User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 2

Hi!

I noticed in your last edit summary for this article that you wrote, "Rearrange, start the encyclopedic-style summarizing work". I just realized that if I do any editing on this article I should try to understand what your plans are so that my efforts would be coordinated with you. So perhaps you could help me in this regard with more info about what you plan to do?

I had a couple other questions that you might be able to help me with too. Do you have any info about the status of the merge or an opinion about its likelihood? Was Calamitybrook blocked or the subject of any other official Wikipedia action? It seems like that editor has stopped editing, at least under the name Calamitybrook.

Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Regarding your remarks about the Causes section, how does the following look as a place to start for making a better Causes section:

==Causes==

There are three vectors for human infection by pathogens that cause WD: fecal-oral transmission, water, and contaminated food. The major factor governing the amount of pathogen pollution in surface water is human and animal activity in the watershed.^[1] The most common pathogens that cause WD are Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Other infectious agents may play a larger role than generally believed and include Campylobacter, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis E virus, enterotoxogenic E. coli, e. coli 0157:H7, Shigella, and various viruses. More rarely, Yersinia enterocolitica, Aeromonas hydrophila, and Cyanobacterium may also cause disease.^[2]

Giardia lamblia, a common cause of WD, does not tolerate freezing and can remain viable for nearly three months in river water when the temperature is 10°C and about one month at 15–20°C in lake water. Cryptosporidium, another WD pathogen, has been shown to survive in cold waters (4°C) for up to 18 months, and can even withstand freezing, although its viability is thereby greatly reduced.^[3]

Many other varieties of diarrhea-causing organisms, including Shigella and Salmonella typhi, and hepatitis A virus, can survive freezing for weeks to months.^[4] Virologists believe all surface water in the United States and Canada has the potential to contain human viruses, which cause a wide range of illnesses including diarrhea, polio and meningitis.^[5][6][7]

It may be difficult to causally associate a particular case of diarrhea with a recent wilderness trip lasting only a few days because the incubation time may take longer than the length of time of the trip. Studies of long trips into the wilderness,^[8][9] where the trip time is much longer than the mean incubation time of the disease, are less susceptible to these types of errors since the diarrhea is more likely to occur while the person is still in the wilderness.

References

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing all those supporting organizations from Americans with Disabilities Act... I wanted to remove the original list, but figured someone would complain. So I added the newer (huge) list instead. Now you, a much better known editor, have removed both lists. Mission accomplished. (I won't make a habit of doing things that way. Promise.)  :-) --Hordaland (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear WtmIdng: I noticed that you have been kind enough to post on a number of lighthouse articles the observation that there are "too many links" and the suggestion that we should improve the article by using in line citations. That makes some sense. Indeed, if you actually look at the links, you will find that all of them are there for a reason, and that they are the basis of good on line research by anyone who wants to learn about the particular lighthouse, and even enhance the article. They are the keys to the kingdom. They contain all the relevant on line information. Until the articles are greatly expanded, these provide -- at the very least -- a place for reader to find what he/she needs to know about a particular light. With respect, your suggestion (and I'm sure you mean it in the kindest and well meant way) reminds me very much of the conversation between the Emperor and Mozart in Amadeus, which went something like, 'The problem Herr Mozart, is that your work contains too many notes." Certainly there is nothing to prevent anyone, even you, from beefing up these articles. I am trying to deal with over 100 Michigan lighthouse articles in Michigan (some are very scanty), and a lot of important lighthouses that are not documented in Wikipedia at all. So you are invited to help, and it would be most appreciated. However, the implication that these links were put in willy-nilly is just unwarranted. These links might be moved around, if someone finds the time to greatly expand the articles, and then they'll be references and footnotes. But just removing links (if that is what your are contemplating or suggesting) is, in my opinion, not well advised. As to the Bibliography that has become the subject of your ire, these are not just repeated ad nauseum. If you take the time to look, you will discover that they vary by location, and that articles that are specific to the particular lights are often included. The general coverage of some of these works does not diminish their usefulness, and does not justify any presumption on your part that they don't specifically address a particular light. (Certainly it would be wonderful for someone to pull out all the books on all the lighthouses and put in lots of page citations. As an aspiration, I am with you.) On the other hand, this list can give the readers some direction and guidance. I think it is better to err on the side of over inclusion than under inclusion. Note also that we've included ISBN numbers, to help our esteemed readers find the books at their vendor and local library. I hope that you will give this matter some thought. I've given it a lot of thought, a lot of effort and a heckuva lot of edits. I of course welcome constructive collaboration, as that is what makes this encyclopedia work. I am writing this tome to you simply because I don't want us to have a misunderstanding. Best regards to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

Hello. I have decided that at long last we have a good enough question to ask the notice board and posted it. here The question has been negotiated and all parties have had input. It is possible to comment further on the notice board so any other questions or concerns can be raised there. I think that the question that I posted which is evolved from drafts of mine, Jokestress's and James_Cantor's is a good framing for the issue and gives all the information that the uninterested RS editors will need to make a determination.

I took this action because we could end up negotiating the content of this question and have about as much success as we have had with the article itself. Someone had to say enough. So I say enough already. I hope that we can resolve this question and move on to more productive editing of the article in the near future. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, WhatamIdoing. I think you were exactly correct to add at RS/N the prior related discussion on Wyndzen. However, that issue appears to be distracting folks from the inclusion of the other 22 commentaries. I hesitate to say anything there, since it was your comment. If you are seeing things the same way, let me encourage you to help focus input on the 22.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you apparently think that this reply is a personal attack. It says nothing whatsoever about you or any other person. I quoted the actual guideline, identified the relevant words, and asked you whether you could agree on classifying a specific example as falling into the obvious category. There is not one word in my response about you or any other person. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting observation on this topic on your User: page, and probably too true! You have been doing a lot of editing for me, and if I suddenly disappeared, I was afraid that you might miss me...lol. Just to let you know, I am going to be disappearing offline for about two weeks. I have a teaching commitment at a university in another province, and so will be over on the Atlantic coast, enjoying the fresh air and the waves. I'll let you know when I'm back. I may get a chance to look in on things, but won't likely have time to do much editing, between lecture prep and reading papers! I will make sure that the others on my Task Force are aware of why I'm gone. Try not to miss me (and all that evaluation work!) too much! Enjoy the rest, and I'll see you when I get back. Cheers! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that you'll be back. BTW, in the future, you could leave messages like this at the WT:EMS page; I expect that most people you deal with watch that page, and it would save you some trouble. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious why you removed my WPMED tag from Talk:Habit reversal training? Piacentini, for example, is a professor of psychiatry, working in neuropsychiatry, as are most TS researhers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A brief glance at it left me with the impression that it was better classified as psychology than psychiatry. You can certainly change it if you prefer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I left both (that should work). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I just responded to one of your remarks in the Recent editing section of the article WAD. I'm only mentioning it because it is somewhat buried and you might not notice it. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Wilderness acquired diarrhea (WAD) keeps dropping off my Watchlist for some unknown reason. Have you had this problem too? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey WhatamIdoing. Kilbad (talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't have an opinion on this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've just seen you make a lot of posts in the past to WP:MED, thought you might have been interested. My mistake. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind getting your note; I just unfortunately can't be helpful in this instance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. What're you areas of interest? Just for future reference. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My interests are probably too disorganized for you to bother with keeping track of; they don't really line up neatly with a particular medical specialty. Here are a few facts that might be somewhat responsive to your question:

I'm not a healthcare professional and have no plans to become one. If it's big enough to be seen with the naked eye, it's probably not very interesting. I dislike anatomy and anything else that is handled primarily by memorization (I'm good at memorizing things, but I won't bother memorizing something that I can look up). I'm typically useless in cardiology, dermatology, radiology, and surgery; by this statement I mean that I can contribute at a very basic level, such as copy editing or reviewing sources. If it's important, I can become an "instant expert" on more or less any narrow subject, but organizing the general field requires more than the bits and pieces of information that I have.

As I said above, I don't mind getting notes like yours, and I'm willing to do my bit to help. I don't pretend to know everything, and if I don't have, or can't get, enough information, then I'll decline to stick my fingers in the middle of the pie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You deserve another barnstar. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Axl. It's very kind of you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your third opinion and the alternative suggestion -- I think they are helpful. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There may be a perfect solution out there, but until then, I was hoping to just find an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

you wrote on the AfD discussion page for Vienna fingers. Everyone seems to have stopped talking. Do you know about anything?Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle

I'll leave a note at the article's talk page about how to AfD works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Hello I have requested a good article status review on this article. I have done this because the article needed a big rewrite and reorganization in order to make the article more accessible to the uninitiated. From a Featured article candidacy review I was informed that the articles prose was too dense and that it may not be comprehensive enough. The changes were enough in my mind to warrant reassessment of the articles good article status. As a courtesy as a big contributor I am notifying you of this.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't want the WAD discussion to get off on a digression, but I am curious about how you think and what you meant when you wrote, "Experts don't usually admit much of a distinction between their professional opinions and the actual facts: they are supposed to be identical, after all." (If you feel like discussing this, could you respond here instead of my talk page in order to keep the comments together?) --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've only got a few seconds, but here's the basic story: An expert is supposed to know all the relevant facts and circumstances, as well as their relative importance to the situation under consideration. In theory, his/her opinion reflects those facts and circumstances very precisely. Thus the "expert opinion" is not an opinion in the usual sense.

