common. I do a lot of reference work and I have on occasion had situations where there are very similarly named people who have published in the same field. A full first name can save a lot of trouble and prevent error in such situations. I am not advocating for always using full names. For books for instance, I sometimes use just initials if that is what was used on the front cover. I would not however convert a full first name to initial if the full first name were used on the cover. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of these issues are offset in other ways though, such as linking to the ISBN, the PMID, the DOI or the webpage itself. For instance, when I link to journal articles, it's almost always via {{cite doi}} or {{cite pmid}}, and the only way to screw up the ability to locate the reference is to screw up the DOI/PMID itself. ISBN is another unique identifier. I like to think I'm pretty conscientious and scrupulous about sourcing being transparent and as easy as possible, but I'll admit my preferences in this are idiosyncratic and not worth edit warring or arguing over.

I still think the use of quotes is utterly unnecessary, particularly when you're talking about something linked via url, but that's largely motivated by my completely irrational hatred of the inclusion of quotes in general. Anyway, thanks for replacing my substantive edits, the current state of the page is fine with me and I won't make any further changes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How are these for over use of quotes: Golf Ball, I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It! etc. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, it's like the page has cancer. Ugly, excessive, server-burdening cancer...in my irrational, hate-filled opinion, quotes are pustules on the fair face of Wikipe-Tan. And most frustratingly of all, there's barely any mention of or guidance on quotes in the policies and guidelines. Bleah, quotes should be killed with fire. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Needed your assistance

• As I follow you in regard WP:surname, previously we argued about that, now I need your assistance, please take a look at this, if I am wrong, then I have to change hundreds of articles again, which I have done following your clarity of the related policy. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just going by the lead it reads like he was born Malik Ram Baveja but now goes by Malik Ram. Issues become less clear once you get into non-English and non-Western countries, I'm surprised there's no guidance on Arabic/Urdu/Hindi/Pashtun or other names; in its absence I would suggest keeping to the guideline. The fact that an editor with less than 500 edits has made a demand doesn't mean you have to rewrite hundreds of pages - it may just mean you have to figure out the appropriate surname for Malik Ram and use that. Just because he was born Baveja doesn't mean we stick with that name; does anyone refer to him by that name now? If not - using "Ram" throughout seems defendable at least. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Got it and thanks.Justice007 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

DID - you're probably sick of the subject!

Hi,

I think you mentioned this book. Looks very good in terms of summing up the situation, from my point of view. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

ps Puts Rind et al. in perspective. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ya, as I said I own a copy and haven't gotten around to reading it yet sadly :(

The section putting Rind into perspective, is that the 11-26 you cite in the DID page? I can give that a read; the current use on the page has the same problem as the Rind discussion did - McNally says child abuse became politicized (a position that Phil Jenkins elaborated on in one of his books) but it doesn't say how, and it doesn't explain how this politicization is linked to DID. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Peer review on DID has been done

Wikipedia:Peer_review#Dissociative_identity_disorder - do you want to start addressing the issues? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Most look pretty minor and shouldn't take long. We still need more time expanding various sections with the sources available. I've read through chapter 1 of Remembering Trauma and it's definitely an interesting book; unfortuantely I still don't see a whole lot that is really relevant to DID, just a couple pages.

Question about that by the way - in this edit you added a citation to page 420 of McNally. In my copy, and other copies I've seen on google books, page 420 is like, the index. Did you mean 420, or another page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The page 420 was the number of pages in the whole book - which at the time I thought that was what was meant. So, no, I wasn't referencing page 420. (I thought I had referenced the precise page range somewhere - but maybe I made a mistake. I remember figuring out the page range somewhere. Sorry!

I notice the reviewer seems to think there are more than one personalities. Also, we need to make it clear that (from what I've read lately) some think PTSD and DID are perhaps subsections of the same overall disorder. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with the PTSD/DID thing - I've seen that mentioned a couple places but I've got my hands full with just DID, let alone trying to tease out PTSD... If you can find and summarize, please do so! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• See ref 30 where I got McNally pages right! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Been meaning to talk to you about that :) Ever used {{sfn}} before? It lets you cite multiple separate pages in a book. So instead of saying 11-25 of McNally, we could cite individual ones. You removed my use of it, which is fine ({{sfn}} has advantages, but it's finickity and requires a separate references section meaning you have to know what it is, what it's for, and how to use it - so it's not a hard-and-fast "you must use this" thing but rather a judgement and consensus call) but I'm wondering if it might be because you've never used it before. It autogenerates a ^[14] citation without the use of the <ref></ref> tags, and the actual footnote hyperlinks to the reference automagically. It's pretty neat and handy. Were you aware of the advantages and disadvantages, or did you just think it was a malformed citation template? I wouldn't mind re-using it (particularly if we use several pages of McNally) but not if you've an objection. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of the various discussions about it, and editors I respect seem to prefer it. I just haven't learned how to use it. In the McNully case, I ran over you sfn because it came up as an error and I wanted to get the page range in before I lost it. So no, I have no objection to learning the sfn method - just haven't been able to figure it out - though Br'er Rabbit's "other" was teaching me before he disappeared. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You saw an error? What browser do you use? In Explorer and Chrome, the two I use, it rendered fine. Odd...do you recall what the error was?

It's pretty easy, you have a section in the page (normally "References") where you specify a reference. Be sure to include | last = and | year = . Add {{sfn|Author|Year|p = page}} (as {{sfn|McNally|2005|p = 45}} and it should render as ^[1] in the text and 1. ^{^} McNally 2005, p. 45. in the footnotes (and the author and year hyperlink to the appropriate link in the references section). The only thing to be careful about is the |last = and | year = have to exactly match the first two parameters in the {{sfn}} template. Anyway, not a big deal, but like {{cite pmid}} I see it as extremely handy when applicable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have custom scripts in my custom.js. I think its this one importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); that shows the sfn errors. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's beyond my ken. It's worth playing with on certain pages, if you have any questions I can try to answer them (but not likely unless they're simple, I'm still learning about coding tricks). I used it on satanic ritual abuse, so you can see what it looks like there if you'd like (may have to log out to see it working properly if your import script is messing up the display). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mess up the display. It only points out in big red letters that there's an error, and it said that the McNully footnote didn't point to anything, like it was supposed to - so I couldn't use it as a reference and had to find the article another way. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So when you look at SRA right now, the references section is full of red, broken references? That's not good...might be worth mentioning at template talk:sfn. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been discussed on the template talk page by the experts. And no, the McNully footnote was the only one that was broken and now it's fixed. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not making any more comments on the peer review page until grownups return. (i.e. the peer reviewer and Casliber). The page is becoming gibberish. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The "in children" section comments I'd like to respond to, that (and other) discussions could/should happen on the talk page. I think I'll wait too, I'm finding the whole page more than a little fatiguing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I believe you've been dealing with this person at Gulf War syndrome: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus. --Amble (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

sorry!