For example, if I say that I (a non-expert) think that a particular piece of music is a well-written fugue, then that's my personal opinion, and it's unimportant. If an expert musicologist gives the same "opinion", it's not just a personal opinion; Wikipedia should generally treat the expert's view as a fact. (I pick fugues for this example because almost the only thing I know about them is that there are actually "right" and "wrong" ways to arrange them.)

You might find it useful to compare Opinion to Expert witness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The following unsigned comment was made by Calamitybrook.--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

--

When Pfizer or Merck or the U.S. government wants to investigate something, all of these WAD studies appear trivial in comparision. Results of these truly large-scale studies are well known to be sometimes unreliable.

To present Boulware as the Gold Standard compared with a few other studies of similarly tiny scale because Boulware obtained ten or twenty percent more data, is certainly open to question.

The NOLS data, with 2.6 million field days, shows negligible infection rate and wildly contradicts the rate among those who reported they treated water to Boulware and other small-scale investigators. Intuition (purely WP:OR) tells me a significant amount of the NOLS people were exposed to potentially contaminated food and water.

Study X data is Y. That's the extent of "facts" determined by any single study. Science only proceeds by collecting more data and "scientific truth" and a "scientific conclusion" are both oxymorons.

An "expert" on the other hand, might reasonably include people who have legitimately established their authority, through research and/or experience, with regard to any given topic. For purposes of Wikipedia generically, this probably (though not invariably) requires publishing.

Somehow, to treat a few or many studies of gargantuan scale (about dunno, lung cancer maybe?) with precisely the same approach as a handful of tiny unfunded studies about this comparatively obscure topic, is, or could be, the wrong approach. Perhaps it's a scientific question.

Hi there! I'm back. Please see my comments on the article's discussion page. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please rethink the message that you recently left for me at WAD? Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this request.

I understand the importance of Boulware's work. However, unless Boulware is actually re-defining wilderness-acquired diarrhea as being solely "diarrhea acquired in a particular way in the wilderness", then it doesn't really matter for the point you seem to be making:

• Yes, Boulware says that drinking contaminated water causes diarrhea (i.e., plain old traveler's diarrhea, minus the illusion that the municipal water agency will disinfect the water for you). I'd have thought this notion was pretty much incontestable.
• However, No: the incontestable fact that contaminated water can make you sick doesn't mean that other causes of diarrhea aren't also happening in the wilderness.

Of course, the primary reason that the surface water (like municipal water) needs to be disinfected is because it's fecally contaminated -- which can certainly happen through people and other animals pooping in or near the water, but which also happens because people wash their dirty hands and dirty bodies and dirty clothes and dirty gear in the water. (At one level, the "hygiene" and "water" hypotheses present a real chicken-and-egg issue.)

Also, whether or not an intervention is cost-effective (one of the issues under consideration) depends on a lot more than just the fact that a disease could appear. We could screen every person in the world for certain rare genetic diseases, but the indiscriminate use of expensive genetic testing would not be an efficient use of resources.

If this doesn't make sense, then please feel free to explain what your specific issue is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this helps:

As I understand it, there are several good and not-so-good studies on the subject of whether water disinfection is necessary, helpful, or wasteful.

Boulware' thinks it's important. Other (slightly older, slightly weaker) sources disagree.

You want to use Boulware to debunk the other studies. That is, since Boulware is one of the more recent and better studies (although still with some limitations), you want to use it to justify a complete elimination of the opposing viewpoint from the article.

I don't think we should completely eliminate opposing views. I would be happy to see the other viewpoints presented as minority positions, but not to have them completely eliminated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's too much here to fix, if it can be fixed. I know this is kind of vague but I'd rather not go into detail. I think it would be best if I take a lower profile in the WAD article. I trust your NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just time to take a break. WP:There is no deadline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

deleting the PA talkpage. let me know your objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomad2u001 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Blanking the talk pages for articles is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. For one thing, having one person unilaterally delete everything is not fair to other editors, who might actually need one of the dozen or so threads there.

I've given up. I've left a message about your inability to do anything right at WP:ANI. Given that you've been warned about this sort of behavior some fourteen times, having your account blocked is probably long overdue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the lack of explanation with the tags - when participating in GAR, I tend to practice a WikiImp philosophy. I thought that people would come to the GAR or to me directly with questions about the tags. Thanks for the primer in HT, it was really helpful. I've posted on the talk page - let's see how that goes. --Malkinann (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure what to make of your recent message. Before we try to clarify your message, I recall that you didn't object to the deletion before when we discussed it. Are you changing your mind? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whew! That's a relief. The point about a conflicting point of view by some people who published articles re water potability already appears in the article, so that's not an issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that at least some of the folks in the literature that seem to say that the water is OK really don't say that when it comes down to it. Near the beginning of the discussion page you might want to read the comment I made about Rockwell in that regard. And most recently the comment about that recent "Blog" that Calamitybrook mentioned. It's kind of laughable, that "blogger's" message seemed to be "the water is pure, the water is pure" and then he says he disinfects. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You might consider that it may be worthwhile to add a message or modify your current message on the WAD talk page so that others don't misinterpret it like I did. Kinda nipping a problem in the bud. Just a suggestion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on "yes nesting", but it won't save typing. I've got them copied, & just cut & paste. ;D TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have revert this page twice within the last 24 hours to your version, in fact, almost 3 times, barely missed per time for a 3RR. Also, User:68.11.139.174 has similarly been reverting. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk)

I have reported him to the 3RR, hopefully in correct format. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 48 hours. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Barcat may be another "problem". If you look at his contribution history, it is exclusively to this article. What's with this article, that their are these devoted vandals? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I might be thinking "sockpuppet". —Mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Barcat's contributions don't strike me as vandalism, and they don't seem to overlap with Nomad2u001's. I've left a question for him on the article's talk page, and we'll see what he says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes a good hearted editor might have sympathy for another editor who is losing arguments. But please be careful about enabling a disruptive editor, because a single persistent disruptive editor with expert skills for disruption can significantly impede the progress of an article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bob, I find this warning totally inappropriate. I have expressed my opinion at Talk:Wilderness acquired diarrhea. It happens in this case that I oppose a short paragraph that you wrote. I primarily oppose it because it inappropriately emphasizes an unimportant distinction between two very similar terms, but it also happens that nobody except you have ever bothered to draw conclusions about which groups of researchers choose this term instead of that term, and that means that you've run afoul of WP:OR. I'm sorry that you don't quite seem to have figured out that policy; I know that it is complex and I am happy to explain what I know about it. Alternatively, you can ask for an impartial review at WP:No original research/noticeboard.

I recommend that you quit looking at this as a zero-sum game in which the most important outcome is to win against Calamity. It's not "us against him." The goal is supposed to be the best, most encyclopedic article we can create, not to have an unbroken record of united stands against Calamity. When Calamity happens to have a good point, all the other editors should concede it promptly and graciously. That Calamity was 'wrong' the previous several times doesn't mean that we should assume that he'll be 'wrong' every single time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re "I find this warning totally inappropriate. I have expressed my opinion at Talk:Wilderness acquired diarrhea. It happens in this case that I oppose a short paragraph that you wrote." - I'll take your word for that.

Re "I recommend that you quit looking at this as a zero-sum game in which the most important outcome is to win against Calamity." - That's not in my mind at all and never has been. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW there's a guideline that you might find useful that helps keep people's egos out of discussions, "follow the truth wherever it may lead". I saw this quote a long time ago at the bottom of a webpage for the consumer advocate organization Public Citizen and I have found it very helpful. By following this advice the important thing is finding the truth, irregardless of whether you are right or wrong to start with. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That'd be "finding the truth regardless," not "irregardless."

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder: talk page messages such as {{MedInvitation}} should be subst: (see User talk:Russthomas1515. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Argh, and I'd even remembered that for once! Apparently it fell out of my brain in between 'edit this page' and 'save page'. Thanks for the note, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please note that I made two responses to your last comment and one response to another editor's comment. I thought I should mention this to you because my responses to you may have gone unnoticed because of the intervening comments of the other editor. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I understand what you are saying. Please understand that when I was invited to join the Task Force, my impression was that Medicellis was in a leadership role and was coordinating what was going on. I actually made that statement in one of my early posts on his Talk page, and no one said anything to disabuse me of that notion. I suppose one of the things that you should probably understand is that where I work, the task force approach is commonly employed, and those task forces always have a leader, whether designated by someone or agreed upon by the group. That is who I thought I was dealing with. From what I could see, the Task Force page wasn't being used much by anyone, and wasn't really being monitored. So essentially, what I thought was that I was keeping the 'team leader' apprised of what I was up to, attempting to generate input from others on the discussion pages for particular articles, and just using the Task Force page to mark any of the projects that I completed from the 'to do' list. Frankly, I have been scratching my head with respect to what to do, since Medicellis appears to be a little too busy at the moment to spend much time here. With all of this now clarified, I will use another approach. I hope this explanation helps. Thanks for your input, and indeed, for all of your guidance up to this point. It has been genuinely helpful, and I will look forward to continuing to work with you. Cheers. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In the end, it's just the "born manager" in me: I can't always resist the temptation to tell someone else how to do their job. But I'd like to emphasize that there's nothing wrong with what you've been doing, and I'm sure that Medicellis has appreciated it. I just wanted to suggest that there's a small chance that a slightly different approach might be slightly more effective. (And I agree with you: the talk page is pretty dead, so it's just a small chance -- but I suspect that it's watched by more people than have actually posted something there.)