Hi,

Thought I was just reverting that one edit; didn't mean to remove your citation. Also, I move that long post from the peer review to the article talk page. (don't want to drive away reviews with too long page.) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

interesting points

See this article: Review of Sybil Exposed in Psychiatric Times?

This article is commentary, but nonetheless makes some interesting points about the ISSTD guidelines and also the DSM-5 work committee (Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic, and Dissociative Disorders Work Group for DSM-5). It suggests the work group members may have some conflicts of interest and some belong to ISSTD.

It notes the small readership of the Journal of Trauma & Dissociation has such a low score of importance to the scientific community per the EigenfactorTM metrics which offers quantitative measure of "a journal’s total importance to the scientific community", and opines that in such a "narrowly focused journal, these focused topics might risk being caught in an echo chamber of concurring opinion to the exclusion of broader attention."

Regarding the Guidelines, it says, "To say that "almost all practitioners" use standard diagnostic interviews that "often" do not ask about posttraumatic symptoms or psychological trauma is a surprising statement to make without offering a supporting citation."

It comments on the great divide between those who treat DID and others, suggesting the lack of research stems from a lack of interest in the field, and won't end soon.

Nothing to use as a source but food for thought. Kind of explains why we'll get nowhere soon in the DID article.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's awesome, and not like a hotdog. I can't access it yet, I'll have to sign up in a while.

We might be able to use it as a source, if attributed to the author...an interesting fined. Pope needs to do another review of the publication patterns for DID, and a new survey of practitioners. That'd be interesting information to have. Thanks for the link! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you find those YouTube things!

(article) By Andrew Nanton, MD | May 1, 2012. I can copy the whole thing and send it to you, but you should be able to access it. Why not? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You might also enjoy... [18]

Or not, depending on if you like homeopathy.

I didn't have time to sign up for an account earlier, I'll try it now. I may take you up on your offer if that doesn't work though. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hah, got it. Remarkably painless. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, it linked to this article which suggests that the differences in hippocampal and amygdalar volumes found in a study might be due to age rather than diagnosis. And another hypothesis bites the dust... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

well, I started out not having much of an opinion in the DID article (although somewhat skeptical), since I've encountered so-called multiples in assessment situations. There was one forensic assessment where the person could have been diagnosed as a multiple, (this was a while ago), but something inside me said I would be a fool to risk my reputation before the court with such a diagnosis and I went for a personality disorder instead. It turned out the other "experts" also gave the same diagnosis as I did. My personal opinion now is more toward the socio-cognitive, and so I don't expect physical evidence to be found.

Considering that I took whole courses in graduate school called "Personality", I'm not surprised that no one can come up with a quick and easy definition of personality. "Personality states" and "ego states" harkens back to Freudian psychology which is rather in limbo right now. I think this shows the shabby state of psychiatric diagnoses, except for schizophrenia, bipolar etc. where consensus has been reached by professionals. And even there, no physical evidence is diagnostic. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

check out the bottom of this talk thread

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20/Op-ed - our favorite editor attributes WP problems to:

"at least some editors of WP resist change as a way to cover up child abuse issues. There seems to be, what could be referred to as a mob, on WP that works together toward this goal."

The next editor says: "I'm sorry, but what?"

This is more than you and I can handle. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy - this seems to be what's happening. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget all the WP:SOAP. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

She has made a subtle change or two to Attachment theory to fit her POV. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I particularly like this edit which, without changing the reference at all, makes a sentence say the exact opposite of what it said previously (and adds an inexplicable quotation mark). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your help

• Please assist me about these all sources, can be used as WP:reliable sources for Wikipedia:Notability (people)?. 1 2 3 4 5 6,7. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Who would this page be about, Nandini Sahu? Even though there are several sources, the actual material is extremely thin pickings. The threshold in my mind would be WP:PROF, not WP:BIO.

1. This source is just a paragraph, it does not establish notability but it could be used to verify some of her research areas.
2. This is a staff page on a university, it may be reliable for uncontroversial information, but does not establish notability and is not independent.
3. This source doesn't seem to have anything to say about Sahu. I don't see its relevance, and in any case could be used for little except perhaps an organizational affiliation.
4. This source could not be used for anything bar the fact that Sahu has written it.
5. Like 4, this merely establishes that Sahu has writtens something.
6. Like 3, there is nothing about Sahu here. This page does talk about Sahu, but it's little more than an "about the author" page from the publisher - could be used to fill in biographical details but does not demonstrate notability.
7. This page doesn't mention Sahu, but a search produces 3 results, all written by the same person. These would come closest to establishing notability, but the news agency appears to be user-submitted content, thus fairly unreliable, and again, all by the same person.

My opinoin is that these sources are not adequate to establish notability - none indicate why Sahu is important, or more important than millions of other professors in the world. There is no demonstration of widespread impact or acclaim. The sources may be reliable for some things, but they do not establish notability in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Great accessment, thanks for helping, you pointed out few sources to near to establish notability, for more clarity please recheck those, it will be great thing to me if Nandini Sahu can be restored by your help.
• Clarity-Merinews.

1 2 3

• Isahitya-

4 5 6

• Boloji-

7 8

• That forgot to add, Allabout book Publishing-

9 10 11 [19] [20]

I hope you will spare a time to take a look once again. Justice007 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily use Merinews as a source, as I indicated (as well as someone in the deletion discussion), it's suspect as it appears to be user-generated content. They don't have a wikipedia page and I don't feel like digging to find out what their policies and fact checking is like; typographical errors and the like argue against it being rigorous. In addition, the three articles linked are more descriptive of her works than of herself. These look like discussions of a single person of how he liked her poetry rather than an independent evaluation of her overall impact on literature.

The first Isahitya page is an interview and of dubious use. The second is a book review, which could be used to establish notability for the book, but less useful for the author (and I don't think it would work for the book either). The third is by the same author of all three Merinews article, and again has some errors which make me wonder about the editorial review that occurs.

The Boloji pages can't be used, they're works by Sahu and thus do not independently demonstrate notability.

The Allabout Book Publishing links are to a company website, which lacks independence - the company makes money by selling more of the books they publish. They're also interviews and tangential mentions - you could use them in the page if it was already notable, but they're not enough to establish notability.