WikiProject 'leadership' is typically in a constant state of flux. If we're lucky, a new person will get excited about something about the time that someone else is unable to contribute for a while. Generally, I think we're best off assuming that the more appropriate model is more like a bunch of friends that usually hang out together, except that instead of "Should we go see a movie tonight?" the question is more like "Hey, does anyone want to play with This article today?"

Thanks again for your tireless work. We need you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing

Many thanks for taking an interest in the ADHD related pages. Mediation would be very helpful. The primary issue is about weather or not ADHD is controversial and if there are other views other then the bio-psychiatric one that deserve to be discussed / commented on.

The second issue is one of referencing. If something is say published in the British Journal of Psychiatry can the authors work be discounted just by someone call him anti pysc? The final one is the insults on both side. One of the editors have insulted my University aswell as a number of my friends. They all make numerous subtle insults of me. I have unfortunately responded in kind and also with a fair bit of sarcasm.

I am happy to change my behavior but only if the first two issues are dealt with.

--Doc James (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again many thanks for taking the time and interest in this and trying to get to the bottom of my concerns.Doc James (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have ADHD so if people would like an ADDer opinion I can contribute.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is my response to what WhatamIdoing sent me:

If it the authors having ADHD could we have some sort of ADHD portals that showed famous people speculated to have ADHD or that have ADHD such as michael phelps. One problem I have is these conditions are prevented as undesirable disorders and often linked to deviance when it is really society that could be the problem. If the diagnostic material can be pointed out as being from the medical community and not representing a "worldwide" view of ADHD that may lower conflict. I think the conflcit is common even on ADHD cites and there many disability rights movments as well so those issues might just be reenacting themselves on wikipedia. I may be able to find some information from disability studies to explain the social view as well as the resources people can have to make it in society. Psychiatry initself I think is going through a crisis and does not have the greatest reputation as well, which I think adds to the conlfict.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• added

I have started contributing to the discussion pages on ADHD.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I replied to your question on Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#Navigate to topics lacking own article. --Una Smith (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:African immigrants to the United States, I have nothing to do with this page and until they started moving it I had never edited it. As I told them both I really don't care where the page is and only moved it back because they were destroying the history and/or leaving double redirects. Mind you with only two of them there was no real consensus to move it or not move it anyway. After the last move was pointed out to me I decided to protect whatever version it was in at the time. By the way did you also read through User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Page moving, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#African immigration to the United States, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Technical botch and (my favourite, glad I was sleeping while they discussed that) User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#African immigration to the United States redux. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, please reply to this. Thank you. SamEV (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not read all of CBW's links. I have replied on the article's talk page. It's on my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear WtmIdng, FYI, By rearranging it the way you did (and I understand why you did it), you orphaned a footnote, and it no longer appears as it once did in the notes section, as it is now after it. I am sure this was an unintended consequence, i.e., 'collateral damage.' Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Stan

Thanks for the note. As a result, I've crawled through that messy list, corrected some of the formatting problems, deleted a dead link, removed a duplicate link, and moved the remaining 'footnote' to the same URL system that the other links use.

BTW, if you want to present a separate list of Macomb's own writings, then it's usually put above ==See also== and titled something like ==Publications== or ==Bibliography== (or ==Works==, if it's a visual artist or musician). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ with this edit. Should you look at the peer review page, I believe you will soon find evident that the majority of the material presented has no suitable reference and should be thrown out. If anything it is a "stub" class article and no more. Cheers! Food_Puma 14:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, FoodPuma. Chondromalacia patellae has more than ten sentences, so it's too long to be a stub. It also has structure (section headings) and some valid references, so it's probably too developed to be a Start-class article. Therefore I classified it as C-class. The C-class standards are not actually that high. For example, it's not until it reaches B-class standards that most of it needs to be suitably referenced.

As always, you can ask for reassessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment if you continue to have concerns about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I added some information on the Medical Home page. I edited it and added information on the "Patient Centered" Medical Home. I had links and references as well. I just looked at it today and the whole thing has been deleted because it was not written in "encyclopedia format" I am confused because I wrote it in the same style that the rest of the information on the page is written in, and that has not been deleted. Please let me know what I can do. TaraLouise (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tara. Thanks for contacting me. I'll reply on the article's talk page, which is at Talk:Medical home. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi I had asked for a re-evaluation of the Asherman's page class as a 'start class' was way too low a grading (don't know when it was graded, perhaps before I added substantial content and references to it). I also found your more recent assessment of C-class quite low for what the page is. You said 'feel free to change'- how can I change it to a grade that is more suitable such as a B-class? Thanks Floranerolia (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My assessment was based on a version from a little more than a year ago. The recent assessment was done by someone else. Certainly with the major expansion during the last year, a rating of Start-class was simply absurd, and I'm grateful that someone raised it to C-class rather than leaving it at the obviously incorrect level.

I think this article has a good chance of meeting the revised standard for B-class articles. I don't have time to read through it right now, but you can list it at the re-assessment page, or remind me in a few days if I haven't gotten back to it. If you want to review it yourself, here are a couple of quick rules of thumb:

• In terms of assessing completeness of coverage, it should have most of the stuff listed at WP:MEDMOS#Sections.
• There should be at least one decent reference in every single section, and preferably at least one per paragraph.
• There should be a reference for every direct quotation and every number.

Thanks again for the note about this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that-I'll make sure that it meets the guidelines you described before I upgrade the evaluation or ask someone else to review it. Floranerolia (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you are attaching importance ratings to articles, like here. Can you tell me how these ratings are determined? Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the project's directions. Keep in mind that the ratings are relative to the project's scope, which is focused on diseases and their treatment, and not to the overall encyclopedia or the importance to the whole world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the ratings I saw you add I can entirely agree with. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi - have you got time and energy to work the Infant formula. The current version is just too flaked. Everytime I read it I find more misquoted references and more serious missing info. I would like someone to work with on this - we seem to be creative together if not always in agreement. It would help if we could get access to online journals i think - I don't have this. Any ideas? SmithBlue (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, so I may be able to help out here and there, but I really can't commit to any real help at this time. (I agree that quite a lot needs to be done; the previous "push" helped a lot, but there's much more to be done.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied from the talk page - Part of the problem is that the information on training was poorly organized. I was attempting to follow the format of the original editor and preserve their content, but the material on training was in several locations. It has now been grouped together with appropriate subheadings. The section on Training actually contains a total of six separate references, once it is put together in proper format. I'd like to see more sources as well, but I have made an exhaustive search for English language content, and this is all that is really available. There may be more material available in German that either WinnieMD or Sebastian Scha. may wish to add references for, but I can't read it all that well, and I suspect that it wouldn't be of much help to most English Wikipedia users. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied from talk page - The last two sections now have references. The External links have been removed. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes have been made. Ready for re-evaluation. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I see from the edit history for Disease that you recently added the section on terminology, so I think your input would be very helpful in the CFD that is under way regarding my proposal to merge Category:Diseases into Category:Diseases and disorders. I hope you'll join the discussion! Cgingold (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made a report about your edit warring with me, and the "spam" claims. You implied I spammed the board with the link, when actually my posts were only discussion & I hadnt added cidpusa to the article,& my posts were due to my hitting the SAVE button instead of PREVIEW when I was EDITING my remarks. If you had actually checked the history, you would have seen that my multiple edits were just that. Minor editing that was saved.

You behaved childishly by having me marked as a spammer, and you couldnt even put anything in my talk page about this entire matter, choosing instead to create a war within the page. You may want to check the history next time and make sure you aren't making a hasty judgement about someone. Brattysoul (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your 'edit warring' complaint was promptly rejected as wholly unfounded, since there was no edit warring. Every link you provided is just proof that a proper discussion happened on the talk page and that every single editor on the talk page except yourself thinks that a link to www.cidpusa.org is a clear violation of Wikipedia's rules for external links. I've added further information to the relevant ANI thread.

You do not seem to be figuring out Wikipedia's rules very easily on your own. It is a complex situation. If you'd like to be a good editor, please consider signing up for Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User or WP:Mentorship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice to ask before doing. Perhaps I could have suggested a better spot for a break or a better word. Education is not the word I would have picked and I would have picked a different break spot. But, if you want to be in charge, take control.

You may want to check out the rfc. Are you advocating for Jhm, if so you may want to check it out. I've made Jhm a good offer but I don't think he understands what I have offered him. I have no problems letting the rfc close because of inactivity.--scuro (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We are having a discussion about inline tags on the ADHD page and wondering if you would be interested in commenting. Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Inline_tags --Doc James (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really appear to be much of a discussion yet. It sounds like Scuro refuses to participate in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am still hoping that he is willing to come to the table and discuss things. There seems to be two issues. One over inline tags and the other about references. We are sort of discussing the references thing already which I guess is a step forwards. Appreciate your ongoing comments.--Doc James (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated. --scuro (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to retract my statement that "Every editor at WP:MEDRS is both intelligent and experienced"? Note that I had intended that compliment to encompass you, but I am always willing to reconsider my opinions on the basis of further information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The inference is clear, on my talk page and now on yours. Spin it any way you want.--scuro (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice.--Doc James (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick hello. I took the liberty of reading the discussion page for Physician assistant (trying to continue to figure things out and learn). I have always been grateful for your unwavering and consistent help and support for a newcomer, and I think that it is starting to make a difference. Having read this however, I have a whole new respect for you as an editor. I'm still trying to figure out how you manage to maintain your calm and professionalism, and continue to try to be helpful, when some of those (I'm struggling for a name that aptly describes the creators of some of what I just read WITHOUT violating the civility policy!!!) should have you pulling out your hair by the roots and running screaming into the night! What it all boils down to is that it is amazing what volunteers will suffer in the name of a worthwhile project. I just thought that perhaps it was time that someone occasionally took note, and told you that it was appreciated. I also appreciate the hours of work you've put in in support of the Emergency Medicine and EMS task force, especially when I learn that you actively monitor more than 900 articles and I feel challenged to keep track of 27. I suppose that what you were telling me about leadership is also true in large measure. Somehow or other, I seem to have become the dominant force (for lack of a better description!)in this task force. I'm still not quite sure how that happened, although given that I will be retiring (and presumably more available) in about a month's time, that situation could go on for awhile (at least until my dear wife starts saying "Are you going on that DARNED COMPUTER AGAIN???"). I'll look forward to continuing to work with you and to learning from you. Cheers! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. I'm glad to hear that my frustration with certain situations isn't always obvious!

One difference between our work is that I do a lot of monitoring and relatively little writing. It's easy to keep track of several hundred articles if your primary goal is to prevent patent nonsense and obvious vandalism from taking over; actually writing the same number of articles would be dramatically more work.

Are you looking forward to retirement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The comments were my pleasure, and no, your frustration is not always obvious, although it would be clearly understandable. In some respects I am looking forward to retirement. Thirty-five years in one organization is more than enough...even at a senior level. I am ready for new challenges, and so, armed with a freshly-minted Ph.D. in Emergency Management and 35 years of EMS experience, I have established a private consulting practice, aimed at hospitals. It's going really well so far, and I think that between that and my teaching duties at one of the local universities, I will be as busy as I want to be. If not, I've got a contract with my publisher for another two textbooks in addition to the one that's already in print. And purely for fun, because you NEED to have that...a good deal of travel. I'm leaving mid-March to do a trans-Atlantic crossing for a couple of weeks, and then will spend a couple of weeks knocking around Europe (Milan, Geneva, Paris, London). My retirement celebration present to myself! And if negotiations work out, I will be in Abu Dhabi and Dubai for a month this fall, doing some consulting work with their health care system. I have to admit though, working on Wikipedia is not one of the things that I would have thought that I'd do, but it is turning into a very enjoyable hobby! Cheers.Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note in case you don't get to the Emergency Medicine and EMS page for the next couple of days (which would be perfectly understandable), I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for all the help and support you've provided over the past few months. Working with you has been an absolute pleasure. From my family to yours, all the best for the holiday season; have a wonderful and safe time! And whatever it is that you and yours believe in; whoever it is that you talk to in that small voice in the middle of the night, pray for peace! I'll look forward to continuing to work with you in 2009. Regards, Emrgmgmtca (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you running a pool on when Bob and Calamitybrook get hitched??? I've always figured that where there is THAT much conflict...lol Emrgmgmtca (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That article has been quiet for a while now, but I can't decide whether it's the "ominous" kind of quiet. Bob was offwiki for about two weeks recently, which doubtless contributed to the silence.

I ended up on that page because of a content RfC. Overall, I think that conflict is a pretty typical example of negative editor interaction: two editors draw a line in the sand and then hope that all other editors will support "my side" instead of improving the article. (And what a lot of problems that article had -- and still has, although it is much improved.) Each editor seemed very pleased with my participation when I happened to agree with him, and irritated when I happened not to agree with him.

That's one of the things that I like about your articles: no messy disputes! WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked WinnieMD to take on the task of finding additional references for Paramedics in Germany. They will be in German (no further English language references available) and I'm not sure how useful they will be to English speaking Wikipedians, but if that's what it takes...smiles. Paramedics in Australia has had an additional six references placed under ==Clinical scope of practice==, so there is now at least one reference for each section. Ready for re-eval. Can we consider just changing Medical director to EMS Medical Director? Otherwise it is going to end up being taken in a direction that was never intended. We weren't looking for an article on generic Medical Directors, but one on the role of Medical Directors in EMS systems. I'm not sure how to change the title. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the Task Force Talk page and see WinnieMD's response? I'm not really sure what to do or say.Emrgmgmtca (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You have helped out on the page Homosexual transsexual and are familliar with it's issues. So you might be concerned with Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:BBL_sidebar. Happy Holidays.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi WAID,

If you've the time, I'm putting together a evidence for an AN posting on GDB; based on comments from several contributors and JIMBO HIMSELF (BUM-BUM-BUMMMMMMMMM!!!!!) I am urged to hurry; as a result, I don't have time to do the analysis I'd like to on User_talk:WLU/RFC#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome. May of this year, Guido was working on the page. I don't have time to see if a similar, unsupported POV-push against consensus was happening there that happened on the CFS/ME pages, but you were working on the page at the time. Is there any chance you've got the time to put together an analysis for me? Post it in the section or the bottom of the RFC if you'd like (again, if you have the time). I'll also be e-mailing Gordonofcartoon and leaving a note on his talk page 'cause he'll also have the experience.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I added some information. Please feel free to add, delete, edit, rearrange -- anything you'd like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The article on fatigue you wrote and for which you now hold the medicine trophy is not categorized in the medicine project. It would be great if you did it. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all certain about that. The major point behind creating Fatigue (safety) was to have a home for non-medical information that was being inappropriately dumped in Fatigue (medical). Normal physiology (e.g., sleep-deprived people might fall asleep while driving) isn't really within the "diseases and their treatments" scope of WPMED. I've added several transport-related banners instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to have you involved in developing Wikipedia's articles on giftedness. We could use the attention of an expert: this group of articles is in poor shape. But if your only goal is to promote your website, then that won't work for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the long reply XD

concerning this message, we would be very happy to help, unfortunately, we need to do a total overhaul of our site, which includes building a wiki, so wikipedia would not be our first priority- when we get some good substance, however, we would be able to replicate large portions of it, and clean up all of your articles- I can assign a tea to it.

Also, when we are finished, our site will be the kind you can put on wikipedia, but that is not our primary objective, promise.

Gifted Haven Enterprises (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a preference on what we say about "Bibliography", except that if we're going to say one thing at WP:CITE (that "Bibliography" is the word some people use for the full references, as opposed to "References" for the short citations), and a different thing at WP:Layout (that "Bibliography" means a list of books written by the subject), then on one page or the other, I'd prefer we mention that the use of the word can be confusing, because some people use it for something else. (I'm watchlisting for a few days here.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I dislike having our guidelines disagree with each other. I also dislike having them disagree with actual on-the-ground practice. WT:LAYOUT has a couple (two or three) editors that seem determined to impose their personal favorites. Honestly, if you'd asked me before I ever edited an article at Wikipedia, ==References== wouldn't have even been on my list of possible section names for either short or full citations. But it's far and away the #1 choice on Wikipedia, and my goal is to document the practice as it actually happens -- not the way that my high school English lit teacher recommended. I wish that I could honestly say as much for all the other editors in these perennial discussions. Some of them seem convinced that their favorite approach is the One True™ Way.

My currently belief about "Bibliography" is that we should dump it entirely. We get such varied beliefs about what belongs in a section with that heading that it might be best to use clearly non-ambiguous headings in every instance. I may be less tired and frustrated tomorrow... WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that was a good idea, but I'm wondering if we can get people to go along with us. If we can't get people to go along, then adding something like "Some people use the word Bibliography for this, but this may be confused with the other common meaning of the word" on one or even both pages would be okay with me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

One other tangential issue: I'd like to see the guideline more directly deprecate using two systems in the same article. There are some articles that use inline <ref>s for some things, and general refs for other things, and end up with a mess. If you need ==Footnotes== for <ref group=footnotes>Smith 2002, pg. 234</ref>, and ==References== for <ref>Smith, J. 2002. "My favorite things. Everypublisher</ref> as well as <ref>www.favoriteonline.com</ref>, then what do you do with a general reference? Use {{refbegin}} to add it (with a bullet point instead of a number) under {{reflist}}? This sort of problem is one reason that some articles end up with five separate sections between See also and External links: Notes (explanatory text), Footnotes (short citations), References (full citations for cited references), Bibliography (full citations for general references), and Further reading (for things not used in the article). There's got to be a better way to handle this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning my edit, I was reverting some vandalism from December 3. That vandalism edit had been reverted in pieces—but not entirely—by different people at different times over the following weeks, so I finished reverting what was left of the vandalism. But if it turns out the vandal was right to remove that one part, that's fine too. So I guess everything's fine. Not sure why I'm writing this, actually. -kotra (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear from you anyway. Thanks for taking the 'comprehensive' view on vandalism: especially when the vandal makes multiple edits, it's very easy to revert one piece and miss something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your vote is requested here. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have formulated a version of the BBL template that perhaps Jokestress will find more to her liking. It frames the issue in a clearer and more neutral way. Take a look. Template talk:BBL sidebar/(Template)Autogynephilia theory (Tounge in Cheek)  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of funny, but I expect it to be speedied as soon as it's discovered by the anti-sexologist crowd. (If not, you might put it up for db-author in a couple of days.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was. I wonder if Jokestress got to see it? I'll bet she would have found it funny.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This was originally raised in October 2008. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.