If she's a notable professor or poet, I would expect to see awards given to her, extensive discussions in multiple prominent newspapers and probably more than a little discussion in scholarly papers, conferences and books. I'm not familiar with Indian newspapers or other publication outlets, but it looks like Sahu is not really getting noticed by her peers or the general public. If these are the best sources to establish notability, I don't think she is clearly notable. You could try drafting a subpage and asking for input there, but I don't think you've got enough to convince a deletion review that the decision should be overturned. It's borderline, but much of the decision would rest on how reliable and independent the sources that mention her are. I would suggest taking the sources to the reliable sources noticeboard and asking that question rather than assuming they are adequate and attempting to ressurect the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kevin Gregson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sault Ste. Marie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

dr

Looks good to me. I think others like Casliber (who is a psychiatrist) would join in editing if the long, tendentious and repetitious screeds ended and editors followed the talk page guidelines. I think the peer reviewer dropped the article because of the chaos. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

p.s. How do you count characters - don't want to go over 2000. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ask your favorite web search engine. There are a lot of websites that let you copy text in to count words or characters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WLU. You have new messages at WT:DRN.
Message added 20:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, WLU. You have new messages at WT:DRN.
Message added 23:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Commenting on a DRN

It might be just be me, but would you please refrain from adding "comments" on DRN filings that you're not a party to in the Opening comments section? It's been my understanding that those sections are reserved for parties to the case. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the HFCS/mercury issue, I'm actually involved on that one too...

But feel free to remove my comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please forgive me. I assumed that because you weren't listed as one of the disputants, you weren't involved in the issue. Hasteur (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries! The filing itself was so malformed you couldn't really tell anything from it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WLU. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Attachment theory in adult psychiatry

Hi,

Interesting that the principles of Attachment theory, originally conceived by John Bowlby and used liberally in psychotherapy and in the explanation of many mental disorders, has received significant attention by researchers. Note my recent addition to the article, which seems to have stuck:

While a wide variety of studies have upheld the basic tenets of attachment theory, research has been inconclusive as to whether self-reported early attachment and later depression are demonstrably related.

From the article's abstract:

The theory can afford valuable insight not only into the developmental nature of common psychiatric disorders, but also into the development of the therapeutic relationship. This article gives an overview of (a) the current conceptualisations of attachment and the measurement of attachment for clinical research purposes and (b) the application of attachment theory to different psychopathologies.

The article specifically considers depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, stress-related disorders, personality disorders, and eating disorders. No mention is made of DID despite the dependence of the traumagenic model (as put forth by ISSTD) on attachment theory, etc. and not a split between clinical and research

(There is a second article, which I haven't found: "My second article (Ma, 2007) will look at some of the applications of attachment theory in the everyday clinical setting." i.e. attachment theory as it relates to the relationship between therapist and patient. This may provide insights into the sociocongitive model, specifically the therapist-induced version.)

MathewTownsend (talk) 09:03, September 14, 2012‎ (UTC)

Part II appears to be this one I think, it appears at the end of the article in the brief list of "articles citing this one".

Part I does metion dissociation a couple times, but Part II does not. Doesn't look like either can be used on DID, but the first could probably be used in dissociation. I kinda doubt it'll be considered something as having relevance to the SCM, at least not directly. The lab-driven SCM probably doesn't see the data- and science-poor attachment theory as having a lot of relevance, though I'm not surprised the clinical side of DID such as the ISSTD seems much enamoured of it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

what I meant to add, and I guess I didn't, is that I think the lack of research into DID is due to the lack of testable models, the lack of reliable assessment measures of DID, the inability to operationalize DID according to DSM.

Researchers study disorders relevant to clinicians. I think there's not enough mainstream clinical interest to encourage research. Even clinicians become disinterested when there are no agreed upon definitions, as evidenced by the terminology in DSM-IVTR.

ISSTD is still stuck in the psychoanalytic model, most of which is basically untestable theory. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And unfortunately you can't really test the traumagenic model 'cause it would essentially involve subjecting children to horrific torture to see what happens. And IRBs might take issue with that. Perhaps if you used grad students...

Research studies should be relevant to clinicians, but one of the criticisms I saw of DID/RMT was that it ignored research and in particular, hypothesis testing. Nothing but confirmation bias from top to bottom. Which again, reminds me of Charcot. I'm guessing the bad taste the 1990s bubble left in everyone's mouth didn't help.

Interesting you comment on psychoanalytics - much of the research and books are published in Freud-friendly venues. Karnak books, for instance, specializes in it - and guess who the publisher is of much of the trauma-based DID topics?

Karnak books, was the answer, in case that wasn't clear :)

But that being said - it still needs to be represented on the page. The traumagenic model, for all that I don't think it is dominante, or ruling unchallenged, is still a significant part of the DID scholarly body of knowledge. I really wish that didn't mean I had to read a 100+ pages about the ISSTD's latest consensus. Bleah.

Did you see who the editor of the J Trauma Dissociation was by the way? Jennifer Freyd? If you recognize the last name, there's a reason. In fact, it explains a tremendous amount about the ISSTD and it's journal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• But most medical conditions, and especially psychiatric disorders can't be tested that way. We didn't find out info relating to the causes schizophrenia by manipulating experimental conditions. Attachment theory has scientific support, but children were not put in experimental (no constant caregiver) and control groups(normal) to get it. Since attachment theory is relied upon so heavily by ISSTD, it's significant the there is scientific evidence relating problems in attachment to various psychological conditions, but no one is looking at DID apparently. It could be done but it isn't being done, apparently because believers already believe, and dissenters are not interested in collecting data on something they think isn't important. If it were a significant mental health problem, the research would be done. Drug companies would be interested in finding a pill, etc. And yes, I did notice who Jennifer Freyd is. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh, one of the reasons DID was supposed to have "bubbled" was because of how damned lucrative it was - years of treatment, hundreds of sessions, you could clear 6 figures on one patient alone. One of the reasons it was thought to disappear was because insurance companies changed their rules and capped how much therapists could charge.

Wikipedia is like war - you don't edit with the information you want, you edit with the information you have. The DID page will probably be stuck in a half-way, netherworld-like state until they either find out what is actually going on, or all the people on one side of a paradigm die. It really is a fascinating topic for many, many reasons, but it's also so damned convoluted. I won't be surprised if it turns out, in 20 or 40 years, that both sides were to a certain extent correct - you can both develop, and create DID in certain people. Time will tell I suppose.

Again, my apologies for overwriting some of your edits at simple.wiki. If it makes you feel any better, I had a whole section written up that I managed to copy-paste out of existence, which wasted a good half-hour. Bleah. Done for the day I think. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that explanation for the DID bubble isn't entirely true. Insurance companies in the olden days paid for open ended psychological treatment à la Freudian style. Insurance companies mostly gave up all coverage for psychotherapy, or limited it drastically for everyone. If you have Schizophrenia you don't get psychotherapy, you get a 15 minute appointment with a psychiatrist for meds every few months. That's far more lucrative for psychiatrists than listening to the same patient for a hour one or more times a week. But I know psychotherapists with thriving private practices who treat patients with these sorts of problems. And if you get good at writing justifications to insurance companies, some will pay for extended treatment. Today it's a question of accepting patients who can either pay or have really good insurance. (Also, you can get your patient on Medicaid if you can show they're mentally disabled enough by Medicaid criteria, like not being able to hold a job or fulfill the tasks of daily living. Then Medicaid will pay, but not much though.)