This link is to the new request for comment on the reliable sources notice board. (You may have to scroll down to see it)

Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)

Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey WhatamIdoing, I just wanted to mention this edit a bit; before I say anything else, I should say, I do agree with your edit and that that EL wasn't really necessary or helpful in the Psycholinguistics article, so I'm not trying to challenge you in any way. But just for future reference, the Linguist List (the EL you removed) is generally considered^{[original research?]} the foremost linguistics resource online and is pretty widely used by researchers; it did begin as a listserv, but now it's a pretty major central resource for the field—I don't think it quite fits under ELNO #10, and is probably appropriate for inclusion in at least the Linguistics article (although, again, it's not really necessary in the article you removed it from, so I don't have any problem with that). At least, that's my gut feeling about it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I also think that it's difficult to classify that website; ELNO #10 was just the closest that I could come up with. I don't think that article's on my watchlist, so if someone decides to revert it, I'll probably never know. Also, I didn't actually look at any of the others, so perhaps a general review is in order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really look at the other major articles either, other than Neurolinguistics...but I just took a quick glance now and it looks like most of them don't have it in the ELs (other than the main article, Linguistics), so it looks like you made the right decision in removing it! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

instead of your fix "According to Dreger in an article in The New York Times," why not just "Accorind to Dreger"? She didn't write in the New York Times, and the source reporting her comment is cited. This is misleading and confusing as is. Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to that; my only concern was having the correct name of the newspaper if it were included. Presumably whoever added the sentence thought it was relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to edit that article, so I'd appreciate it if you'd take care of it. I can see why whoever added it wanted to have prop up Dreger with the NYT, but it's simply inappropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence in that paragraph refers to Dreger's Arch Sex Behav paper. The second (with the NYT tag) is not in that paper. Do you think there's any possibility of the reader being confused (that is, thinking that the NYT blurb is in the journal paper)? If so, then perhaps the "history" and the NYT stuff should be in separate paragraphs, or otherwise make the distinction more clear. (Or perhaps we should wait to see what happens with Hfarmer's latest RSN complaint.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I wasn't aware of what they were quoting, but now I see; the Bailey article says "In an interview for the New York Times,..." which would be OK, since it makes it more clear that she's being quoted, not writing the article as the current wording sort of sounds like. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the simple reword; that certainly helps. Can I assume you don't want to also help make it more balanced? Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict. In an effort to make the fewest possible number of changes on that contentious article, I simply subbed "interview" for "article". I'm not sure what "balanced" means to you. I'll leave another note after dinner; that might help explain my thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Balance as in the alternative to the Dreger view presented there, as I suggested in the "RSN thing" paragraph. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the RSN thing, this is a good example of a place where Dreger's opinion could be contrasted with an alternative, for example from Moser's commentary: "The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be. The origins of transsexuality are still not known and the concept of Autogynephilia is still controversial." That's at least as reliable as the thing that it is reaction to. Dicklyon (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how long it's been since you read the Dreger piece in toto? (It's been months and months in my case, and I only read it once.) If memory serves, Dreger doesn't actually claim that the origins of transsexuality are known, or that Blanchard's idea is the One True Idea™ (I dislike having this notion referred to as a theory). I remember reading remarkably little of Dreger's own opinion about transsexuality in the piece: it's mostly who-said-what-when and a summary of other people's viewpoints. Therefore your typical characterization of it as "Dreger's opinion" seems inaccurate to me.

I'm not sure I've read it in toto, but I've read enough of it to know that it's not about transsexuality hardly at all. It's about her opinions of who did wrong to whom, mostly. She defends Bailey and his concept of "Academic McCarthyism", here, in the NYT interview, in the radio show she did with Bailey, etc. For balance, someone saying her view of academic freedom is a bit off would make sense. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the focus on verifiable actions is why some activists dislike Dreger's article so strongly: it largely presents facts, such as the undisputed fact that the reaction to the book included your friend Conway trying to get Bailey in legal trouble for writing (free) letters in support of sex reassignment surgeries for TS people. I believe that the typical TS person would probably say that writing these letters for free (the critical fact, as far as most states' laws are concerned) was an act of kindness to those TS people that are not as wealthy as Conway. You and I might say that surely this (automatically dismissed) complaint wouldn't have been filed if Conway had paid more attention to legal advice and less attention to the potential for grabbing headlines and/or the hope of putting Bailey in jail for up to six months (the first offense for practicing psychology without a license is a class B misdemeanor). Unless we are willing to assume that the goal was to suppress Blanchard's ideas by destroying the reputation of the current standard-bearer for those ideas -- that is, unless we are willing to assume that filing this criminal complaint was primarily a publicity stunt -- then I can't think of any reason to have wasted the time to file a complaint that you know will be automatically dismissed.

As I understand it, the facts are generally not disputed. Many people behaved in ways that I think they ought to be ashamed of, and which they probably would be ashamed of, if they dropped their Machaivellian/consequentialist justifications. For example, you and I will doubtless agree that decent people do not humiliate the children of a scientist just because they think the scientist's latest idea is idiotic/immoral/outrageous/whatever.

Additionally, while free speech is not yet dead, the prospect of having your family attacked certainly does create a hostile and chilling environment for free speech. In fact, that's the often specific and explicit goal: to discourage researchers from doing or saying whatever the attackers dislike by attacking them at any vulnerable point. I believe that we're both in the Silly Valley orbit, so compare, for example, the animal rights activists that have been attacking UC-Santa Cruz researchers this year: The 'thinking' seems to be that if you attack/humiliate/harass family members, then perhaps the researcher will stop research/announce a retraction/kowtow to the attackers. Consider this statement from an anti-vivisection mouthpiece: "If their father is willing to continue risking his livelihood in order to continue chopping up animals in a laboratory than his children are old enough to recognise the consequences," said Vlasak, a former animal researcher..."

I can't believe that harassment directed against Bailey's family was intended to have a materially different outcome. Can you? Can anyone honestly believe that intimidating animal researchers (or abortion providers, or any other modern pariah) by, say, publishing their home addresses and the names of their family members is materially different from doing exactly the same thing to a sex researcher's family because the sexologist wrote something you dislike?

You often seem to think that I'm on Bailey's side. I still have some small hope of eventually convincing you that I have a somewhat different position, which is neither "pro" nor "anti" Blanchard's idea.

I'm on the side of not blaming, attacking, or humiliating children for their parent's views -- or ex-wives for their ex-spouses' views, or co-workers for their colleague's views, or any other innocent bystander, for that matter. Punishing children and other innocent bystanders has been decried for at least twenty-six centuries.

I'm also on the side that lets ivory-tower academics spout off whatever they're currently thinking, without anyone much caring one way or the other. They're wrong much of the time anyway, and this idea may well be an early iteration in a very long process before we actually understand transsexuality. If the activists had simply ignored Bailey's book, then Dreger would have never written her "history" of the scandal, and there wouldn't be any articles in The New York Times for us to talk about.

And that, BTW, is what I think Moser's main point was. I think your choice of quotations from Moser's letter was rather selective -- a hopeful ending to a letter that acknowledges the reality of the nasty environment. That line rather contrasts with the rest of his letter, for example:

"I have also been on the receiving end of a withering and unfounded personal attack for my professional writing..."

and

"I do not believe that Bailey, Dreger, or any researcher should be the recipient of the treatment outlined in the article for presenting his or her beliefs, research, opinions, ideas, etc. Although I strongly disagree with Bailey's conclusions about transsexuality [Note: Moser also rejects the activist-approved 'feminine essence' idea] and many of his other professional beliefs, he has the absolute right to present them and not suffer the attacks he has. I do not know Conway, James, or McCloskey, except by reputation. None of my following remarks should be construed as supportive of them, their accusations against Bailey, or their tactics." (emphasis in the original)

I'm not entirely convinced that this section really requires an expansion (nor do I object to expanding it), but if we are going to expand the section on the chilling effects against free speech that this represents (something that I think should wait on the resolution of Hfarmer's RSN notice), then I think we should be careful not to misrepresent overall comments by pulling a quotation out of context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, but then how does one get balance against the Dreger opinions? Seems to me that you're too committed to her viewpoint of how chilling the reactions to Bailey were. I agree that what Andrea James did sounds pretty bad, but to take that alone, out of context, prevents seeing the totality of what was going on, I think. I do think you're on either Bailey's side or his defenders' side, but not likely because of any underlying belief about transsexuality, but for some reason, probably due to your reactions to the animal rights nuts, you resonate with their viewpoint. That's OK, but I think the other side is being shortchanged in the coverage, especially with James Cantor leading the campaign to rehabilitate the image of the sexologists. It's a bad situation for wikipedia, I think. Anyway, thanks again for the small improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you identify the "opinions" that are you trying to balance? Dreger's opinion that Andrea James's treatment of Bailey's family was morally indefensible? I think you'll find that opinion shared by nearly every person on the planet. Her "opinion" that (automatically dismissed) criminal complaints were filed against Bailey by several activists? Nobody denies that. Her "opinion" that "Cher" was very unhappy with Bailey's classification of her as an autogynephiliac transsexual instead of as a "homosexual" transsexual? Nobody disputes that. Her opinion that Andrea James once subscribed to Blanchard's taxonomy? It seems pretty well documented. Her opinion, perhaps, that Bailey's book is not a major literary achievement and would have benefited from a good editor? That's presumably an opinion in the usual sense, but I believe that view is also widely shared.