That second article you found explains it. Some people do have attachment disorders and a good therapist can become an attachment figure. That's powerful stuff that people who need that sort of thing will pay for.

The traumagenic model isn't testable because there are no operational definitions, no definitions of the terminology that have any validity or reliability, etc. No acceptable definition of personality or dissociation! And basically, other diagnoses like Borderline personality disorder cover the objectively verified symptoms. What may force the hand of the DSM people is that the manual definitions have to become more data driven, moving toward a continuum format rather than a categorical one. That's what's giving DSM-V fits. But some ISSTD members are on the committee, so as you say, they may have to die out. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user

Hi WLU. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WLU. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 19:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

glad you're keeping a eye on things

re DID, since I don't have your sources. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Speigel source I got legit from here; I added it to the citation template, since it's not a copyvio. Spiegel has, unfortunately, another article with the exact same title published in 2010 in the J Trauma Dissociation but I don't think I have that one. Also, I accidentaly friended him on Google or some shit like that. I hate social media, and I hate that the "friend this guy" looks a lot like a search bar. Meh.

Also, changes look good. The page obviously needs a good once-over. Or thrice-over. Possibly more. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

hey, thanks for the link to the Spiegel article. Looks like a good one. It's all starting to make sense! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Google scholar's "All X versions" options will sometimes turn up a full-text version. As far as wikipedia is concerned, there's no issue with using these documents to edit the page (provided they're not altered of course). If they are on-line as a copyright violation, then we are of course forbidden to link to them. And downloading them from copyright-violating sites is obviously problematic if the copyright holder decides to get all Metallica on you. Though author-requested reprints for some reason are unproblematic (I always make a point to tell the authors I will not share the version they send me, which is why I never offer to share some articles). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis

Do you own the 2012 version? The online version is missing some important stuff, like the 4,500 alters! Looks like a good book. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not, but note that there are two versions of the book - the paper version that was scanned into google books [21] and an e-book version that was uploaded and divided into pages [22]. It is possible to get a fair amount of information by carefully working your way through both in tandem - but that's far less than ideal and quite a tedious process. Also unfortunately, my efforts to get it via library (suggestion to purchase and interlibrary loan) have both been for naught. You could also try amazon's look inside option but it seems to have far less than google books.

I think Scott Lilienfeld, the first author of the chapter, offered to get me an electronic copy if it would be helpful but I didn't take him up on it since he'd already provided me with considerable comments and I had the gbooks versions to work with. I could be mixing him up with someone else though, I was contacting a lot of authors at that point. The 4,500 authors is in there, but I don't recall which version. Also, make sure you're reading the preview while signed in to your gmail account, I think you get more information that way. The incomplete preview and work necessary to interstitch coherent sections is one reason I never got through the whole chapter and integrated what I found there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

well, I'm thinking of getting the 2012 edition. It has a lot in it's favor and it's cheap for a textbook, can be "rented", though I'm not sure what that means - I take it for a semester. Also it can be bought used. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya, for $60 or so it's not too bad! And I'm also curious what "renting" means. You've probably already seen it, but I've just verified the 4,500 figure - see the DID talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

well, I ordered the book so I'll eventually know if it's in there! It'll be useful for other diagnoses. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Medicine

Hi. This organisation been discussed a few times on WT:MED but in case you haven't noticed, can I point out m:Wikimedia Medicine and the current discussion at the top of User talk:Iridescent? One concern raised is the potential for undue influence from pharmaceutical companies and quackery, so I was wondering if you might be interested in commenting, or at least keeping an eye on things. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Firewall english cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Firewall english cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Phew

I was starting to worry. Good to see you popping up on my watchlist again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

4500 "alters"

Kluft has been described to me as an attention-seeker who might sensationalize certain things, but I have absolutely no reason to doubt him on the high populations he describes. The answer to how such groups function is simple. Not all of these people are using the body ("fronting"). They may observe what's going on, offering opinions and advice, or be completely unconcerned with the outside world as their occupations are internal. Many multiples have a subjective world of their own which can amount to a secondary universe (like a conworld) which they experience as quite real. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is how did Kluft keep track of 4,500 alters (in pre-computer days)? Defies credibility. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Companies kept track of thousands of employees. Other therapists used index cards so he probably did too. But my guess is that he probably kept track of front runners only. He may have thought of non-fronting personnel as "fragments". I read this article by him in Many Voices a few years back, where he seems to have had the idea that if you just had one person using the body at all times and other people didn't actually front, it wasn't a problem. --Bluejay Young (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jet lag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatigue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comment

If I were you, I think I would edit/refactor parts of that last comment on Men's Rights Movement talk. The whole suite of articles are under article probation, and I think it is worth being extra careful not to break them, even if it is meant in part as a over-the-top joke. --Slp1 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Civil POV-pushers

Do you have any idea what achievable policy change would deal with civil POV-pushing? I think you've dealt with much more of it than I have. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:CPUSH is the most relevant thing I am aware of, but I don't believe it ever got anywhere. In certain circumstances, discretionary sanctions are an option, but usually that takes an arb hearing and an extensive amount of conflict between multiple parties over a long period of time. There is no real way I've discovered to deal with civil POV-pushers beyond bloody-minded persistence and involving the greater community - usually through noticeboards and various other dispute resolution mechanisms. Since most CPUSH stuff consists of repetition of ill-understood or misrepresented sources or policy/guideline positions, usually once the larger community becomes aware, the issue sorts itself out. An experienced editor with an awareness of what NPOV and UNDUE actually mean (proportionate representation in accordance with number and quality of sources) can generally demonstrate when an account is POV-pushing. It certainly helps if you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the "other side" has a point - it'll keep you sane and improve the page (particularly if the "other side" has sources that have themselves been criticized, in which case you include the source, and the criticism). However, as CPUSH itself says (or said, I haven't revisited it in a while) civil POV-pushing often involves a slow, steady grinding out of good editors who become exhausted with the whole thing. My recommendation, if you're involved in stuff like this, is to simply take breaks. No loud retirement, no proclaimation that wikipedia is broken, no dramatics. Just stop editing for a while, and come back when your interest is revived. Interest usually is revived, in my experience anyway. I personally stay away from most policy pages since they seem to attract unfruitful debates about the colour of the shed now that the cores of the policies are established and more or less functional. Ditto for the dramas on WP:ANI (were you aware that one of the redirects for ANI used to be WP:DRAMA? [23] Fun and telling fact). Though I must admit that this makes me more than a little parasitic on the efforts of other editors and admins. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved in anything at the moment. I ask because I'd like ad hominem to be banned from article talk pages, to improve the standard of debate, but that's only practical if we have an efficient mechanism for dealing with tendentious or incompetent editors elsewhere on the project. I'll have a look at CPUSH when I've had some sleep. I hope you're dry and safe. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Dry, safe and pretty happy

You mean a specific person using ad hominem, or just in general? I don't know if you'd ever be able to ban it completely. WP:CIVIL tones down the more obvious flame-wars, but to date, despite millions of editors, nobody has come up with an efficient mechanism for dealing with tendentious or incompetent editors. Perhaps you'll be the first! But the free-wheeling nature inherent to wikipedia makes it unlikely. For the most part I find the mechanisms that exist not too bad, and often their failings are really more my failings (if you've ever seen any interactions I've had with Bittergrey, the blame for nearly all previous failures bar the final block can be split nigh-50% to either side; I should learn when to shut up). User:Slp1 is probably the best model I've ever seen for handling disputes - excellent documentation, lots of links, and keenly aware of the need to adhere to sources (plus a wicked-good set of research skills, absolute aces at turning up relevant sources). You might evey try asking over yonder.

Though come to think of it, I might not be giving adequate credit to DocJames or Tim Vickers. All three are long-term editors who are great at handling disputes through sourcing (and admins, probably because of aforementioned). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I mean ad hominem in any form. There is reasonable consensus that incivility ("you're an idiot" or "fuck off" or "why don't you speak English") is inappropriate for article talk pages. But a lot of reasonable people think ad hominem such as "you're a POV-pusher" or "you're a sock-puppet" or "have you got a financial conflict of interest?" are appropriate for article talk pages. I don't. They poison debate when they arise.

COI should always be declared by the conflicted editor when they enter a debate; if they fail to do so, and the conflict has been acknowledged elsewhere on-wiki by the conflicted editor, another editor should politely point it out for the benefit of others. Concerns about suspected COI, sock-puppetry and tendentious editing, though, should not be raised on article talk pages but should be raised on relevant user talk pages or noticeboards, with a note on the article talk page pointing to that discussion. That's what I think.

This will work for suspected COI (WP:COIN) and suspected sock-puppetry (WP:SPI) (I guess – I've never been to these noticeboards). We have WP:RSN to deal with editors pushing crap sources in support of their ax-grinding but we don't seem to have a mechanism for effectively dealing with someone who is repeatedly arguing for the inclusion of content that breaches WP:NPOV. Maybe Wikipedia:Neutral point of view noticeboard? Do you know if that has been tried?

I thought of you when I just heard this for the first time. Preaching to the choir but you might enjoy it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The real message behind "you're a POV-pusher" is "your edits are problematic". If I accuse someone of sockpuppeting, there are two possible issues being raised - first, they are weighing the scales of a discussion by treating it as a majority vote. Not a huge issue since we have {{spa}} and most closing admins will discount WP:ATA stuff like "I like it", meanwhile it's hard to ignore "X, Y and Z demonstrate notability" or "there are no sources indicating notability" (assuming it's an AFD but there are parallels for other discussions like straw polls). The second issue is that the editor in question is violating a ban, which is itself not the real problem. The real problem is the sock or possible sock is exhibiting the same behaviour that got the initial account blocked or banned. Frankly, I doubt most people care if blocked or banned accounts return if they edit completely new sets of pages and don't repeat their problem behaviours. I've made the argument before that whether someone is a sockpuppet or not is far, far less important than if they are making the same mistakes as the sockpuppet. Ditto for COI - the issue isn't the COI, the issue is an account engaging in the same POV-pushing, OR or presenting a FRINGE topic as a serious one that got the account blocked in the first place. However, even this has been dealt with in some pages - see the FAQ for talk:satanic ritual abuse/FAQ, or talk:homeopathy/FAQ, and I'm sure there are more. If enough points have been raised and rebutted enough times, this is a good way of addressing the more common talking points. I see "you have a COI" as a bit of a blind alley since the real issue is "you have terrible arguments" or "you have unreliable sources". Dealing with situations where an account has a COI and an opposing POV requires maturity on the part of the editor - dismissing a well-argued, well-sourced point based on "COI" alone is weak and inappropriate, but I've seen it used.

Which, re-reading your original point, is pretty much the same thing. So basically I agree with you :) COI should be raised and acknowledged, it shouldn't be used to dismiss well-thought-out-and-sourced arguments.

However, requiring editors to declare their COI is problematic. Most new editors probably don't realize they have to. Wikipedia can be a confusing maze of bureaucracy and rules.

Incidentally, we do have a WP:NPOVN. It doesn't resolve the problem though - dealing with neutrality is one of the hardest tasks the community and an individual editor has. To determine weight takes editorial judgement (which is a time-consuming task to acquire, but is not necessarily uncommon for the most part) but the larger issue is subject matter expertise which is much harder and more time-consuming to acquire. Most people can point out OR without having to dig very much - but to argue whether a particular point is undue weight is much, much harder. Editing the dissociative identity disorder and satanic ritual abuse pages with anything approaching reasonableness took hundreds of hours, spent reading literally thousands of pages. We can't force disinterested editors to do such a task, but in order to determine if something is fringe or POV-pushing could take such a task. Fine if you are genuinely curious about such a topic, but who is going to spend the time to master enough quantum physics to argue that a particular brance of string theory is being POV-pushed? I mean, to even understand string theory at a mathematical level takes at minimum an undergraduate degree in physics, and probably more. There are no easy solutions here, which is very unfortunate! POV-pushing disputes are among the most intractable on wikipedia, and the hardest to solve - and are almost certainly one reason for editor burn-out. To date, nobody has found a solution for resolving these sorts of POV-pushing disputes requiring knowledge by an editor, and I don't know if we ever will. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

BCA

I feel very discouraged and disheartened at wikipedia by you and the other people who are probably no one in particulars friends showing up right when people start seeing how ridiculous things are over on that article. I mean, we are debating about this for 2 weeks and no one seems to care. And then, some kid shows up, who agrees with me. And the next day, three other people, who are established editors that have obviously been here a long time (like no one in particular) show up and defend no one in particular's view. That makes me very, very disheartened as a new editor here. And there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. So NOT in the spirit of wikipedia's egalitarian and non-cronyist and non-dogmatic philosophy.

(I'm sure there's some WP:wikipedia-is-not-egalitarian rule that you, like no one in particular, can pull out of thin air, but you, nonetheless, know what sort of philosophy I am talking about) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all wikipedians are considered substantially equal - such as all having to follow CITEVAR unless there is a good reason to not do so. You haven't provided such a reason beyond "I like ref tags better", which is a personal opinion - not a reason. If you can't learn how to follow the rules, you will doubtless be very frustrated on wikipedia and probably blocked in a relatively short period of time - not by me, not by WAID (we're not admins) but simply for irritating your fellow editors.