I'm also not sure what the "other side" is in terms of the backlash. Is there really a side that says sexology benefits from having researchers' children publicly humiliated? Is there a side that says withering personal attacks improve the free exchange of knowledge and ideas? Is there a side that says being threatened with up to six months' jail time -- for writing a letter, mind, in a country that has the strongest free speech traditions in the world -- benefits anyone?

Perhaps we should both find the time to actually read every word in the paper, one after another, before we continue. Having the details fresh in mind might be helpful. I would be happy to see a list of what you think needs balancing; I'm willing to support balance against anything that is (1) actually an opinion and (2) not widely shared. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen a lot of dissention on the children thing, though Dreger may have blown it up to more than what it was; understanding AJ's point of view on it might still be useful, but this is probably not an adequate source to say anything. There are lots of other points on which there's another side, and that's what most of the commentaries are about. I've read a lot of that material, but not every word. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we both read Dreger's paper and make a list of things that might represent Dreger's POV instead of being widely accepted? I might be able to make time for it tonight, if the rest of my day stays on schedule. Can you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a giant waste of time. Why don't we just keep an eye out for things supported by Dreger, and see if there's another side to the story that ought to be mentioned for balance? Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, probably because I like to know what the sources actually say instead of what people think they say or want to pretend that they say. And because the fact that adding <ref name=Dreger> behind a statement doesn't mean that the statement represents Dreger's own view any more than putting <ref name=Carey> after Dreger's statement means that the quotation represents the reporter's own view. And because I don't think that Dreger's extensively reviewed history should be singled out for closer scrutiny than, say, Roughgarden's opinion piece in the Times Higher Education or McCloskey's book review in Reason. And because accuracy is more important to me than having "the right side" win. And because reflexively attacking the "other side" for what they might have said without actually bothering to find out what they actually have said generally leads to stupid mistakes.

But, you know, if you think you're too busy to read it -- I admit that it is 52 pages, which is longer than I remember -- then I accept your decision to work from hearsay about the source instead of from actual knowledge of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a PDF of the Dreger source and all the commentaries, which I consult as needed (James Cantor sent it to me, which was when he inadvertently revealed his true name when he was pretended to not have a conflict, as User:MarionTheLibrarian). Would you like me to email you a copy? Also, I've read quite a bit on the Conway and James web sites, so I have a bit of a feeling for their points of view as well. Have you? Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to have a copy. I've read much of the Conway "investigation", which I value for its original sources (although I find the tone tends to be a bit pompous and a few of the complaints seem trivial, bordering on petty), and parts of the James websites. Much of what James has written is unrelated, of course. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, could you take a look at this discussion: User talk:Loki0115#Re: Paleolithic diet. Thanks. --Thermoproteus (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I would let you know that I've corrected the code for the above article. The reason I'm letting you know is that I note that you asked for it to say Y91. The Y91 category is a supplementary category to indicate degree of intoxication and is rarely used in the jurisdictions that I have links to. The base categories for acute intoxication are the block F10-F19. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I added a few words "though some adherents choose to follow a raw version of the diet" to a particular sentence "Unlike raw food diets, the Paleolithic diet does not limit the consumption of cooked foods", on the Paleolithic Diet page. I was challenged on this by thermoproteus as he said it wasn't notable. I pointed to various references including an independent on sunday article mentioning "raw meat diets"(" raw meat diet" is one of several alternate terms used by rawpaleodieters to describe their diet), but he seems to be of the opinion that if the article in question doesn't contain a specific reference to the term "raw paleolithic diet" that my add-on isn't notable enough. I find this a too strict interpretation of wikipedian rules, especially since any cursory look at websites/forums shows that such rawpalaeos DO exist, I'm not making any other claims re health on that page, and it seems to me that if several celebrities , such as mentioned in that Independent on Sunday article, are following raw versions of the Paleolithic Diet, that it is indeed notable to mention that "some people" practice such a diet. Plus, I also pointed out that no newspaper journalist is going to discuss the different terminology used by rawpaleodieters to discuss their particular diet as the journalist is writing for a non-rawist readership and is therefore going to use the term most easily understood by non-rawists(ie "raw meat diets" rather than one they're less familiar with(ie "rawpaleodiet". Anyway, I'm curious as to what your view is on this, in the context of wikipedian laws and the spirit of wikipedia. Thanks.Loki0115 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The relevant discussion was on my talk page.Loki0115 (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm short on time and behind on my watchlist, but your talk page is on my watchlist, and I'll reply when I get caught up. I assume that it could wait a few hours, or even a day if necessary? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the major points behind WikiProjects is to save you the trouble of notifying all the potentially interested people. Like just about every other editor with an interest in medicine-related articles, WP:MED is on my watchlist. I saw the announcement there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that...I won't let it happen again. kilbad (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been involved in the morass that is the pages related to Blanchard, Bailey etc. I thank you for all your help there. You are a fair minded person. Could you help me to talk to DickLyon and resolve the dispute that exist between us. I am no angel. However Dick has pushed me as far as I can go for someone who has plenty of complaints but does not want to do anything about them. I have been personally attacked much worse by use Jokestress but she is a really dedicated editor who really did not let her POV on this matter so color her editing.... Her edits were alwyas logical and not just to smear the people she does not like or agree with. She did much good work. Dick not. Could you help me reason with him and get him to state once and for all just what are his goals in relation to those articles?--Hfarmer (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you actually want. Do you have a specific conversation with him in mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have given up on that prospect already. He wrote some patent nonsense on the Lyn Conway talk page. That the investigation was not about Bailey and that Connway did not accuse Bailey of having sex with a research subject (JSM). At that point I reported him for a conflict of interest.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon's edits are often tendacious. Not only does he engage in the behaviours Hfarmer describes, he has been blocked three times for edit warring on this and other topics, and he is currently under a topic ban for still more problematic behaviour. I believe his topic ban should be expanded to include the BBL and related pages.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What have I done to piss you off lately? Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

James Cantor, I'm aware that Dick is not winning friends and influencing people. However, I'm inferring from the last sentence that Hfarmer has started a discussion on one of these pages about "his goals in relation to those articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My goal in general is to move articles towards higher quality through better sourcing, and better balance and neutrality in the process. If it doesn't feel like that on "this set of articles", please review my edits on any of the other controversial ones I've been involved in, and see if you think that my intentions are anything but in favor of wikipedia quality. Let me know if you need help finding places to look. Every now and then, when the topics get contentious, it becomes a bit of a fight and somebody gets pissed. Maybe I'm too abrasive. It usually ends up OK, though it's not going so well on the Eric Lerner article where I have a temporary topic ban, nor so well on the sexologists spewing BLP and such. Anyway, with over 3000 articles on my watch list, I do find some strange situations from time to time. But please so WP:AGF and you'll understand me better than if you don't. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your goal on BBL related pages seems to be to throw as much mud on BBL theory and the people who promulgated it, while making your friends sound like saints.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick, does it have to be "lately"? Is James Cantor required to have a short memory, for your greater convenience?