Pretending to be subtle by not making your point directly is irritating. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have provided a reason - I can't tell what material is sourced and what isn't. That isn't a personal opinion. I am clearly following the rules; you're blurring them. I'm not pretending to be subtle. I'm being direct without making any definite statements (to avoid accountability). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to space your posts per conversation threading. Makes it easier to read. You generally need to add one more colon.

Providing a reason, and providing a compelling, convincing reason, are two different things. You have done the former, but failed at the latter - at least in my case. The fact that you think you are following the rules suggests you don't actually understand them. You may not be able to tell what is sourced and what is not - but I can, and I'm unconcerned. Particularly in the case of WAID's editing - who is an excellent editor that I trust highly. Also, if you check the very first edit to the BCA page, you'll note it uses parenthetical style - making this page genuinely representative of the statements in CITEVAR - retain the style the page initially used. So please spend more time reading and less time lecturing me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I read all that, actually. You know my view. I don't need to explain it again. The only rule you can really say that I broke is the consensus, which I would maintain WP:IAR, even though there actually were people that agreed (and were scared away). That BCA article has serious problems, and is heavily biased. But I understand. It's someone's life's work. You're someone's crony. That's what cronies do for each other. I get it. But what I don't like it the fact that I pointed out what you guys are doing here that is wrong (and illegal, might I add; if not by the simple rule that you aren't allowed to recruit for a consensus, then by IAR, because it is for the worst at wikipedia). Where was I - so I pointed out the issue here. You didn't like it (and you refused to comment). And, as a result, you threatened to ban me - ...probably blocked in a relatively short period of time - not by me, not by WAID (we're not admins) - likely by another one on the squad I presume. Politics at its finest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I know your view, I find it unconvincing. You have failed to generate consensus because your arguments have yet to provide a compelling reason to switch citation styles. You have provided two main arguments - WP:OOA, which is about ownership and has no bearing, and WP:NPOV which is about page content and neutrality which also has no bearing. I don't, and frankly can't see how the choice of parenthetical versus footnote citation can in any way impact neutrality or bias. Those are content issues, while I have to date only engaged on matters of citation style. If you are making points about content in your earlier, extremely lengthy posts, they are too long for you to expect anyone to read. The BCA page is not someone's life's work, it's slightly less than two years old - and using rhetoric like that is unnecessarily inflammatory (which irritates me) - just like calling me a "crony" and using that as an excuse to ignore the fact that I have pointed to a guideline that clearly shows your behaviour is inappropriate. Two further points:

• Policies and guidelines represent the consensus of the larger community, and can only be over-ridden for very good reason on specific pages. Your reasons appear to have been "I don't like it/I want my way", which are not good ones.
• I can't ban or block you - I'm not an admin. You can keep being insistent and demanding, at which point you will probably get blocked or banned for disruptive editing, but that'll be you fault. Learn the rules and be polite. Claiming you're going to be banned by a cabal is not only uncivil, it's disruptive - and will get you blocked quicker.

Learn the rules, learn the mores, and make substantive points rather than rhetorical ones. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not an argument. I said "WP:OOA and, by extension, WP:NPOV." It is a result of WP:OOA. She has an easier time owning the article, which gives her an easier time pushing her POV. It's the same argument. I don't...can't see how the choice of parenthetical versus footnote citation can in any way impact neutrality or bias. Why didn't you mention ownership? My reasons are not "I don't like it." I wish you would stop saying that. You are putting words in my mouth and warping the conversation into something it isn't. Charles35 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you clicked on WP:OOA? You cite OOA as a reason to change parenthetical to footnotes, and to edit war over it. You are, from what I can tell, ignoring the relevant guideline (WP:CITEVAR), which says, and I quote:

“ Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article. ”

I've yet to see any indication you have dealt with this quite clear piece of guidance. Citing OOA and NPOV doesn't help as both are irrelevant to citation styles - and NPOV is a content issue. This seems like pointless hair-splitting, or a failure on your part to understand the relevant guidelines. I have yet to address any content issues because, as I said above, I'm uninterested in reading massive walls of text. I'm rapidly running out of interest in reading your posts since you are consistently failing to make any points that I, as an experienced editor, see as relevant. As far as I'm concerned, changing the citation styles is flat-out wrong, there's a guideline that documents the community consensus, and you haven't made any arguments on why we should ignore the guideline. So that pretty much summarizes it. So I'm pretty much done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry - I consider 'reasons' to be just as valid as 'wikipedia reasons.' I wasn't giving a rule for why it should be changed. WP:OOA is not a rule for changing citations. It was just a way of saying that the reason for changing it is because parenthetical make the article easier to own (assuming that ownership is a bad thing). Sorry. I didn't realize you must have a rule for everything you do on wikipedia. My bad. I read the 'wikilawyering' page and thought that for some obvious things you can just do it without a 'wikipedia reason'. I just saw that, since WhatamIdoing has no preference for either, and (in my opinion, which could be wrong; still haven't gotten a response to that) footnotes are better for the community, then why not change it? Guess I was wrong. Sorry

PS: and I also thought there was consensus. Although they were months ago, many people had commented on the citation style and thought footnotes were better. Charles35 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and it's not demonstrated by finding people in the archives who agreed with you months ago. Wikipedia reasons take precedence over other reasons simply because it allows for standardization of reading, editing and formatting - much like journals and disciplines have their own particular styles. You don't have to have a rule for everything, but you are always better off following rules when they exist; it ensures everyone is on the same page. As a "regular", I look for two things in any argument made - citations or references to policies/guidelines. Without either, most discussions tend to be pointless. Even if you were to change to footnotes instead of parentheticals, there are better ways to do it that allow more options within the software.

Thank you for the apology, I appreciate it. I, along with any other experienced editor you are civil to, can be very helpful here and most (including me) are genuinely interested in helping people learn the ropes. If you ask me questions, I will give you the most helpful response I can, including references to policies and guidelines whenever they exist. This is the best way to learn how to avoid pissing people off or getting your edits reverted. I'm going to bed now, but feel free to ask more questions if you'd like and I'll answer when I get a chance. Otherwise, I will address specifics about breast cancer awareness on that talk page.

You might also find this quite lengthy essay I wrote to be helpful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi WLU!

Things seem to be going ok at present. Do you agree? I have more material now. Can add if you want to embark an an improvement drive! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm AFK for most of today and tomorrow, but I can certainly review your changes as they appear. Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep my eyes open for diffs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this. Any chance you could do the same at green tea extract?  :) 148.177.1.210 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Not right away, but per WP:MEDRS you could probably do so quite easily by removing any sources or claims that are not based on review articles. Perhaps, I'll have to see if I make the time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green tea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

WLU, who are you?

WLU, you have been editing Wikipedia for years now. Don't you think it's time you shared your real name and identity with the Wikipedia community? What do you have to hide? Dark windows of the soul (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

'Nope' is not an answer to 'what do you have to hide'. I assume then that you do have something to hide. How interesting. I shall have to make further inquiries. Dark windows of the soul (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Delightful, I look forward to the results. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WLU, I apologize for even mentioning this issue. It was wrong of me, and I will never do it again. I hope we can be friends now. Dark windows of the soul (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

RE:Talk:Applied behavior analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification

Hi User:WLU,

Can u reply to my comment here: Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification?

Thanks.

ATC ^{. Talk} 03:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

canola

thanks for your kind words! Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

slactivism

Hey WLU. We seem to be clashing heads over the slactivism thing. I made a recent edit saying "sorry, your last revert violated rule x, y, and z". Biosthmors pointed out to me the issue with that. I shouldn't have said that so definitively. My bad! I should have said something more like, "in my opinion, it violates x, y, and z". If you have a different interpretation of that rule, I'd like to hear it. Charles35 (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breast cancer awareness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stigma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

If you have the time and inclination, with Hunting hypothesis and a new article, Gathering hypothesis - we have a new student editor from the American Psychological Association Wikipedia initiative who needs help. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Were you thinking general editing and proofreading, or mentorship to the new account? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN/I discussion notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You are probably already aware of this, but anyways. It's here. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is ""Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Awesome Thanks for taking the trouble to explain the basics to Nernst at Wikipedia:BLPN#Andrew_Wakefield. I, like everyone else I suppose, assumed he understood WP:PSTS. Would you like a free T-shirt? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Considering the only t-shirts that fit my (apparently) bizarrely disproportionate body (it's a real shame having 36-inch biceps but a 22 inch waist, and those are totally my measurements) are free ones, I would dearly love it. Methinks Nernst is here to right great wrongs and will end up leaving in disgust, but s/he deserves a chance to change. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Agree. Have some swag. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Gosh, I thought you were kidding :) Thanks!! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC) pov please stop following me around and just let me be. bca has serious pov problems. this has been the issue from the beginning. look at the talk page. almost every section is about pov concerns. theres nothing about that list that has requirements set by you. for example, "nationalist issues" and "Marginal or idiosyncratic scientific speculation" do not meet your requirements that you so falsely impose as if you own wikipedia. if you constantly look at my recent contributions, please stop it and leave me alone. bca has pov issues. accept it. since the pov issues are related to you, you arent really at liberty to say that the article doesnt have pov issues, or to decide when the issues are gone and when to take down the templates. leave that to those with the concerns. you dont own wikipedia, so stop strutting around reverting whatever you like when you like and coming up with these bogus justifications.Charles35 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 11 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breast cancer awareness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inner circle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC) compromise? WLU, can you please be reasonable? Look, I am real tired of this wikidrama and the way this has become a battleground. Can you please compromise and work reasonably and cooperatively? I do not mean to be personally attacking or anything of the sort. I am just so sick and tired of putting up with and engaging in wikidrama. Some of the recent edits that have been made here are very clearly against the policies, such as: [24] - this is undue weight. It just is. It's a bizarre metaphor. It was not here to begin with and was added to the article to make a point. Can you just drop it and stop focusing on winning, please? I'm not here to get in disputes and end up on noticeboards. It's silly and frivolous. You say you're such a stickler for the rules - can you please just acknowledge that this is undue weight and forget about winning? Can we bring it back to the original way it was at before we started making points in this article? I have compromised in letting "inner circle" be there. I would appreciate it if you met half way and deleted the quote. Honestly, it's clear that your positions are arbitrary and you choose the ones that you think are easiest to win because you have a thing for wikidrama. Multiple users have contacted and warned me about past disputes and the numerous times you've ended up on noticeboards. I will not get into particulars because I do not want anything to do with disputes. I just want to edit wikipedia and improve articles in peace. I will just say that one user mentioned an "experiment" in which they let you have your way with an article that needed serious work, and then argued with you over a well constructed article that needed little work. They said you ignored the article that needed help and instead focused on the argument. Wikipedia is not a battleground and is not about winning. I shouldn't have to tell you that though, you obviously are well aware. I hope that you are not giving in to these same inclinations at the BCA article. Can we please agree to be reasonable and cooperate with the this article we are focusing on? I will admit that I haven't been a saint either. But I have been trying really hard and I think that it would be easier for me if you took an active effort to work cooperatively as well. Please? [25] - While I do think the first part of the edit is great, I disagree with the second part. In the edit summary, you mentioned that the text is sourced. That is correct, there is a citation at the end of the sentence, but the fact is that the text is simply not in the source. Sulik mentions absolutely nothing about baldness, shaming comments, or appearing unattractive. Being that stickler for the rules that you are, can you please take a more neutral POV and just accept that that material is not in the source and remove it? Thank you. If you don't want to take my word for it, feel free to read the material for yourself. You will find that it is completely made up and not supported by the source. It's only 10 pages. [26] - I don't understand what is wrong there. Yes, it was verbatim to another passage from the article, but that passage was removed due to the fact that it wasn't supported by the source. This is a fact, not an opinion. Biosthmors agreed with me, and asked me to WP:PRESERVE the material instead of delete it. I moved it to that part of the article. Will you please replace it? After my move, it accurately and acceptably reflected the source and made a good point in the article. I know it might not agree with your POV, but can you please put that aside, forget about winning, and work cooperatively to improve wikipedia? I would really appreciate it. Charles35 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Pretty much every thing you say about me also applies to you - it takes two to create drama (and edit war - you can't claim it's not an edit war because you think you are right, that's a great way to get a block and simply wrong since whatever version reverted to is always the wrong version) and you contribute to it. It is common for new accounts to consider themselves right and everyone else wrong. And all accounts must get over it. Keep that in mind, compromise goes both ways and again, I am not editing to piss you off - all the changes I make I genuinely believe are improving the page. You think I'm unreasonable? Well keep in mind I think you are unreasonable, and far less familiar with the policies and guidelines. Doesn't make me right, but there are various mechanisms to address each point and lots of other editors are now involved to help resolve the issues. Certainly, this could go forward a lot easier if you weren't so convinced of your own righteousness. Condescendingly assuming I'm just doing this for drama isn't helping resolve the issues or reduce the drama. Nor does invoking other disputes with other editors who may or may not be giving you an honest or neutral assessment of the situation. So, now to substance. I'm not focusing on winning with the quote. I think it's a good quote that improves the page. Undue weight is a matter of editor judgement - and in my judgement, it improves the page. The original way wasn't necessarily better, wikipedia is never done. There