You've had several people lately comment on your abrasiveness. Perhaps you'd find your real concerns taken more seriously if you worked on reducing the reasons that other editors are perceiving you as a jerk instead of as a good editor whose concerns should be addressed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. Thank you. Hfarmer (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I undid your change. Let's discuss it here. rootology (C)(T) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought your edit here was very reasonable and I'm sorry it got reverted. I think there needs to be a clear policy or guideline regarding the use and misuse of tags. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Perhaps we'll discus it on the talk page. I think there may be a somewhat better way of saying it, myself. My overall goal is not having the tag-related disruption limited solely to inappropriate use of {{fact}}-type templates, which is what I think WP:DE currently does now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking that a Tag abuse Noticeboard might be a good idea. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the problem is big enough (or sufficiently isolated from other issues, like edit warring and POV pushing) to justify the overhead involved in a separate noticeboard. In terms of using tags incorrectly, often it's done innocently enough, and the occasional tour of categories like this one can often correct those problems (including problems that are created by under-informed editors instead of just the disruptive ones). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing, I have reverted your changes to the reference style at Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson because it was not discussed, but also becuase it wasn't carried out fully. If you are going to change to an extended style, every citation needs to have the extended style. Personally, the WP:CITESHORT style is much easier to read and interpret, especially when an article has so many citations. Either way, large scale changes to citation styles need to generally be discussed before changes. I have opened up a discussion at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson#Reference style. Thanks and regards, Woody (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't understand your comment re my post Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Protandim_needs_review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
You wrote: "It would be enormously helpful if you used the existing two-and-a-half refs to create inline refs."
I am not a member of WikiProject Medicine. I haven't worked on the article Protandim. Neither have I any interest in doing so, nor competence to assess these matters.
I simply noticed that questions had been raised about this article and wanted to bring this to the attention of competent people at WikiProject Medicine.
I don't think that I really have the responsibility (nor knowledge of the subject matter) to "use the existing two-and-a-half refs to create inline refs."
Thanks for your time. Have a good one. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have replied at WT:MED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Speaking as a medical layperson, {{prod}} looks appropriate to me. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Feminine essence theory of transsexuality
— James Cantor (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I sure hope you don't mean to imply that WhatamIdoing is in on your nonsense! Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Dicklyon didn't like your idea as much as I did. His proposals for deletion are here.
— James Cantor (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick's AfD nomination and associated notes are... intemperate. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminine essence theory of transsexuality basically says that the article should be deleted because he doesn't like you, not because of any actual failure of notability. He's an experienced enough editor that he should know that AfD requires an allegation of failing WP:N, not merely bias in favor of the views presented in scientific journal articles about the "woman trapped in a man's body" idea -- a widely discussed idea that is strongly supported by trans activists.

The AfD is a waste of time and will fail, but you should probably read WP:N, if you haven't recently, and post your thoughts on how well you believe the subject (not the article as currently written) does, or doesn't, comply with the notability guideline.

I hope that Dick is able to calm down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, intemperate. I do not intend to "calm down" while you two pull this crap on wikipedia. WP:N is not the issue here, or I would have mentioned it in the AfD. But Cantor's WP:COI looms large, and the things like WP:NPOV and WP:V that he has in the past claimed to respect have been thrown out by both of you to have your "fun" as you called it on his talk page. He was right that he's going to need at least a fire-retardent suit. Dicklyon (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not care about your controversies, I care that another editor raised a COI concern that trivialy panned out (it took 30 seconds to verify the COI via google). I am not part of your war.

You have a clear misunderstanding of what COI is - it has nothing to do with an interest on a topic, it has to do with a professional or familial relationship with the topic of a given article - In fact, no COI can be inferred by general editing of topics related to sexology by a sexologist, but COI can be inferred on an specific article dealing with research by a particular sexologist - as is the case here. The difference should be clear to you, and ad absurdum strawmanning makes me *yawn*. James Cantor has a COI. Period. That he so far has made no policy violations is irrelevant to that fact.

You have a point on not templating, but I think that in the context of an AfD, it is important to make the community aware of the cast of characters - of which I just became aware: I investigated a claim, and the claim panned out, trivialy. No tinfoil hat needed (unlike, of course, your tinfoiled conspiranoia that I have a vested POV on this matter)

Do in the future refrain from implying anything from my inactions and concentrate solely on my actions - It will save you time and make your writting more direct. Banal platitudes I can live without. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Never assume that AfDs are to be only had amongst editors familiar with a topic. In fact most controversial AfDs will not be closed as other than "no consensus" unless there is wider community participation. I didn't assume anything, I wanted to make sure the wider community was aware that I had seen the COI as valid. --Cerejota (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If your concern was the AfD, then noting the information on the AfD page would have made a lot more sense, since very few AfD editors are going to drop by the talk pages of all concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted a COI/N notice regarding user:Jokestress, user:Dicklyon, and me here. I am notifying editors who contribute regularly to the related set of trans pages.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting that you join in any upcoming dispute resolution involving topics where we have both edited. You have raised concerns that my edits constitute a conflict of interest, and I believe you have demonstrated enough animosity toward me and others in this dispute to constitute your own conflict of interest. Please respond here or on my talk page if you are willing to join in any dispute resolution. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Aargh! I'd forgotten about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to join in any dispute resolution? Jokestress (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you have an opinion regarding using mediation versus ArbCom?
— James Cantor (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that my answers to these questions have been overtaken by events. It's the end of the day here, and I'm about to collapse. I'm hoping to manage to get through my usual watchlist/vandal check before my eyes close of their own accord. I will attempt to post something coherent later tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I was away for a while, but got interested in the Raw foodism page again, recently. It's heavily skewed toward the raw meat eaters, which must be a tiny minority of the raw foodies. There is some OR going on as far as Potential toxins in cooked food, IMO. Can you take a look? --—CynRN ^(Talk) 21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cyn, I just wanted to say thanks for your ongoing efforts there. I think that I need to actually read the page instead of just daily diffs for months and months. I suspect that it needs some basic work of the sort that I complain about here (this month, and feel free to improve the page if you think of anything).

I don't have enough time and energy to do everything right now, and I'll probably have less if the ArbComm case is accepted, but it's on my mind.

Also, if you're not familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing, then perhaps that page would want to join your watchlist. Cheers, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to know you're keeping an eye on the article. I know, there is probably major work to be done there.:( I'll check into the WikiProject Nursing, thanks!--—CynRN ^(Talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit summary seems a bit harsh on the talk page for a WikiProject with the goal of actively assisting those editors who possess disabilities or other characteristics which inhibit their ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. It may not be very easy at all to read, but I wouldn't call it unintelligible nonsense. This (unless I'm missing something and there's a reason I shouldn't assume good faith) is a user complaining about running into that very reaction when they try to communicate on talk pages.

I'm trying to work with the IP to help make it easier for everyone to read. I suppose I should have noted that on the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I chose that edit summary because the words are featured in Wikipedia's policies, not to make a judgmental statement, although I do wonder about the judgment of this particular anon, since he expects all of Wikipedia's volunteers to go out of their way to accommodate his personal issues (which encompass rather more than a his claimed disability, e.g., his distinctly non-orthodox orthography).

Onorem, I'd like to suggest that you set aside your sympathy for a minute and consider dispassionately whether the anon is playing games with you. I'm sure that's an unpleasant thought, but people hide behind anonymity and pretend things all the time on the web. Consider:

• A person with RSI would not switch rapidly between ALL CAPS and lower case: it would be one or the other to minimize motion. And the space bar, which this anon eschews entirely, is most often the only key that causes no pain whatsoever, since it's so big and therefore easiest to strike (you can even type a space using a whole-arm motion to eliminate all wrist and finger movement).
• People with RSI figure out how to state their cases concisely, not to ramble along for hundreds of potentially painful words. Will anyone believe that this long and repeatedly extended ramble was easier to type than "it hurts to type how can i help wp anyway" (assuming, of course, that this is the anon's actual question)?
• Note also that the anon says that he is using phonetic spelling to reduce typing -- and also that he spells "of" as "ev" (and many other examples), which saves him no keystrokes. This indicates that his biggest problem with intelligibility is an issue of personal preference, not a disability-driven problem.
• The bit about Wikipedia not allowing voice input is specious: Wikipedia does allow voice input if you have the proper software on your end, such as Dragon NaturallySpeaking. Editing Wikipedia is just like editing the contents of any other form in a web browser, and you can also copy the entire contents to a word processor doc to make changes there if you prefer.

I think that there are significant reasons to believe that the anon is entertaining himself by pretending to be a person with disabilities. This smells to me of a test to see how sympathetic the more gullible Wikipedians are to someone that asserts a disruptive disability. Personally, I would not be surprised to see this incident written up in a blog posting about how Wikipedia's volunteers treat people with disabilities before long. You might think about it for a minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In case you were curious about the writer's reference to being in a small country, he's in Taiwan.

I don't suppose you're aware of some of the English-to-phonetic spelling conversion programs? Here's a link to one. This anon's work appears to be a combination of L33t speak and phonetics, minus all the spaces. It wouldn't be hard to code a program to do this, but I suspect that he's doing it by hand. That doesn't, however, create an obligation on the part of any other person to decode his personal spelling preferences. "I prefer to misspell my words because I think standard English is wretched" is not a disability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

... at WT:POLAND.--Kotniski (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I may have persistence but only over the short term. I just don't have the time to spend hours on WP every day and that talk page fills with waffle so quickly that suggestions get lost and archived. I don't know how we ended up with the awful text we have now and despair that people would rather debate endlessly than just get on with fixing it. I can't believe that on a policy page we have "Primary sources are very close to an event", and then some examples. How many marks would you give that in an exam? We can do better surely. But nobody is supporting change. *sigh*. Colin°^Talk 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing an article about a board game and I would like to include an image of the board. What needs to be done to use such an image without copyright violation? Wolf and Shadow 01:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the information you want is on this page, and if that's not enough, then please feel free to leave a note on its talk page (which is where the true experts for this question seem to hang out) or at its parent page. Good luck! WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The game I'm talking about is actually a board game, not a video game. Do the same fair use rationales still apply? Thanks for your help! Wolf and Shadow 06:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so, although there may be some obvious differences (e.g., it's not a screenshot). The fair use rationale needs to make logical sense for the specific situation and also specifically address every item on the non-free policy. This page has some advice and links to a few good examples. I believe that the preferred approach is to be rather pedantic about it. So item #1 is "No free equivalent", and you write, "There is no free equivalent," followed by a detailed explanation of why this perfectly obvious statement is true (e.g., "because no substitute accurately represents the game to the reader. A made-up image would give the reader a false impression of the game and place the game in a false light. It would make it harder for the reader to correctly identify and understand the game," and/or whatever else you can think of, point by point, through each item in the fair use policy, so that even a not-very-bright person could see that you had addressed each and every point in the policy. It doesn't have to be wordy, but I don't think that this sort of thing is actually sufficient. Also, if you're using the image to illustrate a particular point about the game (either game play or aesthetic sense or anything else, then you get extra points for specifically naming the "critical commentary" aspect in the rationale.