are several ways to improve this - straw poll, request for comment or a separate section in which editors are asked to specifically comment on just the quote. I will check my copy of Sulik to try to verify the quote, the version found online doesn't include that section of the book for me. If it's not there, I'll remove it. If a passage isn't supported by a source, why is it better to be there twice? If the section genuinely isn't sourced, shouldn't it be removed in both places? I'm confused by your point here. If you think it was better placed in a separate section, I don't know why you didn't move it instead of duplicating it. For what it's worth, I think it's better placed in the social role section than the culture wars section, though perhaps not in the she-ro section. I'll try to verify the text with my copy of Sulik and revisit the issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Oops. I also didn't see that the DRN thing is still going on when I wrote this. Charles35 (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC) you can't claim it's not an edit war because you think you are right, that's a great way to get a block and simply wrong since whatever version reverted to is always the wrong version) and you contribute to it. It is common for new accounts to consider themselves right and everyone else wrong. And all accounts must get over it. I don't think I'm always right, but I acknowledge that you think I do and I understand why. I'd like to point out the several instances where I have apologized and admitted my faults. It wasn't an edit war IMO because I thought we were BRD'ing. I also acknowledge that you think that I am always wrong - whatever version [you] reverted to is always the wrong version). And you also believe that most new users need to "get over considering everyone else wrong". Hmmm. I just want to point out that I think you should reconsider your own actions based on those words right there. I'm not trying to be mean; I just want to make sure you understand the perspectives of other people. I've gone out of my way to understand your perspective, which is why I'm asking for you to compromise with me. Pretty much every thing you say about me also applies to you, compromise goes both ways, etc. - I totally agree, hence I have compromised in letting "inner circle" be there. I would appreciate it if you met half way I will admit that I haven't been a saint either. But I have been trying really hard and I think that it would be easier for me if you took an active effort to work cooperatively as well. Please? Charles35 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Certainly, this could go forward a lot easier if you weren't so convinced of your own righteousness. - I would like to assure you that I am not convinced of that. I quite honestly do not understand why you think that, but I acknowledge that you do. I am not editing to piss you off - I am not that self-centered. Well keep in mind I think you are unreasonable - Believe me, I know very well. Condescendingly assuming I'm just doing this for drama isn't helping resolve the issues or reduce the drama. Nor does invoking other disputes with other editors who may or may not be giving you an honest or neutral assessment of the situation. - I did not intend to be condescending. I'm sorry that I sounded that way. The last thing I want to do is provoke more drama. I guess I'm not doing a great job. I thought telling you what the other editor said might give you some perspective. I'm sorry. Oh, and I have given a lot of thought to the fact that the other editor is likely very biased towards you. IMO, it was still worth mentioning. Undue weight is a matter of editor judgement - and in my judgement, it improves the page. - What bothers me here is the fact that you don't seem to give a shit (pardon my french) about my opinion. I acknowledge your opinion and I take it into account when I edit. I try to please you while still achieving what I think is acceptable (eg alcohol). You never seem to return the favor. I'm not pointing this out to be mean. I just want to make you are aware that I am making an effort to cooperate with you and compromise. I think it's undue. I think inner circle is OR. You don't. Can we compromise by keeping inner circle and deleting the quote? There are several ways to improve this - actually, I believe that if you were out of the picture (hypothetically speaking), the quote would be gone by now, which is why I'm leaving this note on your talk page, not WhatamIdoing's. I think WhatamIdoing is more invested in her viewpoint and in Sulik, while my honest opinion of you is that you are invested in winning, not anything to do with BCA. Me? I am invested in wikipedia. To be fair though, we all have tendencies towards winning. You are not at fault. That's just the way I see it though. Take it with a grain of salt. Charles35 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC) (2) - the version online does. We are talking about pages 35-45 I believe. If you and I are using a different version of google books, please follow this link: [27]. It also has 374. That might be related here. (3) - it shouldn't be there twice. This is why I deleted it from the shero section and moved it to the Feminism and BC wars section. I couldn't think of a better place than the F&BCW section. I considered the social role section, because shero was obviously the problem, but I didn't see another place that would be an appropriate place to put it. Ideally, I agree that it should be in the social section. I encourage you to move it to somewhere you see fit. Charles35 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC) You don't need to quote, I find it confusing. BRD does not excuse the three revert rule, that's why it is obligatory that editors be informed before being blocked for 3RR. If you want my frank opinion, you don't need to do any of this sort of thing to start compromising. You just have to start compromising, or using the DR mechanisms that exist. Read comments made on talk pages. Are they reasonable? If so, then agree and move on. If not, note your reason. Talking about how to talk generally isn't needed. I will reply the same way regardless of whether we have this conversation or not. If you are expecting me to admit that I was wrong, I don't plan on doing so - because I firmly believe in the actions I took, and believed at the time that I was improving the wiki. So go ahead and make your suggestions on the talk page, I will give you my honest opinion and cite the relevant policies and guidelines when appropriate, suggesting dispute resolution like a RFC if it's a matter of editorial judgement. I will not compromise for the sake of compromise if I think it results in a lower-quality page. Note that the editor you have been speaking to essentially acknowledged that I didn't wikistalk them. Chances are if they were really problematic, I was aware of their contributions but as a courtesy (one that worsens the wiki by the way) I didn't follow them to these new pages and correct their errors because a) I know it sucks and b) it is bad form. But please, let me know what this page in need of improvement is, I'll have a crack at it when I have time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I believe that in this case I must talk about how to talk. I don't think that there is any point in trying to problem solve with you. At this point in time, I don't think that it matters at all what I say, you will disagree with it no matter what it is, which is why I decided to come here and speak to you one-on-one about how to cooperate more effectively. Charles35 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC) You say you will reply the same way regardless of this conversation. I hope that is not the case. I don't expect you to admit that you are wrong. I don't expect you to even acknowledge that you are wrong. I don't care about things that have happened. I just want to cooperate and have a more peaceful time editing wikipedia moving forward. You say you won't compromise if it results in a lower-quality page. I think that your idea of what lower-quality is is arbitrary. This is what I would like for you to reconsider. Charles35 (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I have literally 50 times the edits you do. I am also quite invested in wikipedia, perhaps 50 times more than you. And your French is pardoned. See my most recent note on the BCA talk page, the shaming comments about appearance is valid. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I'm not really interested in continuing this conversation. If you want to move forward in a calm, civilized, rational manner, then act in a calm, civilized, rational manner - in my experience disputes with editors who know what they are doing quickly de-escalate and focus on content. Do not accuse others of bias, phrase things in terms of "I think" and "I don't see where the source verifies this", WP:AGF and don't bother bringing up the imputed motivations of other editors - a trait you believe others do about your own actions, and you understandably appear to find irritating. The fact that you think I will disagree with you no matter what you say is a considerable assumption of bad faith that is rather unjustified in my opinion. I will continue to edit in a way that I believe appropriate - source and policy based. If I make a change or talk page posting based on editor judgement, I will make an effort to flag this fact. For future reference, one large flag is when I suggest a WP:RFC or WP:3O. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)