You might be able to find similar board games and see what they've done for their images. Also, I think that if you took a photo of several people playing the game, or a close-up of a particular bit (e.g., a playing piece on a small, special part of the board), and you released your rights to public domain, then I don't think that sort of image would require a fair-use rationale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom here.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've been reading the discussion concerning using MySpace as an external link Wikipedia talk:External links. I just want a clarification on what the current consensus is. Thanks. MegX (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okies thanks for that.. It's just a matter of defining "good cause" - If say for example an artist has an official site and an official MySpace page (not a personal one), then that is perfectly okay to have both? MegX (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was exactly what I was trying to find out. Cheers. MegX (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the action of filing a user conduct RfC against Dicklyon based on his past and recent behavior. If you want to make your POV on this matter known please do. Users are needed to certify that the events as I presented them are factual, and they have to certify that outside help has been sought to address the issue. I have written this to every involved user in the mediation. Since Dick has proven that he will ignore any mediated arrangement when it suits him. The community must impose one on him. The proper venue for that is a user conduct RfC, not mediation. The proposed sanctions banning for editing any of the name space of the articles listed in the mediation, and from the user pages of any user who wishes to not have to deal with his mess any more. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon. Thankyou and have a nice day :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to have correctly listed the RFC/U. (Read WP:RFC/U: it's not just a matter of creating a page named WP:RFC/Dicklyon.)

But are you sure that this is such a good idea, given the mediation effort that's supposed to begin before long? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you haven't endorsed the RFC that you started, and it is generally considered to be a necessary step to get the page moved from "Candidate pages" to "Approved pages" on the WP:RFC/U page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed that the endorsements both had to come from users other than the one who filed the complaint. As for needing to do more for the rfc to be considered filed. I used that template they provided what more do they want? Thanks for notifying me of these things. As for this RfC being a good idea. Well, the run up to mediation did not change Dicklyon's behavior one iota. I also do not think it likely that DarlieB will agree to mediation in the frist place. I also have no real faith in mediation for this problem, not at this point. I don't think there is a point in engaging in a mediated settlement with Dicklyon. He will just aborogate it when it suits him.

I'll try to get these little formalities right. So far I have read that page and did what I understood I was supposed to do. Perhaps this processs needs simplification. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The instructions aren't exactly easy to read, so I've tried to clean them up. Please let me know how well or poorly I've succeeded, and what else you might find helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again -- Your input last month in the CFD regarding Category:Diseases and disorders was very helpful, so I was thinking about soliciting your input on a related CFD. Then I discovered that you've been very involved in the discussion with Kilbad regarding Integumentary system, etc. So I'd very much like to have your input on one of the sub-cats of Category:Cutaneous conditions, which Kilbad has put a great deal of effort into reorganizing. Thanks in advance. Cgingold (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your brief clarifying comment. Can I entice you back to express an opinion as to the best name for the category at issue? (And possibly on the larger question of using the term "conditions" in other categories as well, perhaps even including the super-cat.) Cgingold (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It occurred to me that you may not have seen my followup note since there were active discussions following this section, so I've moved it to the bottom of the page. I really don't want to pester you or anything, just want to be sure you see it. I can see that you have your fingers in a whole lot of pies, so I will understand if you are unable to find the time for another comment. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true that I've been busy, but I just don't feel that I have much to add to the discussion. Reasonable options have been proposed; none of the ones being seriously considered inspire me, but none are horrible. You might consider writing a description of what "should" be in the cat at the top of the cat page: that can sometimes be much more useful to other editors than the mere name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at your recent changes to the WP:RFC/U page again?

You've moved the "closing and archiving" instructions up so that it precedes the instructions for listing the RfC in the first place, which is surely a logical error, and you've instructed the filer to list the RfC/U in the "how to create an RfC/U page" section instead of in the "Here's the list of general user RfC/U pages."

I doubt that this is what you really intended to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Not a logical error, no. The instruction to the filer is something that is something I am finding issues with to begin with. In any case, it's now been reverted to the original version prior to bold edits; I'm noting some of the issues on the RFC talk page. Cheers for the note, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for nudging me on this -- I've had a stab at the merge, however my expertise in this area is zero and the HBOCs article is in a terrible state, it currently reads like someone's essay. I don't know if anyone at the Medicine Wikiproject could be persuaded to look over the entire article? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing what you could. I'll leave a note at WPMED's emergency medicine task force (seems like a relevant group, no?) about it. I wonder whether MILHIST's medical group would have an interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the rules, and I am aware that you mean well by getting in touch with me. The rules don't cover every situation. The situation here is that of an emerging discipline within the broader landscape of psychology. The idea I am trying to stress is that in a nascent discipline, the journals, particularly given their cross-disciplinary character, and the organizations help the reader understand the outlines of the discipline. With a more mature discipline within psychology (e.g., social psychology), there would be little need to stress the journals and the organization. In the case of OHP, the organizations have been part of the historical development of the discipline.Iss246 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I need your help. I started a stub today for Social Science and Medicine, given that it is mentioned in the occupational health psychology page I started previously. Later this same day I discovered that a stub for the journal already exists. The preexising stub is called Social Science & Medicine. The journal is commonly cited with the ampersand in its name. I ask you to do two things. One is to delete Social Science and Medicine page; I already emptied it of the content I put in it when I started it today. The second is to edit the Social Science & Medicine page such a that reader can get to it by either invoking Social Science & Medicine or Social Science and Medicine. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Send your reply to the bottom of the occupational health psychology page. It is probably the best place to send a reply. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone else has already done this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I had been creating stubs for the various journals in the OHP entry, but I have been engaged in that effort at a rate of perhaps one journal stub per day following your advice about using the American Journal of Public Health as a model. You can observe that the red in what is now the paragraph containing the journals has been turning blue day by day.Iss246 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Apropos of the above, I observed your edit of the OHP entry. Would you like to start the stubs for the red entries in what is now the third paragraph? If you do start the stubs, the journal Work and Stress more often goes by Work & Stress--in the OHP entry I will change the "and" to an ampersand. Work & Stress should be the stub entry and Work and Stress should redirect the reader to Work & Stress.Iss246 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I got your message. I am slowly converting the red links to blue by starting stubs. You can see progress in paragraph 4.Iss246 (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you took the lead with the stubs for Work & Stress (along with a redirect from Work and Stress) and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Those two journals mentioned in paragraph 3.Iss246 (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I will make stubs for the journal called Professional Practice and the two societies mentioned in paragraph 3. But I ask you to create stubs for the two journals in paragraph three. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of my time is being consumed by a mediation mess at the moment. WP:There is no deadline, so if it doesn't all get finished this week, or even this month, then that's okay, too. Someone at WP:WikiProject Journals might also be able to help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Please see the above link regarding the mediator for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've opened, at the advice of Wizardman, a request for arbitration. If you want to be an involved party, it's thisaway -> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Posturewriter. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but I seriously doubt that they'll accept the case, as ArbCom generally rejects anything that hasn't attempted every single other step in the dispute resolution process. Have you considered formal mediation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not precisely sure what their current criteria are, but I would have thought multiple informal advice, a Wikiquette Alert, two tries at WP:COIN, and a user conduct RFC, would be sufficient as avenues tried. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As a suggestion, merely follow through on WP:COI where WP:COIN not changed situation (i.e of altering an editor that their edits seen as problematic in this regards - community consensus is what applies here if an editor persists in editing with their COI). Hence per WP:COI lead-in "COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked." - so a request at WP:AN/I would seem an option to take. Given I issued a warning on edit warring (with advice to discuss points on talk page and accept whether or not other editors decide to so edit), and that another admin then decided better to issue a block, any further such disruptive behaviour against consensus/COI should be brought to WP:AN/I for other admins to consider progressive blocking. David Ruben ^Talk 20:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing! Sorry for disappearing off the face of Wikipedia for several months and leaving everything behind; 'real life' came calling and I didn't have the time to continue wading through the tangle! I've left a note on his talk page hopefully clearing up my position. After sinking many, many hours into it I just ran out of spare time to keep going. If you need me to do anything else then just let me know :) Avnjay^Talk 17:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You rated the above article as B earlier this month. I would appreciate any comments you might have on improving it. Thanks, Babakathy (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left some suggestions on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Babakathy (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)